It has been a while since I have blogged about my film. Hello again and here is the latest update on the making of my film about Occupy London.
I began working on the film again in August 2017. I had completed my second draft in February 2017 and it still did not feel right. Something huge was wrong with it and I could not face it again until I had some real time to. I can now declare that my third major draft of the film feels promising. I am considering organising a test screening soon, if you are interested in being a part of the first audience please contact me.
A film by an activist for activists.
The film starts by explaining the nebulous power of the City of London, why we were there and what we were protesting for. This has not altered in all three drafts of the film
In my the third draft I emboldened myself to place my voice in the film’s theme (the creative impulse) which is the section of the film that deals with Occupy London’s prefigurative element, in particular it’s practice of consensus. The power pools that transpired due to this process undermined the horizontal ethos, and the movement was unable to deal with them. I struggled to feel entitled to highlight these behind the scenes issues. Furthermore, I struggled to do so in a manner that does not undermine the hard work of so many in the movement. Finally however, I justified that the enormity of the work of making this film, does justify the plain and robust communication of my analysis (based on my experience and the interviews of many). What is the point of all this work otherwise? These are elements that are prevalent in many movements and when power paradigms cannot be challenged, movements implode. Mistakes do not need to be re-lived over and over again and in activism they are. I have made this film so that other activists can use it to be more aware of the pit-falls of activism which can be addressed if caught in time.
100% consensus with a centralised GA system should never be attempted again as it guarantees a stunted success.
Occupy London changed the lives of many participants, instilling us with a confirmation that our world views are widely and intelligently supported. However the experience embittered many participants who left the movement, in droves, pretty much before it became anything more than a spectacle. Although it was essentially an important public relations tool about economic injustice (the 99% vs 1%) it fell short of being able to demand change by virtue of it’s power.
One does not need consensus of any kind to ensure horizontality.
There is no difference between unfunded filmmaking and masochism. It is all about how good it feels when it is over 🙂
The making of this film has taken up all my spare time while I try to live and work and maintain my responsibilities as a family member, friend, partner and freelance videographer obliged to pay rent and bills for the last 4 years. It is unfortunately unfunded. Although Occupy London happened 6 years now, the lessons we learnt about activism by partaking in a movement that involved main stream media attention, a significant number of homeless people, a dysfunctional consensus decision making system and a 24 hour occupation that lasted 4.2 months in central London through the winter, is still worthy of 1.3 hours of video.
Good grain grows in shit!
These lessons are still being discussed in workshops on activism currently. Just recently I went to a workshop called Patterns of Decentralised Organising by Enspiral in which Occupy’s prefigurative politics was acknowledged as the inspiration to the work of Enspiral, a global, collaborative, horizontal network of freelancers : A glorious achievement. Also platform co ops and co-op organising that addresses the ownership model and distributes ownership of any venture evenly, are other achievements that have grown out of the mess of Occupy. The academic study of social movements uses the Occupy movement as a staple example. Occupy did achieve a shift in consciousness that is starting to make its mark now. The film does not speak of these wonders however. It never was in its remit.
“Location, Location, Location”
MISTAKE 1.01 in independent filmmaking: Not prioritising marketing.
It does not help that I have no money to market and don’t have all that much time either. Fingers are firmly crossed that the film festival gatekeepers will watch the film and accept it! That is my marketing strategy! Again any people motivated to assist, please contact me.
I have struggled for a name of the film. Tense at St. Paul’s sounds disharmonious somehow. It is a play on the phonetics of the words but it does not really roll off the tongue happily. I am now considering Peace, Love and Role Rotation. Please let me know in the comments what you think of that title and why. I am interested.
Until then, peace, love and role rotation!
I would avoid the use of ‘love and peace’ in the title simply because it’s a phrase that has been overused (especially by Ringo Star) for many years. Why not ‘Occupy’ or ‘Occupy at St. Pauls’?
Maybe I should go for something simple… I guess I am trying to say a bit about the film’s main message in the title. Occupy was so many different things to so many people that a film simply saying Occupy does not say much.
I am not writing this to burst anyone’s bubble. I’m writing this as honest feed back. I am aged and always felt reasonably well educated. My attention span is getting shorter with age, but I haven’t – as yet – lost the plot. Reading this missive I was completely overstretched. It is too clever by half and I cannot be counted in your test audience, which – I guess – should be the upper part of the mensa club.
