I really enjoyed watching this film... mostly for educational reasons. Being born in 1972, I was not around for the activism of the 60's. Much like most people of my generation, we've heard stories about the 60's, listened to music of the times, etc. However, this film really made me see the various activism of the 60's in a different light. I have a new respect for what students at Berkeley and others were trying to accomplish. You can't help but feel admiration for many of the people interviewed and shown in this film. The film made me contemplate about a lot of issues, as well as puts a new and refreshing perspective on people. It covers plenty of topics without rushing the viewer through them. It's great to explore this small piece of history and see how it effects life today in the 21st century... makes you think about how far or how little we've come since then. As a footnote...The film contains some really interesting footage of Ronald Reagan when he was Governor of California.
15 Reviews
Exactly What You Expect
gavin694227 January 2017
A documentary about militant student political activity in the University of California-Berkeley in the 1960s.
The film highlights the origins of the Free Speech Movement beginning with the May 1960 House Un-American Activities Committee hearings at San Francisco City Hall, the development of the counterculture of the 1960s in Berkeley, California, and ending with People's Park in 1969.
Depending on how you feel about the 1960s and hippies, you may feel one way or another about this film. But as a history, it is a fairly objective look at what was going on in Berkeley, and how that campus has become known -- even 50 years later -- as the most radical in the country, whether or not that is true. The bulk of the interviews are with former students, but even so we can get a rather full picture.
The film highlights the origins of the Free Speech Movement beginning with the May 1960 House Un-American Activities Committee hearings at San Francisco City Hall, the development of the counterculture of the 1960s in Berkeley, California, and ending with People's Park in 1969.
Depending on how you feel about the 1960s and hippies, you may feel one way or another about this film. But as a history, it is a fairly objective look at what was going on in Berkeley, and how that campus has become known -- even 50 years later -- as the most radical in the country, whether or not that is true. The bulk of the interviews are with former students, but even so we can get a rather full picture.
Documentary mostly emphasizes 60s Movement's limitations as remembered by former activists.
Redscare-227 May 1999
Berkeley in the Sixties is an historical documentary that alternates between 1980s oral history and actual period photo-journalism.
So it is composed largely of apparently network-sponsored news footage of the street politics and culture wars of the time. Reflecting an irony of the period, most of this footage of revolution was presumably shot and edited by the action-seeking network video journalists (employed by 1960s Fortune 500 corporations) who recorded the street politics and culture wars of the time.
One reviewer imagines "hypothetical" conservative viewers "talking back to the screen". But the only controversy of this film comes from giving any voice at all to the memories of today's teachers, social workers and businessfolk who (after all) mostly IN THEIR YOUTH had been involved with organizing and direct action in Berkeley. And this social history and oral history ("Heavens!") may be what one conservative reviewer calls "bias". The personal memories of these movements' various opponents (often unavailable anyway by 1990) are mostly not recorded. (Rather only their statements at the time are represented.)
History, like life, necessitates a particular perspective and position. And this one is admittedly not Ronald Reagan's or Ed Meese's or J. Edgar Hoover's history. But the film could by no stretch be called either Leftist or nostalgic or romanticized history of the 60s in the U.S. or abroad.
In the oral history testimonies, the "lessons" attested to are pretty darned mixed. Hardly sentimental, approximately two former activists' testimonials emphasize the MISTAKES and excesses of the period for every one that recalls a success or virtuous result, by my count. In other words, if this is propaganda, it is clearly NOT Leftist propaganda. Neither is this a Sunday a.m. tv pundit debate among major party-allied think tank representatives. The film is an attempt to probe the experience of folks who, like the rest of us, shaped human history both deliberately and inadvertently.
Moreover this is as much another worthwhile film about boomers recalling their hyper-televised, activist youth as it is an attempt at serious history. and yet in the end Berkeley in the 60s does an excellent job of both tasks. It is among the most . thought-provoking films I have seen. --Todd from Brooklyn
So it is composed largely of apparently network-sponsored news footage of the street politics and culture wars of the time. Reflecting an irony of the period, most of this footage of revolution was presumably shot and edited by the action-seeking network video journalists (employed by 1960s Fortune 500 corporations) who recorded the street politics and culture wars of the time.
