Movie Review: City in the Forest

a tale of two many stories

"...know that I went out fighting and wish we all just could have peace and be free."

-From Tortuguita's "If the Cops Kill Me" journal entry, dated 12/18/2021

Let's start with what A City in the Forest does right. The movie is well paced, shot beautifully, and has been scored with music that captures the vibe of both the occupation of the Weelaunee Forest and the subsequent referendum petition opposing its destruction. CITF is at its best when it is highlighting the bravery of the forest defenders with clips of resistance, the resolve of the movement opposing Cop City and the true breadth and diversity of its reach, and the contempt the City of Atlanta had (and still has) for all of it. Far from a feel-good story, CITF leaves the viewer with righteous fury towards the city and affiliated powers that be, and offers a call to action for people at every level of engagement: the fight must go on. If you are on the fence, I do recommend seeing it for yourself - you won't regret giving it 99 minutes of your attention in a world filled with much less incisive alternatives.

A few things hold the film back from being a truly great entry in the documentation of resistance against state violence and repression.

The primary hindrance is that the film forgoes an opportunity to grapple with the discomfort of holding two truths about one of the focal points of the movie: the tragic murder of Tortuguita at the hands of Georgia State Patrol. I started this entry with a quote from Tort's diary that perfectly embodies this dichotomy. Tort was a peaceful person. They wanted to live in a world free of oppression where people had their needs met. They also viewed violence against those fighting against achieving that world as (excuse the AI-ism here, I promise it's all me) not only justified, but required. While CITF leaves the door slightly cracked for entertaining their duality, it refuses to kick it open.

The film subtly puts its finger on the scale of the discussion of whether Tort did or did not fire back at officers when their tent was sprayed full of chemical irritants designed to incapacitate. I'm not here to entirely re-litigate this, as I have discussed it at length previously. CITF makes multiple nods toward the finding that there was no gunpowder residue on Tort's hands (something that while notable, in of itself is not enough to make an absolute determination whether or not someone fired a gun), and cites news reports from Democracy Now that state definitively that Tort was seated cross legged with their hands raised when they were fired upon. This is a finding in the independent autopsy (commissioned by Tort's family) report that is routinely mischaracterized, as the actual report stated that:

[a]t some point during the course of being shot, the decedent was able to raise his(sic) hands and arms up in front of his(sic) body, with his(sic) palms facing his(sic) upper body.

CITF also fails to mention that the independent autopsy report stated that “it is impossible to determine if the decedent had been holding a firearm, or not holding a firearm," an omission that has a material impact on the viewer's perception of the event.

On the question of whether Tort did shoot, CITF leaves the door ajar with an anonymous Defend the Atlanta Forest communique that powerfully and correctly asserts that it doesn't matter whether they did or not. As forceful as the quote is, it serves as the lone foil to the overarching narrative presented in the film. I can understand the impulses at play here. On one hand, we are up against a foe that considers itself unbound by the truth. Cops routinely lie to the media and public and face virtually no repercussions. It's also true that their side wants to portray forest defenders as violent extremists, so why play into their hands when the situation offers enough ambiguity to avoid it? Lastly, won't people on the outside have less sympathy for someone if, rather than seated peacefully in a tent, they were engaged in (what Tort's family's own attorneys argue was entirely justified) violence themselves? To borrow a line from our anonymous heroes: it doesn't (and shouldn't) matter.

It doesn't matter because if the truth is that Tort shot back at the officers, taking narrative liberties to portray their last moments in a more pacifistic light is at direct odds with how they stated that they wanted to be remembered and their opinion on counteracting state violence. It doesn't matter because our commitment to the truth must endure to build a lasting and trustworthy movement, regardless of whether it is uncomfortable or whether our opponent plays by the same rules. It doesn't matter because regardless of whether they shot or not, they should be with us today, and shooting makes them no less deserving of that right.

I want to linger on that last point for a moment, because it's an important one that has ripples that go beyond this moment and place. When we focus on the ostensible innocence of someone who is a victim of police violence, we subconsciously endorse the underlying logic of the carceral system itself. CITF's focus on Tort's innocence claim unintentionally indicts the individuals we see on camera destroying construction equipment, breaking windows of the Atlanta Police Foundation and Cop City's corporate donors, and burning cop cars. CITF also spends plenty of time on these acts themselves, but much fewer moments on the repression that follows them.

Recognizing that it is impossible to fit everything about this fight into a film, I still believe that the state's response in charging 61 people with a violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization's (RICO) act deserved a bigger role. Taken together with the portrayal of Tort's murder, its sparse coverage in the movie almost makes it seem as if these consequences - 61 people who face decades in prison - are a footnote in the story. In contrast, CITF gives outsized presence to the failed referendum petition to get Cop City on the ballot. While an important part of the story, it pales in magnitude to those who put their lives on the line to stop the construction of the facility and are facing the weight of state power as a result. This disproportionate coverage mirrors what the movement experienced in real time: inequitable extension of resources to methods traditionally viewed as more legitimate. The referendum storyline also fails to reckon with the failure of the referendum strategy itself, the doxxing of the petition signers by the City of Atlanta, or any disagreement in the movement itself about choosing this direction - all worthy of coverage in their own rights.

Whether you think CITF is a good or even great movie boils down to what you are seeking to get out of it. If you're looking to be uplifted by moments of bravery by everyday people and angered by acts of cowardice by the state, you will likely enjoy it. If you're looking for an honest reflection on the movement to Stop Cop City itself, warts and all, you will come away from it wanting more. I am firmly in the latter camp. I think it's our responsibility as movement storytellers to confront the uncomfortable, even when it forces us to reckon with some difficult questions. I believe that this is important for our movement to grow, to educate others on how to fight, and to ultimately win. Regardless of your position, I think anyone with good in their heart who views the film will recognize that we all have a role to play, and that the fight must go on. Viva Viva Tortuguita!