In short, if you want to reach a wider audience, your message needs to be shorter and clearer.
As I said, this is not meant to hurt but to help!! Good luck.Bea
I am sorry bea, truly I am! I did not think I would be over stretching anyone.
I think it’s really clear and it’s an interesting approach to the topic. Good luck with getting back into it !!!
Sounds great ! I can’t wait to see it.
Occupy! seems like a great title to me. The very fact that it’s open ended and different people respond/associate differently to it’s ambiguity is perfect. Surely that is fundamentally why the organisational structure failed as spectacularly as it did. 😉
I think Occupy should be in the title. Haven’t spent enough time thinking about this (or even brainstorming — maybe on Thursday) — but something along the lines of “Occupy Democracy…?” I’ll get back to you later, if the brainstorming session throws up some good ‘uns.
One suggestion via email was Occupy London on Film… as opposed to the subtext of An Occupy London Film…
Hi Inka
Well done for completing your project. I used the project because I know that you have put a lot of “you” in finishing the film. I remember when your were investing in your 1st Camera it was a project in itself.
As a few people have suggested using the word “occupy” in the title what about “Occupy: the search of peace and love in World in turmoil.. or something in that line.”
I’ll be interested to see the film.
Best wishes
Arvind
Well I liked your introduction & I hope I can come to the preview. I’m sure I will disagree with some of it, and learn. I suspect I’d claim more good outcomes than you. The flower may look dead but the seeds are sprouting.
I am not negative about the outcome of occupy but I do challenge our use of 100% consensus. In general I have found that for the most part people who still sing salutations to the process are the very same people who empowered themselves to bypass the process, or where priviliged by its failings. That is not the point though. The point is that unaccountable power pools cause toxic friction that lead to an exodus due to embitterment, not empowered loyalty that would lead to unified power. I do not understate our achievements I believe. I am still proud to have been a part of it. Tax havens would not be as widely known if it were not for our work.
Hey Inka … Lovely to hear from You. Of course, nothing’s died, just transformed itself into other manifestations as the surrounding milieu has developed. It’s probably safer for Occupy to develop itself by changing its name so it’s not branded and then cannot be tied down. In a way it needs to be more invisible, or, only visible as required, nipping in and out of the shadows hovering over an increasingly uncertain world. It needs to be diasporic, and not all appearing the same, or else it would perhaps get stifled, as the powers of oppression, recognising they are losing their hold, kick back concertedly in systemic death-throes of double-oppression.
Love to see You aand everyone, and i’d like to be in your film’s audience.
Peace&Love 🙂 Steve B
Hello Inka, It’s late and I’m not confident of saying this right, but … First, I am in huge respect and admiration for your having seen this need / opportunity and done something about it; second, I think this is one of the most important and promising things to be doing, i.e. learning lessons about how to do it better when resisting some of the most powerful and entrenched forces on the planet. I was just a visitor to Occupy (not brave or committed enough to camp I guess, at the time), but was very impressed with people’s resilience in grim conditions. And consequently sad to learn of the decision-making difficulties – but from what I hear it was similar at the Climate Camps. One phrase I have learned lately about decisions (via Sociocracy 3.0) is ‘Good enough for now, safe enough to try’. Sounds like a good antidote to perfectionism 🙂 (naturally there is a whole process attached though …)
In short, well done, all power to your elbow, please keep on, and good luck. I don’t agree with Bea, I thought your piece was great. I do agree with emilyferret, I would keep the title really simple and ‘Occupy!’ does it for me.
Thank you for the admiration. I appreciate every lumen… it’s been dark for some time 🙂
Good enough for now, safe enough to try … GOLD!…. of course with certain characters who i worked with in Occupy, the experience of which ha somewhat scarred me for life… it would not be good enough for them .. and that is all that would matter.
Still i like it. The thing is once you allow for a small percentage of disagreement, quite miraculously you get fewer disagreements! This is what happened in Occupy Democracy. They allowed for disagreement and never really got it to a prohibitive extent.
Human issues, in particular the ones that deal with power need to be acknowledged, not ignored.