The Battle in Seattle

Sit down, people. Summer’s over and it’s time to think and form opinions! In November 1999, the World Trade Organization arrived in Seattle, and with it, activists galore. Intended to be a non-violent protest, the situation quickly escalated into violent demonstrations and a crack down on civil liberties, while successfully halting progress made at the WTO’s conference.

The film starts with a fairly neutral interpretation of events as the city of Seattle prepares for a turbulent four days: Mayor Jim Tobin (Ray Liotta) makes arrangements with police chief Gordon, and protest leader Jay (Martin Henderson) readies his demonstrators for the demonstration of 1999. These are lifetime protestors, not some local do-gooders looking for a 5K to get them outside on a nice afternoon. These folk move from one cause to the next, all in the name of shutting down big corporations and saving the poor countries, the trees, and the turtles. Power to the people!

We meet a motley collection of characters: fellow protestors Jay, Lou (Michelle Rodriguez), Django (Andre Benjamin), and Sam (Jennifer Carpenter); riot unit officers Dale (Woody Harrelson) and Johnson (Channing Tatum – delicious!); Dale’s pregnant wife, Ella (Charlize Theron); the Mayor and Gordon; and two delegates at the WTO conference.

Worlds collide as the protests start. The Mayor honors his agreement to hold off on arrests as the protestors honor their agreement to avoid violence. By the end of the first day, however, the WTO’s opening efforts collapse, and the protestors claim success, all while holding up signs, marching, and chanting their beliefs. And that’s all it takes, trust me. I’ve been caught up in a chanting frenzy before. You go to watch a soccer game with some friends, next thing you know you’re shouting words to slogans and songs you’ve never heard before and getting threatened with expulsion from the stadium. It’s the power of the people, I tell you! Go D.C. United!

And just like that, even as the protestors receive word of their success, different factions institute pro-vandalism policies and attack Seattle, smashing storefronts and spray painting graffiti, for starters. As the protestors turn the city into chaos, the WTO fails to convene, President Clinton threatens to withdraw from his commitment to attend, and the Mayor is cornered into taking action against the demonstrators. Non-violent does not mean law-abiding.

A series of bad decisions follow from everyone except the protestors. The result is violence and a loss of civil liberties. Seattle boards up against the vandalism, public infrastructure shuts down, and our main characters crack or bond under pressure.

Stuart Townsend as writer and director has very clear ideas and opinions on the WTO. Though it starts out neutral, the film slowly and subtly loses that neutrality about halfway through. Protestors are beaten, jailed, and morally wronged, but they’re fighters who can’t live in this world the way it is, and they’ll fight until they win. Or move on to the next fight. And the WTO is bad.

If you like to see all sides to a story, then you’ll be a little disappointed here. A better film could be made about the WTO’s conference, the rioters, the issues, and the social ramifications. The characters are clichés to promote the agenda, and become mouthpieces for Townsend’s message. When the film veers from the action into lecturing (though not often), it immediately falls flat. Subtext is a wonderful thing if done well.

However, many things save this film, especially the performances of the ensemble cast. Harrelson and Theron especially deliver understated, emotional performances. Benjamin is at his most natural and entertaining, and Rodriguez plays her type-casted part perfectly. Keep an eye out for a nice cameo by Joshua Jackson as an angry, vandalistic protestor.

There is also Townsend’s technique. From the editing to the verite camera angles and style, the movie visually entertained. The editing was sharp and crisp, slowing down only towards the end. You can forgive some of the preaching because of the visual treat Townsend serves up from the start.

But Battle’s real strength is its ability to provoke questions. Whether they’re the questions Townsend wants us to ask is another matter. Certainly, we question the WTO and want the truth behind the accusations, but what of a protestor’s strategy and self-righteousness, and the good of protesting itself?  Perhaps not deliberately, we are left to wonder if the demonstrations were a success because they halted the WTO’s agenda for its conference, or were they, in fact, a failure, because the nations who needed their audience with the WTO to speak for their people, were robbed of the opportunity? Were they a failure because media coverage focused on the rioters, and not on the issues that were being raised? Why are the police wrong for fighting back, but the activists are innocent despite vandalism and provocations? Why attack a city and its people? When do the protestors become the angry antagonists? Townsend doesn’t offer answers. It’s implied the only correct response is the one where the protestors are the good guys. But you’ll have to watch to decide that for yourself.

Though it ends on a bit of a flat note, Battle starts strongly, entertains, and gets a little interactive with your brain. You can’t help but leave talking about the film, forming opinions and taking sides. And though Battle fails in other areas, it certainly raises real and important issues, and no matter where you fall in that discussion, that makes it an overall success.