"The Fire Next Time", My Impressions

Since we were busy Sunday boating through the Gates of the Mountains and walleye fishing, I taped the show and watched it last evening.  I've saved the tape to watch it again, just to see if my initial impressions change, but having claimed it to be a "must see documentary" I probably should at least give my initial impressions here.

As per our bet, Craig owes me a doughnut.  Funny thing is, I owe him one too.  I'll try to explain as I go along.  My initial impression is disappointment.   I believe this has to do with two things.  The first is very mechanical, the show was only an hour long.  That was certainly not enough time to present a full story with adequate explanation of the factors involved in the Kalispell conflicts.  The documentary spans two years of development, but tries to do it with a minimum number of character portrayals and too little exposition.  The second is that I didn't quite share the director's focus.  Patrice O'Neill tried very hard to capture the feelings of the parties involved in the growing tensions, but failed to provide real context for a factually based person such as myself.  I don't blame her for her efforts, I just wanted more.  It's possible my discomfort is due to a familiarity with the growth of the issues that O'Neill doesn't share, so I certainly can't fault her for not playing to me.

In her efforts, I believe that she was very successful.  She presented real people, over time, with very real anger, frustration, fear, confusion and a certain inability to dissemble in front of the camera.  Given that, Craig was wrong, and I win the bet.  The presentations of Flathead county working folks is as sympathetic as any other.  They are angry, because what they believe their homes and livelihood to be are changing, all too quickly.  They explain their anger and their desire that their concerns be listened to.  The "environmentalists" presented are, strangely enough, more Kalispell area working people who have a particular desire for the land.  O'Neill does a good job of focusing this conflict on the land above all (except as regards Stokes, but I'll get to him).

Where there was a failure was in showing how this conflict arose.  There was no presentation of the legal battles involved, from either the industry or sportsmen side, or from the hardcore environmentalist side.  There was mention, but no real demonstration, of the effects of tourism, growing development (housing, national chains, the tourism promotion industry, ...).  Since the focus was on "local" interests, there was a dearth of presenting the new crowds moving into the Kalispell area.  Face it, the Flathead is growing at a rate paralleled only by Gallatin county in Montana.  Some new voices might have helped the thesis.  There was no mention of how the Canadian logging industry has undercut profits from domestic lumber and hence American jobs.  The token hat tip to industries real role was a brief mention concerning the fires of last year, and how thinning could have helped ... but only if the logging companies could have taken enough old growth to make the effort profitable.  And there was very little mention of the long running drought.  I found the lack of specifics here very annoying.

I did get a very visceral sense for how lost the local community leaders are in the midst of the conflict.  Mayor Kennedy  definitely puts on the happy face, but my impression was of one scared and confused person.  I'm not thinking that that was the director's intent, but it was certainly what I got.  The coolest head seemed to be county commissioner Gary Hall.  The poor guy can't win for losing.  And here is where the extremist element really came into play.  In the exposition and filming of Hall, it became quite clear that there are individuals in the valley who feel strongly that if he (and the government by proxy) aren't following their wishes to the letter, then he is completely under the control of the "enviro-fascists".  When Hall called a meeting last year to discuss the upcoming fire season, Stokes and his supporters got up and walked out, spewing verbal abuse and threats as they did, simply because they were not allowed first billing (the federal fire safety folks were supposed to take center stage).  The presentation of the documentary was factual, but didn't at all portray those opposed to the environmentalists in a good light.  This is the one part of the documentary that makes me feel perhaps I do owe Craig a doughnut.

Which brings me to John Stokes.  The portrayal of him is very baseline factual, without much commentary to add to what his mouth spews.  He comes off as very rational, very calm, and spews the worst kind of hate imaginable.  On his show (and on camera) he openly calls for the extermination of undefined environmentalist  (jihad, anyone?).  This guy is a forest fire making it's own weather  (they do that, you know).  There's not much more I can say about him.  It must be experienced to believe.

The biggest gaps in this film came from allusions with little detail.  The militia movement in northwest Montana was brought up several times, as well as a quick rundown on Burgert and Project 7.  But this was poorly tied to current violence, and hence played little good as a foundation for the rules of this conflict.  The second major allusion was racism.  Little was done to show how race plays a role in the battles of Flathead county.  There was a fair bit of monster making going on, but not enough good make up to make the monster scary.

All in all, this would have been much better as a 2 hour documentary, and with 2 years of film, I hope it is eventually released as such.  I hesitate to call it a failure due to one major factor.  O'Neill asked at the beginning that we personalize the conflict, and view it in light of our own towns.  With the anger over the current Gallatin Road planning, and the runaway county growth, that's all too easy for me.  I strongly suggest that people watch this documentary, but research the context.  It will help.

Comments

[Craig]

If that's the case, I'll just go ahead and eat your Krispy Kreme, and we'll call it square.

Heh.

[Tony]

Well said. I did get a little more insight in to Stokes and I believe he is a seed for local locksteppers who need a leader.
I wouldnt eat a Krispy Creme as its a "red" company.

[Craig]

In that case, I'll buy two dozen in your honor, Tony.

[Tom Robischon]

A native of Kalispell who has lived there almost all his life told me he thought the portrayal of the community split in "The Fire Next Time" was overdrawn; in his words, "a made for media conflict between the usual nut cases from the political fringes." He believes the docs, lawyers, college teachers, business people, clergy, etc., who I thought didn't appear in any significant way may have shared his view, and chose to stay away from the whole thing.

He even likened the film to the feature articles that ran in the N.Y. Times about the Group of Seven, "which has since proved to be bogus."

This is a professional man of some accomplishment, so I thought if there was any truth in what he said that there would have been some negative public reaction regarding the film's accuracy and bias. But I haven't been able to find any.

Did you hear any thing like that following the broadcast of "The Fire...."?

Would appreciate anything you might be able to share. Many thanks.

[Wulfgar]

Actually, Tom, what your aquaintance says is probably true ... from a particular point of view. Notice that the examples of those who can avoid such conflicts are mostly professional people, needed by all as part of the societal structure of any working town. But it is obvious from the documentary (and observations in-state) that there is nothing overblown at all about the conflict to those who have lost jobs, or those who have been threatened or are threatening violence.

That the documentary focused a lot on government officials was significant, because they have born the brunt of the fear and the anger.

I agree with some of your surprise, however, that there has been little feedback at all. My review appears to be the only one (I've found) online from a Montanan, though I'm certain I'm not the only one who watched it. If others have watched and commented then please point to them. I'd love to read other views.

I did get an email last week from the director, Patrice O'Neill. She said that an extended version of the documentary will be screened later this year in Bozeman, and I presume other places in Montana. It will be terrific to see read the feedback that comes from those screenings.