All language subtitles for Vladimir et Rosa 1971 720p BluRay AAC1.0 x264-CALiGARi_track3_[eng]

This sequence introduces
in practice and in theory,

in practice and in theory,

what the film is going to be.

To explore the links
between the theory and the practice

we start with two images of Lenin,

in parenthesis, Vladimir.

One picture of him writing
and one of him talking.

To each of these pictures,
the word "theory" is added

and then the word "practice".

Theory, then practice.

Then there are two more images:

one of a camera
and one of a tape recorder.

We also hear a voice,
Karl Rosa's voice,

coordinating this group
or sequence of pictures,

in parenthesis, Lenin,

the words "theory" and "practice",

the camera, the Nagra,
end of parenthesis.

The voice tells us more or less
who it is and where it is located.

It is in a film, but which film?

And what was the previous film?

The previous film was on Palestine.

Thus the voice indicates
that it is part of a certain process,

a process which it perceives
and controls only imperfectly,

only imperfectly.

The voice first asks itself

why it is making this film
called "Vladimir and Rosa"

and answers that it is
through economic necessity,

to pay for the film on Palestine.

To pay for the film on Palestine.

But the voice also observes

that the economic necessity
of producing a film

does not prevent this necessity
from being part of a larger movement,

part of a larger movement,

a political movement,

a process which endeavours
to be revolutionary.

The voice says

it has a case
against the production process

and to see
how the case is going,

it is about to take part
in the making of a film

a film aimed at a political analysis

of charges currently being brought

by the bourgeois justice system
against radicals

arrested by the police
for so-called riots and conspiracy.

So-called riots and conspiracy.

The voice is committed

to a revolutionary movement
fighting conservatism.

The real title of the film should be,

"The Meaning of the Charges Brought."

"The Meaning of the Charges Brought."

Clearly, then, the film
will be both theoretical,

theoretical,

exploring the meaning
of the trials of radicals

in imperialist countries,

and practical,

exploring how the portrayal
of such a trial,

in other words its reflection
in the recorded images and sound,

can be achieved
as accurately as possible.

That is, how should the film
be made in practice?

How should the images be filmed
and the sound recorded

so that in theory,

when the film is screened,

it will be useful to people who see it?

It was decided to start from a real case,

the trial of the Chicago Eight,

in which US imperialism
prosecuted its own children.

I'm still for non-violence!

I'm still for non-violence!

I'm still for non-violence!

I'm still for non-violence!

I'm still for non-violence!

Next!

Next!

But you told me to go with them!

You told me to go with them!

The government representative
had a report of its own investigation.

The riot had been organised
by the police force.

But the government representative
also had another report

showing that two thirds
of American and French people

condone police violence,
according to a poll.

So they indicted eight cops
on the one hand

and eight radicals on the other.

The cops' trial was kept quiet.

The radicals' trial got all the publicity.

The defendants were carefully selected.

There was Yves, a revolutionary student
at Vincennes and then Berkeley.

Then there was Anne, who was active
in the Women's Liberation Front.

Then there was me, Friedrich Vladimir.

I'm a friend of Danny's, Danny the Red.

We were in the Moscow Circus together,

back in its heyday, of course.

No, that's me again, Karl Rosa.

Then there was David Dellinger,
a very liberal doctor.

There was Juliet, a real activist.

She was just back from the USA
She'd been with the Weathermen.

I think she'd been in Japan too,
with the Maoist students.

Then there was Jacky,
a "maladjusted" worker

from the northern suburbs of Paris.

And then there was Bobby,
a militant from the Black Panthers.

One, two,

three, four, five...

No, that's me again, Karl Rosa.

...six, seven, eight.

No, that's still me, Karl Rosa!

The papers called it
the "Conspiracy Eight".

Bobby's case is a bit different.

He had come to speak at a rally
before the demonstration.

He left straight afterwards.

But the government was hell-bent
on putting a "nigger" on trial.

That's why Bobby's here.

He's the only one of us
who's not out on bail.

He'd already been accused
of killing a cop.

The government just took him out of jail
3,000 km from here

and put him in jail here
3,000 km from where he'd been.

3,000 km from here!

Why and on what grounds
is imperialism trying these Eight?

We've just told you.

The government's own violence
forced it to arrest eight cops

and indict them,

in parenthesis,
in the name of eternal justice,

end of parenthesis.

