Steve Pulaski Peter Watkins' Punishment Park is a compellingly brutal film, serving as commentary on the polarization of America and the treatment of those with unpopular viewpoints in the Vietnam-era. Shot in 1971 on a miniscule budget, the film offers its ideology on American youth at the time, the dehumanization and corruption of government, and the torment of people, with the looming thought that they may have not even been doing anything wrong.The film was one of the very first to be shot in the style and tone of "cinéma vérité," a technique used by filmmakers to generate a documentary-like vibe and to persuade the audiences into believing what they're seeing is real footage. It is 1970, and the Vietnam War is escalating, with president Richard Nixon losing control and running out of options. He declares America as a "state of emergency, and proposes the "McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950," which gave federal authorities the right to detain those who appeared as a "risk to internal security." We follow members, mostly young university students, of various political movements, such as the feminist movement, the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, and the communist movement who are arrested and given the choice of either serving their full time sentences or spending three days at the ambiguously named "Punishment Park." Many of them choose the second option, where they are told that if they can run fifty-three miles in brutal California desert heat and make it to an American flag checkpoint, with a two hour head-start before National Guardsmen and federal authorities are dispatched to try and stop them, that they will be released and their pending dues will disappear.As we see many young students run helplessly through the desert, with temperatures well over one-hundred degrees, we focus on another group of students who are pleading their cases to a group of men and women in a tent on why they were resisting and evading the Vietnam war. The people are simply not interested in hearing their views and constantly interrupt them, leading to contentious interactions involving heavy cursing and strong morality and ethics that increasingly come into play as time goes on.The cinematography is as raw as they come, with extensive shots of desert locations inhabited by sweaty, breathless students desperately clinging to their last hope for survival and humanity-driven choices. Watkins directs this picture with numbing realism that stems not only from the provocative cinematography, but from the screenplay, composed of extemporaneous dialog and improvisation on the actors' part. Their performances are coldly real and chillingly authentic.Punishment Park sort of tires out in its third act, being that it greatly established its point and purpose within the first two, but the film relentlessly tries to depict a brutal reality filled with dissent, isolation, and strict government control that thankfully never was prophetic. What is amazing is despite ones assumption that the film's ideology and issues are dated and no longer relevant, in a post-9/11, Patriot Act, NDAA world, it would appear we must look onto films like these as poetry for the present.Directed by: Peter Watkins.

Shane Levene Punishment park is nearly a good film. It revolves around a group of hippies who are suffering from some kind of political activism that has turned them into zombies intent on overthrowing all military might. Shot in documentary style fashion there are obviously many comparisons that have been made with The Blair Witch Project (a film that would come many years later and use different subject matter to tell the same story). Punishment Park fails in it's nihilistic premise of of outlandish bum sex scenes leading to a grand orgy of violence as the protesters are shot down and raped in front of a watching news crew. These scenes were a little overdone and the gore was of a very low quality. 3 out of 10. Watch this film only if you are a hippie.

MisterWhiplash Peter Watkins' film Punishment Park is nothing if not a sincere cry for justice. Of course the film is a metaphor, a provocation, a sort of alternate reality that could have been a science fiction fable if it wasn't so naturalistic as a "fake" documentary. And of course there weren't 'Punishment Parks' in America in 1970 when the film was made, where dissidents and rabble-rousers and draft dodgers were taken and given the chance to either participate in the 'game' or go to prison without a fair trial. And sure, at the time, the film got panned for being too blunt an instrument of provocation, of being so much about its subjects of the US versus THEM element that it was too much.But what can be said of the film today? At the time for those who didn't know it was a "fake" documentary, like in Finland, they panned the US government for allowing such a thing like this to happen! This is, perhaps, the best kind of compliment Peter Watkins could have received - certainly he fared better there than with the film critics who panned it and, ultimately, the film got four days of distribution by a no-nothing company before being pulled from NY city screens (it fared worse in being shown on TV or elsewhere, where for years it was just unavailable). Seeing it in 2010 is still a shocker some forty years later. Not because of what it says about its time and place, that's a given, about the rift between those in power and those not, but that it could still happen, in a slightly less extreme form, today (just look at the atrocity of justice with Guantanamo Bay for that).There's something about this film that gets under my skin. It got its way in within the first ten minutes, by sinking its teeth with its structure, of it being a British documentary on this 'Punishment Park' out in the California baron wasteland (it could be Death Valley, but whatever it is it's unbearable conditions), and how nothing is made to look fantastic. The nerve of the film is like that of Night of the Living Dead in its no-holds-barred hand-held approach to photography (only in this case the police seem to be the zombies, albeit with more of a brain which is perhaps much more frightening). Watkins cuts between this demonstration of what the 'Park' is - a three to four day excursion from one point to another where those who volunteer (and there are many, as the alternative is years in prison) who have to get to an American flag. Which is not easy when you have police just getting ready and more than willing to kick the crap out of those dissidents and, of course, shoot to kill.This is all meant as metaphor, and the most contemporary example I could think of as comparison would be District 9 (though that film didn't carry out its artistic premise anywhere near as thoroughly as this). But the metaphor is strong because of a) what was happening at the time, with Chicago and Kent State and the trial of the Chicago 7 (Bobby Seale's gagging during the trial is recreated here with one such African American on "trial"), and of the attitudes at the time. The what if shouldn't be diminished because of thinking practically about what would happen if this really did occur. What matters is making it seem real, carrying the documentary aesthetic and toying with it - Watkins goes from objective reporter to subjective "WTF"-ing at the police killing and maiming people from one scene to the next, which is chillingly effective - to make the experience last in the mind.Aside from it being a rigorous example of film-making, and a satire that is about as funny as a burning school-bus on a field trip, Punishment Park gets some major points. And the fact that many in the film never acted before or wouldn't again (some of which were actual dissidents and protesters as the kids, and some of the cops were actual cops) heightens the tension and moral identity of the scenes. But really its ultimate impact is that it lasts, in the mind as well as the consciousness of a nation. The US has laws in place to keep this from happening, to be sure, but at what point does the line thin away? Most recently there's been question of how to put on trial those accused of terrorism against the US. That, too, is an extreme example, but, again, where is that line drawn? A question I was left with at the end, or thought people might have by the end of it, is "What will be done about it?" Or, more precisely, "What can be done?" It's a call to arms that shook me up and made me depressed, but I can't say it didn't do it in the way that matters. It's one of the great incendiary films in our history; that it's also an experimental piece in the realm of documentary-meets-fiction, breaking all boundaries for its message, is further extraordinary.

Thorsten_B It kicks you in the stomach. There are other films with more convincing characters, a more realistic story, and maybe even more depth concerning political invocations. But then again, most of these are not directed by Peter Watkins. Maybe the one true genius artist of British Film to emerge out of the 1960s, Watkins has made quite a bunch of rarely seen films that perfectly capture the spirit of the outer-aesthetic world - the world of political ongoings, social problems and governmental solutions. Thus, his work is probably less "filmic" than, say, political, which some may call a weakening of their inherent artistic quality. Then again, why shouldn't art allow itself to become engaged? Watkins dares. And succeeds. You won't feel well with this one. You won't feel happy. Actually, you won't really like the film; it is uncompromising, honest, direct, unashamed; a smash in your face, in short. You can't help getting angry, you can't resist to let the things you see touch you. That is what makes Watkins' films so rewarding.