One reviewer imagines "hypothetical" conservative viewers "talking back to the screen". But the only controversy of this film comes from giving any voice at all to the memories of today's teachers, social workers and businessfolk who (after all) mostly IN THEIR YOUTH had been involved with organizing and direct action in Berkeley. And this social history and oral history ("Heavens!") may be what one conservative reviewer calls "bias". The personal memories of these movements' various opponents (often unavailable anyway by 1990) are mostly not recorded. (Rather only their statements at the time are represented.)
History, like life, necessitates a particular perspective and position. And this one is admittedly not Ronald Reagan's or Ed Meese's or J. Edgar Hoover's history. But the film could by no stretch be called either Leftist or nostalgic or romanticized history of the 60s in the U.S. or abroad.
In the oral history testimonies, the "lessons" attested to are pretty darned mixed. Hardly sentimental, approximately two former activists' testimonials emphasize the MISTAKES and excesses of the period for every one that recalls a success or virtuous result, by my count. In other words, if this is propaganda, it is clearly NOT Leftist propaganda. Neither is this a Sunday a.m. tv pundit debate among major party-allied think tank representatives. The film is an attempt to probe the experience of folks who, like the rest of us, shaped human history both deliberately and inadvertently.
Moreover this is as much another worthwhile film about boomers recalling their hyper-televised, activist youth as it is an attempt at serious history. and yet in the end Berkeley in the 60s does an excellent job of both tasks. It is among the most . thought-provoking films I have seen. --Todd from Brooklyn
Fabric of '60s Counterculture Politics : Weaving the Threads via Berkeley
lionheartlev14 January 2005
This is a superb, valuable documentary.
Berkeley was at the epicenter as the counterculture politics of the '60s emerged. And revisiting the political ferment of '60s Berkeley can offer an unusually helpful overview of these interwoven political currents. This film does that very, very well.
The fascinating footage (including early glimpses at Reagan as a relatively new "pol"), the deft editing, the years-later retrospective reflections of "now-grown-up" participants in the Berkeley "FSM" (Free Speech Movement) -- these are all very engaging, and beautifully assembled. But what makes the film great for me is its clarity in reflecting the interplay of counterculture themes: the movements for free speech and for civil rights, the movement against the Vietnam War, and assertion of the new feminism. Along with the energetic pursuit of "sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll," these elements blended into one 'tsunami' of a movement -- were experienced by us all coming of age during that time, throughout the US and throughout much of the world. But as a young person during that era, who became very swept up in the self-proclaimed "dawning of the Age of Aquarius," I recall also feeling unclear on how these ideological components -- which otherwise seemed to me distinct and substantively unrelated became intertwined in the social politics of that era.
Whether the film is slanted, and whether "The Movement" was positive or negative, seem to me besides the point. The Movement was; like it or not, that reality is indisputable. From varying perspectives, our entire culture experienced it, and was affected by it. Most of the many millions of us on college campuses during that time were forever changed -- for good, for ill, or both. This film presents the most coherent depiction I've seen of how this happened, what it's "logic" was and manages to do so engagingly, without becoming pedantic. That's a whole lot for one film to do, even for someone who respects and loves film as our culture's greatest current art form.
Berkeley was at the epicenter as the counterculture politics of the '60s emerged. And revisiting the political ferment of '60s Berkeley can offer an unusually helpful overview of these interwoven political currents. This film does that very, very well.
The fascinating footage (including early glimpses at Reagan as a relatively new "pol"), the deft editing, the years-later retrospective reflections of "now-grown-up" participants in the Berkeley "FSM" (Free Speech Movement) -- these are all very engaging, and beautifully assembled. But what makes the film great for me is its clarity in reflecting the interplay of counterculture themes: the movements for free speech and for civil rights, the movement against the Vietnam War, and assertion of the new feminism. Along with the energetic pursuit of "sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll," these elements blended into one 'tsunami' of a movement -- were experienced by us all coming of age during that time, throughout the US and throughout much of the world. But as a young person during that era, who became very swept up in the self-proclaimed "dawning of the Age of Aquarius," I recall also feeling unclear on how these ideological components -- which otherwise seemed to me distinct and substantively unrelated became intertwined in the social politics of that era.
