« More Los Angeles Notices for "Battle for Brooklyn" | Main | From the Village Voice's Siegel: Sharpton as mayoral king killer (and, I'd add, the knife in Ferrer's back over AY) »
August 20, 2011
Interviews with "Battle for Brooklyn" Documentarians
Here are further insights in the documentary "Battle for Brooklyn" from the team that made it.
LA Weekly, Film
Battle For Brooklyn: Michael Galinsky and Suki Hawley's Documentary Has Echoes in L.A.'s Football Stadium Controversy
By Sarah LaBrie
Galinsky says his focus on the human aspects of the project was a calculated attempt to "retake the narrative for the community." He hopes to present information to the public in a way that newspapers, hampered by the economy, no longer can. "No publications have the resources to deal with complex issues. The developer sends out a press release. The opposition -- when it finally forms sends out a press release -- and they treat them as equals."
Ultimately, he says, he wants to force people to think more deeply about what they read. He hopes Battle for Brooklyn will raise awareness of the downsides of development and the danger of eminent domain abuse, which allowed Ratner to build in Prospect Heights without community input. Although the L.A. stadium project doesn't involve eminent domain, he says, it does stand to pose environmental and economic risks to residents of downtown Los Angeles. By publicizing the project as a source of revenue for the city and for tax payers, Phil Anschutz and his company are being purposely disingenuous.
indieWIRE, INTERVIEW | Michael Galinsky Takes the “Battle for Brooklyn” Across the Country"
by Bryce J. Renninger
When crafting this film, how did you know what story you wanted to tell?
We were concerned with not making a film that felt like an activist film, but we were following activist in a verite way. We decided this film was about [Dan Goldstein] when we realized he was the one guy who was not gonna sell out. Dan was gonna lose his home and his whole way of living in the world. This is a large community fight, but we decided to tell it through one character. Earlier, we loaded the film up with other subjects and it got really boring.
How has the response been with all those involved?
We took pains not to involve ourselves in the fight. In a way, the film is about eminent domain, about kleptocracy in government and special interests working together to do things that benefit themselves. Errol Louis, who wrote about the Atlantic Yards project glowingly in the Daily News, thought the film was fair, which we were worried about. The people who know the situation well think we went easy on the government and the developers. We had a lot more about the corruption, but it became so overwhelming to people. It depressed them too much. The film, as it stands, really paints the government and the developer in a negative light. They colluded together. We were a little nervous. It didn’t represent everyone in the fight against Atlantic Yards, and it wasn’t a pedantic strident story of their fight, but they’ve really gotten behind it.
Posted by steve at August 20, 2011 3:43 PM