By Thomas Barlow @tbarls
We Are Many is a well made, powerful film about the Anti-War protests in the UK (and around the world), which is, sadly, as deeply flawed as it is wonderfully moving.
It is hard to write a review about a film that you feel everyone should see, when you also feel that it has got so many incredibly important things wrong.
This is a film that reminds us of the power and energy of protest, whilst also touching on the horrors of the occupation of Iraq.
It has some incredible testimonies that are both revelatory and moving. And it puts you on the streets – and in the board rooms – of the time with impact and insight.
Nonetheless the film suffers greatly from a real inability to critically reflect on the failures of the movement – or to draw any worthwhile lessons from it.
It speaks volumes that Damon Albarn (of Blur fame) is probably the most lucid voice of criticism in the entire film.
Hopefully we can expand on his thoughtful reflections here.
THE GOOD BITS
Let’s start off with why you should see this film.
If you weren’t around for the protests it is a fantastic way to get a sense of their size and importance.
The energy and power of them is – quite frankly – hyperbolised to the point of being meaningless. However it still does the job of viscerally engaging you.
For those who were there, it is a quirky reminder of our misplaced optimism – that by marching alone we could stop a war – and that WE WERE MANY.
TESTIMONIES AND THE REST OF THE WORLD
Even better than this are the testimonies of key figures, such as Hans Blix (the chief weapons inspector), Colin Powell’s chief aide, Labour Cabinet members and legal scholars.
They paint in incredible picture of the build up to war, and Colin Powell’s chief aide admitting he is ready to stand trial for war crimes is as stark an admission of guilt as you will ever hear.
The global perspective and the focus on Egypt are unique stories that are wonderful to hear, and well told.
Robin Cook’s resignation is a moving moment, and is worthy of being remembered – it is unlikely we will see a politician ever do something that principled again in our lifetimes.
Finally the sense that this was middle England’s moment is well articulated by Peter Oborne (formerly of The Daily Telegraph) ‘It was hippies and crazy lefties that were right – and the morality of those on the streets, not those in government’.
For these reasons I would be encouraging schools to book this film in to show to kids of all ages.
HOWEVER…
I would be promoting this film because there is nothing else available.
Whilst the film has unique insights, moving testimony, and great footage, the failings are huge – and barely forgiveable.
OVERPLAYED ELEMENTS
As mentioned, the mantra that ‘this protest changed everything’ is repeated ad nauseum throughout the film.
This gets rectified in the second half somewhat, however you are still left feeling incredulous at the hyperbole of the protest organisers who must have clearly realised that it was a failure by most standards.
Also, despite the focus on Egypt, the film feels like a paeon to White generosity.
‘Not In Our Name’ is the mantra that not only absolves us (white Brits) of guilt, but lifts the citizenry of Middle England into sainthood – all for attending one protest.
A GLOBAL PROTEST
This becomes more troubling when the organisers repeatedly state that there had ‘never been a global protest’.
Maybe they forget the global demonstrations called in the years prior because they didn’t like the other British activists involved, or maybe it was because they were often organised by brown skinned activists from the Majority World.
Most people credit the birth of a global movement to the Zapitistas in Mexico, and credit the first global protests to organising done in Brasil and South Korea.
This is more than an accidental oversight, the Ex Socialist Workers Party Central Committee members (John Rees and Lindsey German) were also part of Globalise Resistance and were well aware of the global movement that preceded these protests.
Regardless of motivation it stinks of White Saviour Complex and complete myopia.
The other gaps in the film are so numerous that unfortunately we have to do them as a bullet pointed list.
KEY FACTS MISSING
- GEORGE GALLOWAY – before he was a pariah he was the most notorious anti war critic who frightened even the US senate. Leaving the Labour party was widely lauded, and was a huge part of the anti war organisation.
- RESPECT – was the Anti War Party founded by George Galloway, and by John Rees and Lindsey German. This was seen as a whole new alternative to Labour and brought together Socialist Parties, Muslims and Pacifists in a fashion previously unseen. It was fundamental to the protests and the response to war.