Whether the film is slanted, and whether "The Movement" was positive or negative, seem to me besides the point. The Movement was; like it or not, that reality is indisputable. From varying perspectives, our entire culture experienced it, and was affected by it. Most of the many millions of us on college campuses during that time were forever changed -- for good, for ill, or both. This film presents the most coherent depiction I've seen of how this happened, what it's "logic" was and manages to do so engagingly, without becoming pedantic. That's a whole lot for one film to do, even for someone who respects and loves film as our culture's greatest current art form.
Touches on all the major political themes of the decade
bandw10 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Trying to delineate the happenings in Berkeley during the 1960s in under two hours is a daunting task and this film does so rather impressively. By interleaving documentary footage with interviews (some twenty years later) of several of the more aggressive activists as they look back and try to describe and interpret what happened makes for absorbing history. All the interviewees are thoughtful and well spoken and have stayed engaged over the years. It is curious that Mario Savio, the most well-known of the activists, was not interviewed.
Much credit for the quality of the final product must ultimately go to the editors. The events are logically developed and we can see how certain events lead, almost inevitably, to others.
Most people tend to identify the political activism in the 60s with the Vietnam protests, but this film broadens the perspective significantly. Things began rather innocently with a student protest at a hearing of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in San Francisco in 1960, the main issue being HUAC's indifference to civil liberties. The official reaction to the protest was extreme: fire hoses were turned on the protesters, people were dragged down the city hall stairs, and many arrests were made. The lesson is that extreme acts beget extreme reactions and the next day thousands of protesters showed up - they were labeled communist dupes. The direct result of these protests was pressure on the University to control the actions of its students and this resulted in the University's closing down a long-established area outside the campus gates where activists of all persuasions gathered daily. This led to the Free Speech Movement (FSM), which led to sit-ins and much controversy, to the point where the University was on the verge of being paralyzed. At one of the sit-ins a chancellor of the University announced that the students had grossly impaired the University from doing its job; this announcement was greeted with applause. This is an example of how this film shows the way one thing leads to another; it gets at root causes.
When the Berkeley Faculty voted seven-to-one in favor of the students in the FSM then, after several more iterations, victory was conceded to the students.
We see the seeds of the civil rights movement with documentary footage of Martin Luther King. One of King's clips is of a speech where he says, "When we look at modern man we have to face the fact that modern man suffers from a kind of poverty of spirit which stands in glaring contrast to his scientific and technological abundance. We've learned to fly the allied birds, we've learned to swim the seas like fish, and yet we haven't learned to walk the earth as brothers and sisters." How could a young person not be moved by that? Or anyone, as far as that goes. Barack Obama may be an eloquent orator, but he does not compare to King.
One of the most interesting interviewees was John Searle, a philosophy professor at the University. He made some of the most insightful comments. While it appeared to many that the FSM was, as one of Searle's colleagues put it, a civil-rights panty raid, Searle commented that beneath it all was a real underlying seriousness and that there was a tremendous sense of community. However, Searle also noted that the movement attracted the greatest collection of kooks and nuts ever seen and he held media hype partly responsible for that.
Some of the successes led to excesses. An example was the People's Park episode. A group took over vacant land owned by the University and made improvements to it, and then claimed it for public use. When the University moved in and bulldozed the park and fenced it off, some were indignant. But any sane person would have known that this kind of land confiscation was not going to fly. But there was a crazy, unrealistic spirit of revolution abroad at the time. I remember talking with people at the time who, in all seriousness, prefaced comments with, "When the revolution comes."
There are some fun elements. When Allen Ginsberg was asked what he made of things he responded with a Buddhist chant, and upon entering the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco a tour bus driver announced that they were entering the only foreign city within the country.
In the latter part of the decade the focus turned to Vietnam, which is what the decade is most remember for. What happened in Berkeley did not stay in Berkeley, since massive protests occurred throughout the country and they played a part in bringing the war to an end. When President Johnson was thinking of escalating the war J. Edgar Hoover told him that he could not guarantee the security of the country if he did that. If there were a draft in the United States today, we would not be in Iraq.
