Dear Editor,
Today marks 30 years since Walter Rodney was assassinated. Rodney’s life and work continue to be celebrated around the world. In any other democratic society there would be a huge monument honouring Rodney’s legacy, but in Guyana, he is yet to be formally recognized for making the ultimate sacrifice for freedom and democracy.
June 4-6 the DC Caribbean film festival was held at the American Film Institute (AFI) Theater in Silver Spring, Maryland, sponsored by The Trans Africa Forum, the World Bank and other Caribbean organizations. One of the films that was featured was the documentary W.A.R.: Walter Anthony Rodney. Among the many films showed that weekend W.A.R commanded the biggest audience – standing room only. It was indeed a wonderful sight to see such interest in Rodney, thirty years after his brilliant life was cut short. Particularly encouraging was the number of young people in the audience.
W.A.R, produced and directed by Clairmont Chung, a former QC student and attorney, is a documentary on the life, scholarship and activism of Walter Rodney. The fact that Clairmont undertook this project is commendable. Many books have been written examining Rodney’s life and works but until now no visual project of this magnitude has been attempted. From seeing the film one can readily appreciate the amount of research that went into the project. The interviews are wide ranging and include Rodney’s contemporaries in academia and comrades in his social and political activism. The documentary to its credit is able to depict very well the social and political milieu in which Rodney operated in Jamaica, Tanzania and Guyana. It captures the earnestness with which he sought to address the oppression of African peoples in and connect such exploitation to the European imperial exploitation. It brings into focus the obstacles Rodney faced when he confronted the political power position in the interest of social justice. It explores Rodney as a grassroots historian and activist who wanted to bring history to the people of the ghettos, his movement from the campus to the slums to meet the people and teach African history, particularly in Jamaica, which led to his banning. The film dealt also with Rodney’s political confrontation with the Burnham regime and the viciousness with which the regime harassed and murdered WPA activists. The audience came away with an appreciation of the importance of Rodney and the originality of his thought.
After the showing of the documentary a brief panel discussion was held. The showing of an independent film of this sort is best followed by a panel discussion, in an effort to answer some of the unanswered questions and clarify details the film failed to capture. This was our main concern when organizing the showing in DC. It was obvious that some in the audience had never heard of Rodney but left the theatre with a deep appreciation of the man.
Despite the laudable attempt by the first-time filmmaker, in my opinion the documentary lacked some continuity, with a few interviews having no relation to the subject matter. However, judging from the response of the audience it was enjoyed by all.
There is however a disclaimer on the film issued by the Rodney family and the WPA. I have not received all the information regarding the circumstances for this disclaimer, though I have read the disclaimer via the Dayclean newsletter. However, I believe it is not too late for the director and all concerned to resolve their differences pertaining to the content of the film. Rodney’s life is too important for disagreements to keep the film from reaching the masses. I understand that the film would not be shown during the commemoration activities in Guyana, which are sponsored by the WPA. I agree that no film can fully capture the entirety of Rodney’s life, but this film captures a specific perspective of Rodney’s life-long passions, thirst for knowledge and love of his country. Ultimately it is the director’s prerogative to project his vision through his final product. Often with so much footage and many interviews to be edited the task of deciding what to include in the final product could be tremendous, and as such it is understandable that some closest to Rodney would not be fully satisfied. In addition, one can find objection with some of the opinions of the interviewees, but from viewing the film I was unable to discern any negative view of Rodney that the film portrayed.
Yours faithfully,
Dennis Wiggins