KnotMissPriceless
Why so much hype?
Mjeteconer
Just perfect...
Ceticultsot
Beautiful, moving film.
ellkew
This is a prophetic film about the US government quashing any kind of dissent against what it considers its moral codes of the day. Putting those accused in front of a farcical panel that represents the establishment or is supposed to speak for the masses and condemns them to be incarcerated or face possible freedom by going through the terrain of Punishment Park and if succeeding to eventual freedom. The fact that the band of 'kids' have to traverse over 50 miles in impossible desert heat with no water with armed police in pursuit is an indication of their certain fate.This is a film that boils the blood. It made me angry. It made me feel sick. It made me think. I could not believe it was made such a long time ago. It seems to reflect exactly what is going on right now in Cuba with those prisoners who still have not been charged. What the hell is going on and how can they do that? Totally contravene international law on human rights. This film covers so many themes and issues about society and how we treat anyone questioning the status quo. The film shows a tipping in the balance of power. The point where the state runs amok and is allowed to carry out its ultimate goal of simply removing dissenter from the equation. Surely diversity is the essence of humanity? What is particularly sad is that Peter Watkins himself is not given carte blanche by some British television channel to make what he wishes as this is clearly a man who has something to say. In this age of dumbed down television with anodine members of the public exposing their flesh, constantly effete presenters and vacuous woman designers, don't we deserve to aim somewhat higher in what we produce and send out to the masses. Don't we want to dream anymore?
OldAle1
I saw Peter Watkin's Culloden and The War Game a few months before this and was very impressed. The technique is essentially the same, or at least very similar, in this film detailing on the one hand a trial of dissidents in California in the (apparently) near future, and on the other the attempts of a group of convicted "criminals" to slog through 50 miles of desert to win their freedom in a government-run "punishment park" as an alternative to prison. Watkins films everything in a documentary style, which causes for more than a little awkwardness or required strong suspension of disbelief: how is it that the camera crew is with the group of starving and parched prisoners over 2 days without either offering help or sharing in their misery? And that's merely the most obvious example. But questionable storytelling aside, this packs a punch; no question you have to be interested in political film-making to really get involved, but the film really isn't like anything else of its era: it pulls no punches, offers no simple solutions. The leftist political figures are certainly painted broadly at times, but they aren't all alike; the right-wing government functionaries seem a little more cartoonish, but even they are allowed to show at least a little humanity. Overall, the film gives much to think about and leaves an indelible taste.....8/10 DVD rental
moth >i<
This comment is based on watching Punishment Park last night, in 2008 on Sundance Channel. I had never heard of the film and couldn't figure out when it was filmed. The characters rang true to the 60s instead of displaying distortions in language, mannerisms and attitudes that films being made now about the 60s contain.1971, when the film was released, was still very much the political climate of the 1960s. In some ways it was the pivotal year of radical politics. Radical politics dwindled, took different directions and tone after that year.The setup of the "war game" seemed impossible for the rebels. They started out on foot, unarmed, crossing a desert. Simply by remaining upright they were visible from a distance. When they agreed to the sentence it is not clear that they even knew that the soldiers-in-training they had to evade were armed and in vehicles, what the terrain looked like, the heat, no water, or that they wouldn't be rescued from death. They didn't know how unlikely it was that they would make it to the flag.The rebels split into packs of two to eight people. I kept debating whether it would be better to head out alone but no one took that option. It might not have made much difference but at least you wouldn't be assisting someone who couldn't make it or be the one people thought they had to assist.In an action film the rebels would have succeeded, there would have been heroism, the unbeatable odds would have been beaten and people would have shown superhuman endurance. Tom Cruise would have captured the flag.Actually the physical endurance of the rebels was one of the less plausible aspects. 1960s Radicals were not prone to daily strength and endurance regimen. They had the advantage of being young but still…Since I run in the desert I experience how quickly you are wiped out by heat. Untrained, without shade or water, three days? Maybe not.The long discussion of the moral inferiority of their enemy that some the rebels engaged in was very true to the times, and ineffective in getting to the flag thereby ending their sentence.Why didn't the soldiers follow footprints and track the large band that way? They probably figured logically, with 50 miles to cover the rebels probably took a straight path, which they did, even to finding a small provisions box.It's not fair to expect people to strategize a completely unfamiliar situation but… The rebels could have taken the two-hour head start, curved to the left, jogged through the night instead of dealing with the heat, tried to find shade to hide out/rest during the day, and come up behind the flag at night. But, that wasn't the point of the movie.I yelled at the TV, "That's why I run in the morning, in case I am ever in a situation like that", and am relieved that I am now relatively old and moderate to be in a life and death political situation. There was a political paranoia to the times that the film captures and I might have internalized.The press/film crew was the only accountability for the soldiers. The photographers engaged in argument, challenged and were indignant at times. By 2008, after Abu Ghraib, the soldiers would have been more aware of how long that coverage could haunt them.Sometimes the film looked like a documentary, sometimes acted, sometimes plausible, sometimes not. Not having seen any pre-movie explanations I kept wondering what this film was, enough to go to IMDb to find out, and felt good about having guessed that it was a pseudo-documentary.The sun is coming up. I better go run NOW before it gets hot.
Michael O'Keefe
Done in a mock-documentary style, late 60's subversives and supposed detractors of the mainstream government are arrested and given a choice. Upon sentencing for their wrong doings,there is a choice of going to prison for 7 years to life or spending three days and two nights in a southern California desert at Punishment Park. In the 100 degree heat, the prisoners are to trek fifty some odd miles to an American flag for their freedom. US and state law enforcers will follow two hours latter. If the dissidents are captured it means prison.Appearing in this pseudo-documentary: Carmen Argenziano, Katherine Quittner, Mary Ellen Kleinhall, Stan Armsted, Scott Turner, Patrick Boland and Kent Foreman.