As things were getting a little crazy toward the end of the decade, John Searle summed the counterculture up quite eloquently, "There was no vision, no articulate philosophy, no conception of social organization and social change, what there were were a series of emotional outbursts, a series of passions, a series of desperately important issues, but you can't beat something with nothing and if you're gonna fight that kind of long cultural battle you're really bound to lose if you don't have a coherent, articulate, well-worked notion of what you're trying to do, and that they did not have."
No matter how they played it out, you have to credit the young people of the sixties with being right on free speech, on civil rights, on the women's movement, and on Vietnam. Understanding what happened in the 60s is essential to understanding where we are in the United States today and this film contributes to that understanding.
Much credit for the quality of the final product must ultimately go to the editors. The events are logically developed and we can see how certain events lead, almost inevitably, to others.
Most people tend to identify the political activism in the 60s with the Vietnam protests, but this film broadens the perspective significantly. Things began rather innocently with a student protest at a hearing of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in San Francisco in 1960, the main issue being HUAC's indifference to civil liberties. The official reaction to the protest was extreme: fire hoses were turned on the protesters, people were dragged down the city hall stairs, and many arrests were made. The lesson is that extreme acts beget extreme reactions and the next day thousands of protesters showed up - they were labeled communist dupes. The direct result of these protests was pressure on the University to control the actions of its students and this resulted in the University's closing down a long-established area outside the campus gates where activists of all persuasions gathered daily. This led to the Free Speech Movement (FSM), which led to sit-ins and much controversy, to the point where the University was on the verge of being paralyzed. At one of the sit-ins a chancellor of the University announced that the students had grossly impaired the University from doing its job; this announcement was greeted with applause. This is an example of how this film shows the way one thing leads to another; it gets at root causes.
When the Berkeley Faculty voted seven-to-one in favor of the students in the FSM then, after several more iterations, victory was conceded to the students.
We see the seeds of the civil rights movement with documentary footage of Martin Luther King. One of King's clips is of a speech where he says, "When we look at modern man we have to face the fact that modern man suffers from a kind of poverty of spirit which stands in glaring contrast to his scientific and technological abundance. We've learned to fly the allied birds, we've learned to swim the seas like fish, and yet we haven't learned to walk the earth as brothers and sisters." How could a young person not be moved by that? Or anyone, as far as that goes. Barack Obama may be an eloquent orator, but he does not compare to King.
One of the most interesting interviewees was John Searle, a philosophy professor at the University. He made some of the most insightful comments. While it appeared to many that the FSM was, as one of Searle's colleagues put it, a civil-rights panty raid, Searle commented that beneath it all was a real underlying seriousness and that there was a tremendous sense of community. However, Searle also noted that the movement attracted the greatest collection of kooks and nuts ever seen and he held media hype partly responsible for that.
Some of the successes led to excesses. An example was the People's Park episode. A group took over vacant land owned by the University and made improvements to it, and then claimed it for public use. When the University moved in and bulldozed the park and fenced it off, some were indignant. But any sane person would have known that this kind of land confiscation was not going to fly. But there was a crazy, unrealistic spirit of revolution abroad at the time. I remember talking with people at the time who, in all seriousness, prefaced comments with, "When the revolution comes."
There are some fun elements. When Allen Ginsberg was asked what he made of things he responded with a Buddhist chant, and upon entering the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco a tour bus driver announced that they were entering the only foreign city within the country.
In the latter part of the decade the focus turned to Vietnam, which is what the decade is most remember for. What happened in Berkeley did not stay in Berkeley, since massive protests occurred throughout the country and they played a part in bringing the war to an end. When President Johnson was thinking of escalating the war J. Edgar Hoover told him that he could not guarantee the security of the country if he did that. If there were a draft in the United States today, we would not be in Iraq.