- MEDIA BIAS – the film briefly touches on US media, whilst refusing to touch on the sacking of the Director General of the BBC, and the obsequiousness of large parts of the British Media.
- DIRECT ACTION – Whilst Stop The War Coalition refused to support any Direct Action (outside of the student walk out which is unmentioned), Quakers smashed up planes, protestors were stopped under the new Anti Terror lawas from protesting at Air Bases, and the world largest arms fair became a number one target.
- MORE DEMONSTRATIONS – After the global day of protest, demonstrations, of decreasing size were called every 3-6 months in the following years.
WHY IS THIS SO IMPORTANT?
There are important lessons to be drawn from all of this.
Firstly that charismatic leaders such as George Galloway – – as well as founding parliamentary parties – are likely to be a dead end.
George Galloway and RESPECT remain features of British politics – and their pariah status is in some part due to their anti imperialist standpoint – however their input is not only fringe, but is clearly seen as detrimental to most left politics.
Media Bias is something we talk about a lot here at Real Media, but what is important about it in this context is that at the time the British public fell into the trap of lauding the independent British press as opposed to the laughable US media machine.
This film reasserts that false distinction, letting off UK governmental allies in the press (such as The Guardian), whilst mocking obvious targets such as FOX.
We desperately need to be aware how the British media played a huge role in manufacturing consent, and the techniques they use to justify war.
And if they didn’t manage to get people to believe the stories of Tony Blair, they certainly encouraged passivity as opposed to action.
Which leads us to Direct Action. Stop The War Coalition openly denounced people taking direct action. They equated pacifism with passivity.
This may be understandable in the context that they were looking for societal consensus on their tactics and needed to keep middle England on board.
However, to not talk about the incredible acts of direct action that were taken – and why it was that more was not encouraged – is to fail to learn the lessons that has informed every social movement since STW.
The failure to mention the repeated marches that followed is a symptom of the same problem.
At one point Damon Albarn says during the film ‘I am not sure why weren’t back the next week, and the week after that’.
Certainly resistance didn’t stop after the invasion began, but there were no new tactics. And the marches that did happen were so far apart as to create no pressure whatsoever.
SO WHY WERE THESE FACTS LEFT OUT?
It is doubtless embarrassing for the organisers to admit that they took the largest mobilisation of British people ever, and squandered it.
They failed to take, or encourage, any civil disobedience. They started a failed parliamentary project. They organised marches that got smaller and smaller.
They took longer and longer to organise those marches. They never challenged a poisonous media establishment in any meaningful way.
What the director may not realise, though, is that this is entirely forgiveable. We make mistakes. We come from traditions or have set ideas about the way things should be done, and often they don’t fit the reality of a new situation.
If the director had allowed these stories to be told, we would have learnt a lot more about ourselves, and what to do when faced with a similar challenge.
Instead the film becomes a bizarre nostalgia fest for people whose greatest moment was organising this protest.
CAN WE LEARN LESSONS?
They were right. These demonstrations changed everything, just not in the way they try to tell us in the film.
Every major protest movement after the Iraq invasion embraced direct action. They eschewed leaders and centralised organisation. They made a religion out of being against parliamentary projects.
This resulted in the student protests coming far closer than STWC to defeating the government in parliament. To the ending of new coal power stations and the third runway at Heathrow. To countless networks coming and going, using Direct Action and unattached to any monolithic movement – like DPAC, Boycott Workfare, E15 Mums and so on.
I know this generation of ‘Anarchists in all but name’, because I am one. However I am unsure, still, whether this is a good thing.
The baby may have been chucked out with the bath water, just as we face an increasing struggle for freedom, equality and democracy. Maybe we need to use certain old types of organisation, to embrace a mixture of tactics, to have a strategy and an explicit ideology.
We have tough decisions about what to do to create a progressive society. And we should start with an honest look at that moment when we decided to go to war, when we lost faith with our democracy, demonstrations, and demagogues.
We Are Many indeed.
