***Spoiler Alert*** This film paints a picture of a man who, in his attempts to provoke a more widespread debate about forestry practice in British Columbia, seemingly did little more than cause the debate to be sidetracked. All sides were outraged by his felling of 'the Golden Spruce'.
This tree was part genetic anomaly, part cultural touchstone, part tourist attraction.
The film concentrates on a portrait of Grant Hadwin, and the events immediately prior to, and after his act, which took place nearly twenty years ago.
It is a well made film, with some excellent camera-work that shows the beauty of remaining old growth forest, and a narrative that explains the first nation's relationship with the forest in general as well at that tree.
However IMHO the portrait of Hadwin the man was incomplete. Perhaps it is nature of the medium; in an hour and a half long film, only a small fraction of that could be devoted to Hadwin's background, which is far more complex than the film portrays. John Valliant (who contributed to the film) has written much more on this topic, e.g. here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/803092/posts
which gives a different slant to things.
The film raises questions about Hadwin's disappearance and supposed death. However of the tree itself there is scant information; whilst none can replace a three-hundred year old specimen, there are supposedly many such trees (with the same genetic anomaly) that have been propagated from various cuttings taken from that tree, some from before and some from after when it was felled.
Perhaps Hadwin's legacy will yet be his 'judgement'; this was a document found with the remains of his canoe, being a manifesto (or perhaps more accurately a heartfelt cry from the heart) for the use of more sustainable forestry methods. Only time will tell.
I regard this film as being arguably incomplete, rather than biased per se; despite this, it is well worth watching.
This tree was part genetic anomaly, part cultural touchstone, part tourist attraction.
The film concentrates on a portrait of Grant Hadwin, and the events immediately prior to, and after his act, which took place nearly twenty years ago.
It is a well made film, with some excellent camera-work that shows the beauty of remaining old growth forest, and a narrative that explains the first nation's relationship with the forest in general as well at that tree.
However IMHO the portrait of Hadwin the man was incomplete. Perhaps it is nature of the medium; in an hour and a half long film, only a small fraction of that could be devoted to Hadwin's background, which is far more complex than the film portrays. John Valliant (who contributed to the film) has written much more on this topic, e.g. here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/803092/posts
which gives a different slant to things.
The film raises questions about Hadwin's disappearance and supposed death. However of the tree itself there is scant information; whilst none can replace a three-hundred year old specimen, there are supposedly many such trees (with the same genetic anomaly) that have been propagated from various cuttings taken from that tree, some from before and some from after when it was felled.
Perhaps Hadwin's legacy will yet be his 'judgement'; this was a document found with the remains of his canoe, being a manifesto (or perhaps more accurately a heartfelt cry from the heart) for the use of more sustainable forestry methods. Only time will tell.
I regard this film as being arguably incomplete, rather than biased per se; despite this, it is well worth watching.