As things were getting a little crazy toward the end of the decade, John Searle summed the counterculture up quite eloquently, "There was no vision, no articulate philosophy, no conception of social organization and social change, what there were were a series of emotional outbursts, a series of passions, a series of desperately important issues, but you can't beat something with nothing and if you're gonna fight that kind of long cultural battle you're really bound to lose if you don't have a coherent, articulate, well-worked notion of what you're trying to do, and that they did not have."
No matter how they played it out, you have to credit the young people of the sixties with being right on free speech, on civil rights, on the women's movement, and on Vietnam. Understanding what happened in the 60s is essential to understanding where we are in the United States today and this film contributes to that understanding.
A fine, but decidedly slanted documentary
LawnBoy-46 January 1999
For many people, the great protests of the 60s began somewhere around 1966. "Berkeley In the 60s" dispels this notion, delving into the roots of the radical protest movements which began in Berkeley as early as 1960.
Overall, the film is a fantastic historical perspective of the 1960s, providing info about such revolutionaries as Mario Savio and Huey Newton. It is focused almost entirely on Berkeley, California and its magnetic subculture which attracted potential activists from all parts of the country.
Several interviews provide insight into the various causes and allow one to see the events through the eyes of those which played an integral part. Included in the interviews are moving testimonies about the "establishment" which make one wonder how society could have been so restrictive to free speech, especially given the climate of today's college campuses.
It must be noted, however, that the film is decidedly slanted, offering an anti-establishment view complete with taped press conferences of then-Governor Ronald Reagan ("the mess in Berkeley"). Those who are staunch conservatives may find themselves actually arguing with the TV screen as a result of some of the ways facts are presented. I would offer, however, that everyone should view the film as a historical perspective because there were many events which are depicted which have shaped present-day society.
Overall, the film is a fantastic historical perspective of the 1960s, providing info about such revolutionaries as Mario Savio and Huey Newton. It is focused almost entirely on Berkeley, California and its magnetic subculture which attracted potential activists from all parts of the country.
Several interviews provide insight into the various causes and allow one to see the events through the eyes of those which played an integral part. Included in the interviews are moving testimonies about the "establishment" which make one wonder how society could have been so restrictive to free speech, especially given the climate of today's college campuses.
It must be noted, however, that the film is decidedly slanted, offering an anti-establishment view complete with taped press conferences of then-Governor Ronald Reagan ("the mess in Berkeley"). Those who are staunch conservatives may find themselves actually arguing with the TV screen as a result of some of the ways facts are presented. I would offer, however, that everyone should view the film as a historical perspective because there were many events which are depicted which have shaped present-day society.
Those were the days.
sonya9002821 January 2010
This documentary, focuses on the turbulence of the Berkeley student demonstrations, during the volatile 60s. There's plenty of interviews, with former Berkeley student radicals. Also included, is commentary from members of the Black Panthers, the Berkeley Mayor, local police, and concerned Bay area citizens. Berkeley, and the San Francisco Bay area in general, were the epicenter of political and social unrest, for young people in the 60s. The chaos of the student movement that began at Berkeley, spread to other campuses throughout the nation. Never before, had college students in America been so thoroughly dedicated to positive change, as they were during the 60s.
I lived in the Bay area, just two years ago. And it's undergone a 280-degree turn from its enlightened, progressive character, that was its signature zeitgeist in the 60s. It's become positively inhumane! It's been overtaken by affluent Yuppie WASPs, who have driven the price of housing to astronomical levels. As a result, homelessness is at epidemic levels there. So is unemployment. Even the most highly educated people, have to beg for low-wage jobs there. Racism, and even gay-bashing, now plague the once warm and tolerant Bay area too. High tech geeks are the new gods of the Bay area, and everyone else there is regarded as useless. Bohemians of all stripes, are no longer welcome there. They can't afford to live there anymore, anyhow.
This film is very informative, about how Berkeley students fought valiant battles for social justice in the 60s. It's a real shame, that the Bay area has become a haven for the Capitalist pigs, that the Berkeley students railed against over 40 years ago.