And so, to restore the balance,

the government has decided
to indict a representative

of each type of radicalism,

in parenthesis, class justice,
end of parenthesis.

It's against the law to cross a state line
with intent to incite a riot.

The law dates from 3 June 1968.

Not just to incite to riot,
but to have the intent to do it,

or the intent to have the intent.

It doesn't matter if you do it or not.
That's what the law calls "conspiracy".

I told Rosa
that in order to tell this story,

since the government
had clouded the issue,

the best approach was
to get a bird's eye view

in the hope of juggling
all the balls at once.

It means leaving out a lot,

like the make of the gun

shoved in Bobby's ear
to get him to shut his mouth.

Like the make of the gun
shoved in Bobby's ear

to get him to shut his mouth.

But a bird's eye view
will at least amount

to talking about the rain
once the clouds have gathered.

Usually, in films it's the opposite.

It's a complicated story
but, as radicals, it's our job

to simplify it as a service to others.

Our Chinese comrades
call this "serving the people".

Has the prosecution any questions
to ask the jury?

No, Your Honour.

It looks like a fine,
upstanding jury to me.

Any questions, Mr Kunstler?

Quite a few, Your Honour.

Do you consider young men
who resist conscription

because they're against
the war in South-East Asia

to be antipatriotic cowards and traitors?

Have you ever moved out of an area

because of the arrival of people
from a different religion or ethnicity?

Have you ever hear of Archie Shepp,
Jimmy Page or Eric Clapton?

Do you admire Billy Graham
and Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber?

Those questions won't be asked.

The jury has now been chosen.

Obviously, anyone with long hair
and weird clothes

who can't talk politely and properly

despite being
in a polite and proper place

can join the defendants.

Will the witness define
a subversive organisation?

A subversive organisation

is any organisation
which creates problems...

Objection, Your Honour.
The answer is unclear and irrelevant.

Objection overruled.

It's a clear, relevant definition.

So if a football team can't find a field

and that raises problems for the city

then that football team
is a subversive organisation.

Objection, Your Honour.

Objection sustained.

We'd like to ask the witness

why his police force drew up
a so-called security plan.

I say "so-called,"
because we have just found out

it was drawn up two months
before the march was announced.

Objection, Your Honour.
That's a leading question.

Objection sustained.

My colleague for the prosecution is right:

in a political trial
all questions lead someplace.

Your Honour, I request
that you overrule the objection.

Objection sustained.

The witness will not answer
the question.

This is not a political trial.

As far as I'm concerned,
it's a criminal trial.

That's what the arch war criminal
Adolf Hitler said

to Georgi Dimitrov, a political activist.

Political, political...
I'm fed up with that word!

Just what do you mean by political?

I feel I'm in the process
of answering that question.

Let the record show
that the defendant said:

"I feel I'm in the process
of answering that question."

Personally I feel
that you are not answering it.

If Your Honour will hear my client out

and ask questions afterwards,

I think it will help him
to present his defence.

I'm sure Your Honour is anxious to see
that Yves Alfonso has a fair trial.

You know me, Mr Kunstler,
and therefore you know

that this trial will be conducted...

democratically.

All right.

But I'd like you to discuss

the rights guaranteed
by the constitution,

labour union rights,

and also that future society of yours.

I'm on trial here as an alleged specialist

in the art of instigating various acts

regarded by some as criminal.

"Regarded by some as criminal."
There's the crux.

The masses disagree
and they applaud these actions,

which foreshadow
their future liberation.

This difference of interpretation
by exploiters and the exploited

is inherent in the class struggle.

Remember the posters

that the Nazis put up in Europe in 1944.

They too wanted to pass
revolutionary activists off

as terrorists and criminals.

"The Threepenny Opera" by Brecht
depicts bourgeois morality

in underworld terms
and it's as valid today as ever,

for among us is a handful of hoodlums
who have all the power:

the police, the army, the television,
newspapers and the law.

These rich gangsters
openly despoil the masses

and commit wilful murder

so it's logical for them
to pass off rebels as criminals.

I'm accused of preaching violence,

but capitalism has made violence
a daily occurrence.

Capitalism means
the exploitation and humiliation

of the vast majority.

Am I in charge
of the National Guard and the CRS?

Do I use the third degree?

No.

Nor is it I who invented guerrilla actions.

I didn't invent rebellion or mass uprising.

The masses did that

when they ransacked
the Bank of America,

cut down the apples trees
of rich landowners

and stormed the Metro without paying.

