Havumetsän lapset

I saw this film at a pre-screening in northern Finland.

This film focuses on key members of the Finnish nature preservation movement "elokapina", which Wikipedia (rather than the film) informs me is the Finnish chapter of the UK-founded, global movement Extinction Rebellion. Wikipedia pages exist and provide further information in numerous languages.

The topic in question is and will continue to be highly divisive, which causes me to state my own position at the start. I moved to the North of Finland nearly three decades ago, love of northern nature being one motivating factor. I agree with central factual points made by members of the movement in this documentary: nature must be preserved, both for its own sake, and because human beings depend on it for their own well-being; a forest is not simply a lot of trees, but a complex ecosystem, which is lost, if logged at regular intervals.

And yet I came away from the screening not just disappointed, but angry at the missed opportunity.

When trying to put my main concerns into words, I remembered something two communication specialists (whom I will grant anonymity here) wrote some time ago: a dialogue is not simply two parties talking. A dialogue requires two parties listening to each other in a genuine attempt to understand each other's point of view.

To come back the actual film:

It focuses on a handful of key members of the activist group in question. Two young female members receiving the most attention. They are shown in both private settings, in nature, during visits to a large logging company, and during protests. The history of similar protesting in Finland is hinted at briefly.

Despite my general agreement with the importance of the topic, my main experience during the ca. 90 minutes was a mixture of boredom and of frustration. The content could easily have been reduced to 20 minutes, at no loss of information. Then it dawned on me, that information was not the topic here to start with: the overall impression is one of endorsement, of providing a forum for one side only.

Keeping in mind the quote about dialogue above, the film makes no attempt to either portrait or achieve one. The collision of interests and perspectives would have offered plenty of possibilities: not only is logging increasingly opposed in Finland, but so is all mining. Tourism, which has skyrocketed in recent years, relies on air traffic due to Finland's (and specifically Lapland's) remote location, i.e. It contributes strongly to climate change. Most producing industry has been outsourced to low wage countries, and the Finnish state is one of only a couple of EU member states, who have failed to reduce their new debt taking in recent years. Yet the level of services provided for citizens is among the very highest in the world. Questions abound: How can the Finnish economy keep producing the money needed to provide the services? If logging goes back, must the production of other materials (including plastic) go up to replace it? (Even the activists in the movie sit on wooden chairs at wooden tables, at times within wooden buildings.) What are people to do to earn a living, if all large industries are opposed and tourism has reached unsustainable levels? And, on an individual level, how is a middle-aged forestry worker, with two children and a house loan to pay going to get by?

I do not claim to have the answers to any of those questions. Yet not addressing them in the first place is a failure to either describe or instigate dialogue.

This is dramatically (and cheaply) illustrated in scenes in which members of the activists state their views or pose questions to members of the forest industry - who's answers are then edited out, suggesting they don't have any.

I was struck by a scene where one of the activists complains that she always finds herself "talking to old, white men", who only want to hear "arguments", rather than to just "accept her feelings". This is presented without any critical distance or irony. I am old enough to remember reading Michael Moore's Stupid White Men in 2001. Talking about capitalist elites in the USA, Moore's position (and book title) were both witty and valid. Repeating nearly the same phrase in a Finnish context struck me as ridiculous. While it is true that men dominate in Finnish trade and industry, Finnish education, healthcare and half of politics are dominated by women; and over 95 percent of the population are white. So what exactly was the point here?

However, the saddest aspect in the scene is the unwillingness to realize that while feelings need to be expressed and acknowledged, they cannot be the basis of discussion, simply because different people have different feelings: this is an anxiety-inducing time no doubt, but the question what causes the biggest anxiety will always depend on an individual's situation in life.

When one party's arguments appear to be reduced to "this is how I feel", the film does its topic (or rather its cause) a disservice. Trying to score cheap laughs or exclamations of agreement with unreflecting members of the audience makes it easy to attack it as juvenile and unreflective. The topic, serious as it is, required a more differentiated look at all interests - and emotions, and fears - involved on all sides. (The late great American nature writer Barry Lopez was able to achieve more in a three-page essay, and I recommend his writings to anyone interested in the topic of conservation.)

What I take away from the viewing (besides my disappointment) is an understanding of the severity of anxiety among parts of the population. Yet this appears to be a problem that will have to be understood and addressed not only on an economic and political level, but also on a psychological one - yet another perspective, and opportunity, the film misses.

At the pre-screening the director was very emotional about the topic. Given the quality of her previous work, I feel she could have made a much better documentary from a position of emotional detachment. More's the pity. Not a waste of time so much as a waste of opportunity.