I lived in the Bay area, just two years ago. And it's undergone a 280-degree turn from its enlightened, progressive character, that was its signature zeitgeist in the 60s. It's become positively inhumane! It's been overtaken by affluent Yuppie WASPs, who have driven the price of housing to astronomical levels. As a result, homelessness is at epidemic levels there. So is unemployment. Even the most highly educated people, have to beg for low-wage jobs there. Racism, and even gay-bashing, now plague the once warm and tolerant Bay area too. High tech geeks are the new gods of the Bay area, and everyone else there is regarded as useless. Bohemians of all stripes, are no longer welcome there. They can't afford to live there anymore, anyhow.
This film is very informative, about how Berkeley students fought valiant battles for social justice in the 60s. It's a real shame, that the Bay area has become a haven for the Capitalist pigs, that the Berkeley students railed against over 40 years ago.
a documentary that everyone should see
lee_eisenberg17 December 2023
In the 1960s, the University of California at Berkeley became the epicenter of the Free Speech Movement, which would eventually align with the Black Power Movement. Like San Francisco on the other side of the bay, it was a magnet for the hippie movement. Mark Kitchell's Academy Award-nominated documentary "Berkeley in the Sixties" looks at this. Interspersing footage of the era with interviews of the FSM's veterans, it reminds the viewer of the movement's significance. Watching the documentary, it's hard not to think about the more recent events that mirror the things against which the FSM protested; it's conceivable that they made the documentary in response to Reagan's policies. History doesn't always repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes.
Anyway, a fine piece of work. Bobby Seale later got interviewed for "The US vs. John Lennon", about Nixon's efforts to prevent Lennon from entering the country. Todd Gitlin died of COVID last year.
Anyway, a fine piece of work. Bobby Seale later got interviewed for "The US vs. John Lennon", about Nixon's efforts to prevent Lennon from entering the country. Todd Gitlin died of COVID last year.
Incredibly narrow-minded movie
Lino_Ventura30 March 2008
This movie is entirely devoted to praising the irresponsible, anarchical, criminal, over-privileged, fascist young idiots of the 1960's, which is perfectly acceptable and the right of every Americans.
There is one moment, however, where this movie reveals an incredible degree of narrow- mindedness and intellectual dishonesty. During one of the rare times they mention Ronald Reagan (who, once again, is revealed to be the best politician ever), they strongly implied that his actions were motivated by ulterior, selfish motives (he criticized the irresponsible, anarchical, criminal, over-privileged, fascist young idiots purely "to please the crow to be elected Governor", according to the narrator).
How come the idea that MAYBE, SOME of the irresponsible, anarchical, criminal, over-privileged, fascist young idiots MIGHT have been, at least PARTIALLY, motivated by ulterior, selfish, or hypocritical motives is NOT ONCE proposed ? How come the fascist authors of this movie are immediately prone to arrogantly decree that anyone who disagrees with them can not sincerely believe in what he or she says ?
There is one moment, however, where this movie reveals an incredible degree of narrow- mindedness and intellectual dishonesty. During one of the rare times they mention Ronald Reagan (who, once again, is revealed to be the best politician ever), they strongly implied that his actions were motivated by ulterior, selfish motives (he criticized the irresponsible, anarchical, criminal, over-privileged, fascist young idiots purely "to please the crow to be elected Governor", according to the narrator).
How come the idea that MAYBE, SOME of the irresponsible, anarchical, criminal, over-privileged, fascist young idiots MIGHT have been, at least PARTIALLY, motivated by ulterior, selfish, or hypocritical motives is NOT ONCE proposed ? How come the fascist authors of this movie are immediately prone to arrogantly decree that anyone who disagrees with them can not sincerely believe in what he or she says ?
Neat peek into the troubled 60's
boris-268 February 2004
The recent anti-Bush/war demonstrations sparks deja-vu in anybody over forty, anybody who can clearly remember the similar Vietnam era anti-war demonstrations three decades ago. Mark Kitchell's documentary, BERKELEY IN THE SIXTIES, vividly brings the 1960's sit-in's, marches and riots home. There's plenty of archival footage of student demonstrations on California's Berkeley campus, footage so clear, it seem they were lensed only an hour ago. We begin with Berkeley students protesting the HUAC witch-hunts, battling with fire-hose wielding police in 1960, years before marches and sit-ins became commonplace.