You speak of democracy.

You forget that the ruling class
always has the system it needs

and the system makes
a farce of democracy.

Courts aren't for the masses.

Justice is too expensive for the people.

Lawyers cost a fortune.

And legal-aid lawyers
always try to strike deals:

a plea of guilty to a minor charge

in return for an acquittal on a major one.

The system of bail
keeps the poor in prison.

Appeals are costly.

The transcript required for an appeal
is too expensive for the poor.

What's more, no poor person,
no black person and no radical

can expect a fair trial from a jury.

Its members are picked
from the phonebook,

from the list of local property owners

and the electoral rolls,

from classes
which have a vested interest

in society remaining unchanged.

...contradictory.

So let's take...

something

which makes it possible...

to bring out the contradictions

and show how we're trying

to clear up the situation

that oppresses us.

What did we say?

What are we in?

We're in a situation

of constant repression

and we're going to show you

some victims of that repression

who are nonetheless
trying to break free.

- A trial, then?
- Yes, a legal proceeding.

That would be...

That's not bad, proceeding.

I know now
why we chose "proceeding".

It's because
we're involved in a process,

a revolutionary process

opposing a conservative system,

and in the movies
you have to dodge bullets too,

sugar-coated bullets

but dangerous bullets all the same,
deadly even.

But it explains

all our difficulties.

It's the reason
why we can't even talk.

It's the contradiction
between theory and practice.

Take Jacky's case, for example.

I'm drawn to him because...

...his actions may be individualistic...

...but they're also quite spontaneous.

At times, he breaks with the system,

telling them all to go to hell

or refusing to pay in the Metro

because he's sick of getting up at six

in order to be at work by eight.

It's purely spontaneous
but it's also individualistic.

He's the one who beats up the boss.

It's a revolt that extends beyond him.
He sets an example to others.

He meets other guys
who want to join in

but he's still fighting alone,
as best he can.

That's why he talks so little
in life and in the film.

Something's taking shape there,
but it's not clear yet.

For Dave Dellinger
the break is something else.

He's different.

He's a graduate
of Washington University.

He's 53 years old.

He's a pacifist
who first served time during WW2.

He was at Union Theological Seminary.

He was going to be drafted
as a chaplain.

He refused to go
as a conscientious objector.

He didn't want anything
to do with any army.

He got a year and a day in jail.

He got out, refused to go a second time,
and ended up back in jail.

Dellinger was like Gandhi
or Martin Luther King.

He's marched, he's staged sit-ins,

he's been arrested
at hundreds of demonstrations

and he's still at it.

You can't tell if he's scared or not
when you see him at a demonstration.

His face is as dead-pan
as a Canadian lumberjack,

except for that stubborn look he has

when he sits on the ground and
has to be dragged away by the cops,

or when he intervenes in person

whenever the situation gets explosive.

Not that it doesn't take courage
to step in front of a policeman's baton,

but as for writing petitions all the time
and making lists, what's the use?

It didn't help the Rosenbergs much.

And the Stockholm Appeal
didn't do much either.

So he ought to find another way
to make the break too.

What a waste!

And in sequence three,

when Yves answers...

Yes, but he responds.

- Yes, he responds in the gaps.
- The gaps in the judge's speech.

The speech he makes is really violent.

But do people in the audience realise

that this violent speech
has lost its impact?

- I say they don't
- It's just in the gaps.

I say they don't, Rosa,

because Yves was being directed
by Judge Himmler.

Don't you think so, Rosa?

Yes, it's true.

I think we ought to start over again

and show how these activists on trial

have been conditioned by everything,

by the whole of their previous lives...

We must show them
outside the courtroom.

Yes.

To broaden the picture.

It's not so easy to make the break

inside the judicial system.

And the main problem, after all,

is making the break.

But how can you show
the break in pictures?

I really don't know.

First, we have to become accustomed

to the images that oppress us

in order to learn how to destroy them

and later...

And later...

Take Juliet, she's a fighter.
She has courage.

She's come to blows
several times with the police.

And then she uses
a type of discourse

which is often right.

OK, but let's look at the practical side.

How does she live?

Here she's in a kind of collective.

This group of friends got together
and formed a collective.

But they haven't really tried

to think through the reasons for it
and the practical aspects of it.

And anyway,
how is this collective any different

from the way they lived before?

It's still pretty obscure.