Where have all the activists gone?
Schlockmeister20 April 2001
Where have all the activists gone, long time passing? That's what I asked myself as I watched this great documentary. We now live in an age where signs and protests in the streets are just another story on the news. We have seen it so much we have become jaded by it all. This documentary takes us back to a time in America when revolution in the streets seemed entirely possible, and it scared the heck out of middle America, politicians and those who had a vested interest in the status quo. It interviews people who were there from the beginning in the very early 1960s through the early 1970s and the stopping of the Vietnam war. Is this film anti-establishment? You bet, it would have to be. We are, after all, showing the viewpoint of people involved in the counter-culture after all. No Rush Limbaugh here. What this movie left me with was a gratefulness that someone recorded these activists stories on film. These people were primarily writers, there still exists a LOT of writing from the time that goes into more detail on what was going on, but by recording these stories on film, it assures that future generations who will not seek out a book as readily as they will a TV remote will hear them. This movie also left me with a feeling of wondering where today's activists were. Where are the people willing to give up freedom and comfort to stand for what they believe in. Oh yeah, they are looking for their remotes...
Discussion of turbulent issues on the country's most turbulent campus
tjstrang5 January 2003
This film provides an interesting look at the major issues of the 60s on one of the most liberal campuses in the country. Similar to the War at Home (based on the anti- war protests in Madison), the film interviews leaders of the different political movements to get their perspective of what was happening at the time. Good variety of people, if not ideologies. Especially enjoyed the ending that was a "where are they now" update. Glad to see that a number of them didn't stick their beliefs in their back pocket and become part of the "Hippie Beemer" set after they finished college.
I was there-
canadiendeplace10 November 2004
'I was there as a student - this film is a '10' in explaining the era and what was going on in the Berkeley arena during this time frame. I teach at CAL now, and have used it as a 'primer' to show the way things should be. As a social (2xPh.D.) scientist (and as a Canadian) it seems Americans have lost the drive and initiative to make a change. In many ways the nameless people in this film are heroes, standing up for what they believe should be at any cost. Many who see this film have no idea what the students who were part of this movement went through, it was far from a 'walk in the park' - their sacrifices of family, friends and the indignities they suffered cannot be explained. These are your lost heroes America, learn from them and rise to the occasion again before it is too late.'
Long hair hippie dope fiends battle the pigs
helpless_dancer13 November 1999
Dramatic documentary highlighting the new awareness of the young, middle class white kids, blacks, and women. Lots of good footage showing of the happenings during the sixties, including excerpts from several speeches given by both radicals and politicos. A lot of this program I remembered from back then, but much of it was new to me. Very enjoyable look back.
Very boring, but also very revealing
jhv320 May 2004
I saw that a lot of people had positive comments about this film. I personally cannot believe anyone took the people on this film seriously unless one is pro-protest because that is the only thing that the people in this film do consistently. I had to watch this movie for class and am currently writing a paper on it. I am currently a student at Cornell University in Ithaca NY which is probably one of the most liberal places in the United States. In class we are often beaten over the heads with professor's liberal political beliefs, so naturally when I began watching this movie I expected more of the same. More of the same was exactly what I did not get. This documentary is surprisingly unbiased, portraying the student population in Berkeley for exactly what it was: A bunch of naive rich kids who had nothing better to do than protest. The people in the film protest for peace then they protest for the Black Panthers, they advocate peaceful protest, then they riot. The Black Panthers interviewed detail how they used the students to organize their rallies, and sold them General Mao's red book so that the could pay for guns. One of the last protests in the film shows when the hippies built a park on land that Berkeley owned, and then claimed ownership of it because they had improved it. When Berkeley bulldozed it they held a violent riot. The film makers, without any editorial comment, are able to show just how misguided these people were. While one might not be willing to sit through two hours of pretentious baby-boomers talking about how justified they were in their protest, it is occasionally funny to see just how stupid these college educated people can be. Watching people who protest for peace back up the black panthers, and then riot is probably one of the most ironic things I have ever seen. If you attend a liberal arts university like I do, you might have heard enough of this drivel, but if not, this film is most certainly for you.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