There's an awfully big difference
between this shot

and the shot
that's meant to be political,

the one where she's got
her helmet and club.

They just don't seem to go together.

And then there's John Kunstler,
the lawyer.

Sure, he's a nice guy,

but he's got a fancy apartment
and a Daimler

and he rehearses his speeches

like a ham actor.

Sure, he defends revolutionaries.

He quotes the Bill of Rights
passed in 1789.

But he doesn't realise
that this is a bourgeois travesty,

a travesty of justice.

He waves his arms about
like Castro at Moncada,

but Castro was in
a concrete situation,

and so was Dimitrov.

As for the Algerian NLF prisoners,

they played the French game

since they were prisoners of war,

an undeclared war,

but they were real revolutionaries.

John talks and waves his arms about.

He's full of altruism.

But he, too, must realise
that he must change his life.

It's fine to want to change
other people's lives,

but you've got to start
by changing your own.

What was that about the radicals?

The radicals need to say

they've been jailed
by the bourgeois justice system

for their radicalism.

They must also turn their trial

into an act of resistance.

It's a continuation
of what's happening in universities

and companies

and factories

against the cops,

and it's not so simple...

Our position in this trial

may at first sight appear

ridiculous and grotesque.

A puppet show, yes.

Yes, but in Chicago
they woke America up,

Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin.

Yes, because next

we're going to try to explain...

It is the turn of the defence.

What is your name?

That's hard to say.

There are so many informers
and agitators in this court,

paid by the government
to infiltrate us,

that I can't believe
what I say any more.

I end up wondering
if I'm not one of them.

That's right, he's a Finkerton man!

- Silence!
- That's right.

I may just be a finking machine now.

Miss Country Joe MacDonald,

sing us the song you sang
at the meeting on Wednesday the 12th.

Objection, Your Honour.
He's trying to influence the jury.

The witness will speak the lyrics
or hum the tune

but not both together.

The hours spent asleep

in your dormitory suburb.

Or half-suffocating on your commute.

Same rat-race, morning and evening,
come rain or shine.

Yesterday, today, tomorrow
the alarm goes off at five.

Catch the 5:52 train.
Clock in or out.

The starting gates open
and the next ten-hour shift begins.

Thousands of robots rush
into a nightmarish factory.

Reeking from tons of steel
and sticky with grease.

Meanwhile the rich are still dreaming
their privileged dreams.

Beyond those hellish hours,
is any life left?

The local swimming pool
on a Sunday morning.

Nights out organised by your boss
in seedy clubs for suckers.

But the people are rebelling.

It's only just begun.

No one understands the meaning
of the word justice better than you.

Comrade, what you paid for
in sweat is yours.

Comrade, what you paid for
in blood is yours.

Quake with fear, privileged scum.

Your dream is over.

Our feast will begin
with your nightmare.

Can you explain to me, Mr Rosa,

the reason for this strike

when the workers have just enjoyed
a pay rise of 25 centimes an hour?

How can you "enjoy"
a pay rise of 25 centimes?

I mean they have more money
and hence greater enjoyment.

So if the government gives you
25 centimes an hour

you get a hard-on?

Absolutely.

Contempt of court.

Extreme contempt of court.

Silence!

- Silence!
- Objection, Your Honour.

The defendant is evading the issue.

Objection sustained.

The defendant must
answer questions directly.

I direct the dialogue in a way
that makes its impact clear.

In other words,

delivering the lines
may satisfy or anger the speaker

and we, too, may be angered
or satisfied with the words spoken.

This makes it harder to watch films.

Often the message isn't clear
until the second viewing.

Silence!

- Who are you?
- I'm a dirty nigger by choice.

- What's your name?
- Up-the-arse.

My mother fucked
the Unknown Soldier.

- Where do you live?
- Dope City.

- What state is that in?
- A state of mind.

I belong to a nation
where the young feel alienated.

We carry that nation in our minds
like the Sioux carried theirs.

Silence!

That's enough.
We won't stand for any references

to the philosophy of the Indians.

Silence!

Silence!

Is it true that you told United Press

that your organisation
threatened to put LSD

in the reservoir?

Is it true that you told a reporter
from Japanese television

that you were going to perform
the just act of liberating the lions

in order to necessitate the deployment
of the forces of order to the zoo

when they were needed elsewhere?

Objection, Your Honour. Objection.

The defendant keeps
repeating my questions.

Objection, your Honour.

The prosecutor is using
my answers as questions.

The defendant must not echo
the prosecutor.

Anyway, I say my lines

before the audience hears them.

What it hears will be in the past.

Each word coming out of my mouth
follows a set path

and falls into the listener's ear.

I wait and listen to it fall.

I know our experiences
are not the same

and take place at different times.

Silence!

America.

Sieg Heil.

France.

Sieg Heil.

Soviet Union.

Sieg Heil.

Israel.

Sieg Heil.

And now we'll give you

a formal demonstration

of the use of a baton.

Eins, zwei, drei.

Objection. The images in this film...

Your Honour, the best way
to show the court

the state of mind of my clients,
Karl Vladimir and Friedrich Rosa,

is by the images in this film.

Conclusions based on experience

do not generally connect up
in the same way

as the facts behind the experience.

Simply putting conclusions together

does not give a true picture
of the facts on which they rest.

When the conclusions are all linked

and there are too many of them

it is often very difficult

to refer back to the facts.

It's the whole world
that produces the image

but the image...

but the image does not encompass
the whole world.

It is more important to link conclusions

to experience
than to other conclusions...

than to other conclusions,

when these conclusions

are aimed at controlling things.

Lenin was against the idea

of constructing images,

images of the world
that were too complete.

The state of mind is
what the law means by "intent".

The defendants are accused
not of conspiracy against state security

but of the intent to conspire,
or rather the intent to have the intent.

Article 23 of paragraph 5 of the decree
voted in by the senate on 3 June 1968.

Very interesting, Mr Chrysler.

Kunstler!

Very interesting, Mr Tobler.

Objection overruled.

Mr Rosa and Mr Vladimir's film
will not be screened.

Mr Vladimir, can you explain to me

the meaning of the word "racist"

which Mr Bobby X keeps
throwing at me?

I'll explain to you with an image.

Imagine a worker who is so poor

he has to eat shit.

Now ask him this:

given that he has to eat shit

would he rather eat shit
from a white man's arse

or a black man's arse?

If he prefers white man's shit,

then that worker is a damned racist.

Dialectical materialism
is a scandal and an abomination

for class leaders and their ideologies.

Along with a clear conception
of things as they are,

it retains the knowledge
of their inevitable negation,

their necessary destruction.

Given the nature
of the term movement,

in which all forms are
a transitory configuration,

nothing can oppose it

because it is essentially
critical and revolutionary.

This sequence, like all those
which take place outside the court,

which is every second sequence,

is narrated by Vladimir and Rosa

who point out the general theme.

Here the theme is sexuality
and the break.

Anne says it is almost impossible
as things stand

to show in a convincing way

that is neither fascist or anarchist

a shot of Yves and herself...

a shot of Yves and herself

really breaking
with bourgeois sexual ideology.

Even showing an image of herself
is difficult,

even though she's fighting
for women's liberation

and tying her struggle in
with that of the Viet Cong

and the workers.

- Anne?
- Yes?

We're going to show Anne
illustrating the theory to Yves

that a woman's text, in this case
a text written by a South African woman,

becomes a completely different text
when read by a man.

ABORTION
FREE, LEGAL, NO CHARGE

FOR THE RICH THE CLINIC

FOR THE POOR
THE KNITTING NEEDLE

ABORTION IS A CLASS ISSUE

CRÈCHES FOR THE PEOPLE!

"Today, women from every walk of life
know they are oppressed

"and we want to join forces
to take our liberation in hand.

"We must revolt at home,
at work and in the streets

"against the capitalist system
that oppresses us

"and the ideologies that enslave us.

"Dare to fight. Unite.
Women's liberation, year zero."

Not bad.

We discussed this with Juliet.

She doesn't think
it's relevant to the trial.

When she ends up in a women's prison
she'll see how relevant it is.

Prison is a different matter.

Agitation is necessary, of course,

but if the women jurors
heard anything like this,

they just wouldn't get it.

It would be a start, wouldn't it?

Yes, but maybe a false start.

We should talk to the others first.

Don't you think so?

The others are like you.

They say they understand,
but they don't.

"We women are fighting
for a time when we cease

"to get less pay than a man
for the same work,

"to be financially dependent
on our men,

"to do unpaid
yet socially essential housework."

I understand perfectly.

"Our bodies are exploited

"because we are not allowed
to choose whether to have a child

"because of the ban on abortion

"and the moral pressures
on our sex life.

"We must bow to feminine norms
imposed by advertising

"to earn recognition."

That should be clear to anyone.

Once we're all sent down for two years

none of us will be fucking any more,
that's for sure.

When we're both locked up for two years
there won't be any more fucking.

Of course, but I don't see
how is that so hard to understand?

All right, Yves,
but when it comes to fucking

us girls will talk about it differently

than you will with your cellmates.

Even Juliet will see that women's minds
are shaped by their situation in society.

Even Juliet will see that women's minds
are shaped by their situation in society.

Of course. We're men.

And you're girls.

Damn it, Yves!

OK, I guess I don't get it.

Damn it.

OK, I don't get it. I'll listen.

I'll just listen.

OK, I don't get it so I'll listen.

What you don't get
is that you don't get it.

What is this?

That was written
by a black woman, an African.

It was published on 2 July 1970
in the Black Panther newspaper.

"Triple Oppression.

"The Women's Liberation Front
declares our fight against oppression

"to be linked to that
of the working classes in all aspects.

"Both anti-slavery
and women's rights movements

"are still considered a threat
to the establishment

"for the same reasons.

"Black people and women
can both be paid less.

"Until both are organised
on an equal basis

"and are no longer
discriminated against

"they'll be the vulnerable group
of the working classes.

"Of course, black people
are exploited more.

"They suffer at every class level.

"Most black women are triply exploited:

"as black people, as women
and as workers."

"Women remain in the category
of the most underpaid,

"except, perhaps, in the private sector
and in specialist work.

"In periods of unemployment

"they often have no hope of finding work

"except as servants.

"In South Africa a black woman
can work as a maid, a farm hand

"or in a factory where she is
the cheapest labour available.

"Most working women,
whether in South Africa or in England,

"are non-specialised workers or maids.

"Female workers are doubly exploited:

"by their husbands and by capitalism.

"A male worker, despite
being exploited by the system,

"collaborates with it
in his relations with his wife.

"Whether they get along or not,
he still exploits her."

"With the rise in private property,

"women became
an object of exploitation.

"Whether slaves, serfs or wage earners,

"women have always been
vassals par excellence."

Give it here.

"Middle-class women
are also exploited.

"Middle-class women
in the private sector are also exploited.

"For they are so hell-bent on proving

"how efficient they can be
in a job controlled by men

"that they work
much harder for less pay

"and they do it
just to keep their jobs

"because the competition is stiff.

"They are told that aggressiveness
and force of character in the workplace

"are not attractive in a woman.

"That's why they can't get rid
of old prejudices

"such as: a woman's place
is in the home.

"To not attract a man,
no matter who the man is,

"is felt to be a lost
business opportunity."

Hang on.

"When women show aggressiveness
in a professional context

"it is always regarded
as a loss of femininity.

"For example, radical feminists
are often told by male radicals

"that they want to castrate them
and make them impotent.

"We have to listen to nonsense like..."

- Give it to me
- Let me finish.

"...nonsense like,

"'When she tells men off,
she's getting back at her father."'

Give it to me.

"Messages of solidarity came
from women in North Vietnam

"and from the FLN,

"students at Oxford
occupying the Clarendon Building..."

Make an effort.
Don't read like that.

Unbelievable!
I listened to you!

"...Clarendon Building

"and female workers on strike
in textile factories in Leeds,

"but most tangible of all

"were the women's meetings
held all over England

"and the lists of organisations
exchanged for the first time.

"In Vietnam women fight alongside men
to free their country

"in a socialist revolution.

"In the US, they occupied the offices
of Vogue and Newsweek,

"furious at the patronising attitude
of the men in the movement

"who put them up front
at demonstrations, just to be nice."

Just to be nice!

Darling, we want to work together.
For that we've got to think together.

Try for once to think with my voice.

We'll see how unlike we are,

even if our views are alike.

Look straight ahead.

The Women's Liberation Front

calls for the fight

to be not only about getting
our immediate demands met

but also about fighting
shoulder to shoulder

with the workers,

shoulder to shoulder

with the workers

to put an end
to this system of exploitation

of men and women by men.

To put an end
to this system of exploitation

of men and women by men.

PATRIARCHAL ORDER

CLASS STRUGGLE

This sequence is composed of two shots
separated by a black screen.

The first shot is a close-up of Bobby.

Our commentary explained
in sequence four

that you can't just eliminate
the narration.

Rosa explains that the decision
to show not a black picture

but a picture of a black

was prompted by the fact
that for a Black Panther

the break has a different meaning.

The Black Panthers,
because of racist oppression

and the struggle
to which they are committed,

have already made a concrete break

with bourgeois imperialist society.

And having broken with society,

their way of maintaining the break
when society puts them on trial

is to demand the strict application

of the rules of the game
of bourgeois justice.

By this simple demand

black radicals deepen
the system's contradictions,

exposing its so-called democracy

and good old liberal objectivity.

Witness the method of defence
used by Bobby Seale in Chicago.

He asked to be defended
by a separate lawyer

but the judge said no.

Then he asked to represent himself
since he was denied his own lawyer

and the judge said no to this too.

I have no more questions, Your Honour.

I'd like to cross-examine the witness.

Your lawyer has just done that.

Bobby X is not my client
and never was.

My lawyer's not here
so I'll defend myself.

Again it's apparent to this court
that defendant Bobby X's actions

constitute a deliberate attempt
to obstruct the federal justice system.

That's a lie!

I want to defend myself.
It is my constitutional right to do so.

Let the record show
that the defendant refuses to behave,

despite admonishments by the court.

Let the record show
that Bobby X is upholding his rights.

I am bound by law to declare

that if the defendant fails
to heed the warnings of the court

he will be found guilty
of contempt of court.

As a human being I have the right

to exercise my constitutional right
to defend myself.

I hope that's clear.
It's all I've got to say.

I'll go on saying
what's necessary for my defence.

I still want to cross-examine
the witness.

Let the record show
that Bobby X raised his voice

and pounded the table with his fists.

That will be useful for the future.

But Bobby wasn't shouting
or pounding his fists that day.

Later, when he did
cross-examine a witness

and the judge stopped him,

he coolly quoted section 1892,
paragraph 42 of the US penal code.

Ironically, that was not the section
he meant to quote.

While the judge was obviously furious

X remained very calm throughout.

I still argue that the court has no right

to deny me my right to defend myself
in the absence of my lawyer.

Mr Kunstler here present
is your lawyer.

Bobby X is not my client, Your Honour.

Mr Kunstler has never been my lawyer.
I will defend myself.

Silence!

Mr X, are you going
to stop obstructing justice

or must I ask the marshals to...

I want to discuss my right
to defend myself.

Court is adjourned.

Marshal, take that defendant out of court

and give him the treatment he deserves.

It's the final struggle.

The prosecution
may examine the witness.

Did the girl have a symbol
of black power on her shirt?

It's not a symbol of black power.

It's the symbol
of power to the people.

You just made
another racist statement.

Objection, Your Honour.
He keeps calling me a racist.

Objection sustained.

Imperialism is a whore.

Being black here is like
playing Russian Roulette

with six bullets in the gun.

No matter what,
you get fucked over.

Silence!

X was the exception.

Sticking to his claim...

Sticking to his claim

that he was being denied his right
to legal assistance,

he'd wait until Kunstler
had cross-examined a witness

and then he'd stand up
and ask his questions.

The judge would tell him to sit down.

His outbursts would be recorded again
in the transcript of the trial.

At times they'd force him to sit.
At times he wanted it noted down.

He never interrupted the trial
at any other time.

At times Kunstler would interrupt

to remind the judge
that he was not X's lawyer.

Sometimes, as on the morning
of Bobby's birthday,

it was the prosecutor
who started it all.

Since Bobby was in jail
between sessions,

because of that murder trial,

the other defendants
only saw him in court.

So Kunstler asked
the judge's permission

for the other defendants
to bring X a birthday cake in court.

Judge Himmler said he wouldn't let
anyone bring anyone a birthday cake.

The other seven defendants
were waiting just outside the door.

Vladimir carried the cake

as they filed in.

You can imprison a cake,
but not a revolution.

Silence!

OK, brothers, cool it for now.

I give the orders here.

They won't obey a racist judge.

Marshal, give him
the treatment he deserves.

Now for a black screen
while Vladimir and Rosa explain

that Bobby's "legalistic" defence

is a consequence
of his having broken with society.

His co-defendants must adopt,
each in his or her own way,

an "anti-legalistic" defence

in order to join Bobby in his rebellion.

So we decided to show you
an image of a pacifist

breaking with his non-violent ideology

and actually struggling,
instead of maintaining his dignity

whilst getting beaten up by the cops

after he calmly insulted the judge,

protesting against the treatment
Bobby was being given.

This sequence will last
a good ten seconds.

Flouting an enemy flag

is the craziest thing I've ever seen
anybody do in a courtroom.

Marshal, destroy that flag.

Today, on Independence Day,
I request a minute of silence

for those killed in action
in South-East Asia.

I forbid you to speak.

It will be recorded that this man called...

David Dellinger.

I forbid you to finish my sentences.

The prosecution may continue
cross-examining the witness.

Simply tell the court what you saw.

After the order to disperse was given

I saw this man and a group of others
run off, shouting...

- Bullshit.
- "Everybody to the Hilton!"

In all my career I have never heard
such obscenity in court.

You've never been on trial here

and had to listen to liars,
paid by the government, talking crap.

How dare you, Mr Kunstler!
How dare you, Mr Kunstler!

Take the defendant out and give him
the treatment he deserves.

Every evening after the trial

we gave a press conference

since we were all out on bail,

except for Bobby

on account of his murder charge

in Connecticut.

The problem we faced

during each press conference

was this:

while John was telling the reporters

about our daily struggle

against imperialist justice,

Vladimir and Rosa forced...

forced the imperialist television cameras

to shoot Bobby's absence

instead of our presence.

In others words,

they forced the cameras,

the enemy,

to shoot politically

a political fact

that was more important

than the faces of us radicals.

If we fight

all day long

with the police

we must also fight

the police state's press.

It's logical.

Open the sequence.

Before Your Honour entered the court

Bobby X stood up and spoke
to the black people in this room.

You're right.

And Bobby X said to them:

I spoke up for my constitutional rights.

I have a right to defend myself.

And he told the people in court
that he wanted it on the record...

- Objection, Your Honour.
- Objection overruled.

...so they'd know
how to deal with an attack.

He was talking about an attack
carried by them...

Liar.

You filthy liar!

An attack on them, not by them.

An attack by the pigs.

I said fight back.

You're a rotten racist pig.

A fascist liar!

You're a bullshit liar,

a lying fascist pig.

I said they had the right to fight back
if they were attacked.

You're lying.

You're lying. You filthy liar!

An attack on them.

Not by them, on them!

An attack by the pigs!

I told them to defend themselves.

Racist!

You're just a fascist liar.

A liar, a dirty lying fascist pig.

We have a right
to defend ourselves.

If we come under attack
we have a right to fight back.

And I hope that went on the record
and exposes Nixon's prosecutor

for the liar he is.

We have a right to fight back.

If you attack me, I'll fight back.

That is what he said earlier.
He said the exact same thing.

How so?

In terms of a physical attack.

No, an attack
by those damned Marshals, I said!

People have a right to defend
themselves if they're attacked,

SMALL FIGHTS MAKE...
BIG REVOLTS

- Can't I walk if I like?
- Sure.

My moped's broken down.

I've got a crappy moped
and that car's not bad.

- Where did you get it?
- The street behind my house.

Has stealing a car changed you?

Sure, now I can go farther
and come back faster.

I worked in that factory.
For three years.

When I play my music

I feel I'm still working there.

Because it's the only music
made for the people in there.

It's because I worked in there
that I play that music.

I thought they only liked Mireille Mathieu.

They don't give
a damn about pop music.

Yes, right now they don't.

Because these people
every day at the same hour

listen to the radio
and get brainwashed.

Throughout the day all they hear

is the latest bourgeois crap,

the latest bourgeois tunes.

That music doesn't reflect their struggle.

It's dream music
that makes them forget.

It makes them forget that they sit
at their machines all day long,

like jerks.

It talks to them about Ford Mustangs,

about nice neighbourhoods

and heartbreak.

My music isn't about that.

Mine talks about the daily grind
at the factory,

about taking the Metro without paying,
about the cops slugging them,

the way they slug me.

The cops slug me
because I play that music.

And the cops know that.

The contradictions
of rotting capitalism

hit young people
in four areas in particular:

education, work,
conscription and the army,

cops and justice.

First, in prison-like schools

the young are fed
racist, chauvinist,

anti-communist
and anti-working class lies.

The sound I'd like to make
with my guitar is...

one shrill shout,
one big, shrill shout.

A shout, or rather a scream.

It's more than a shout.
"Shout" is too feeble.

It's a scream for all these people
locked up here,

doing slave labour all day long,
because they're people...

What's stopping you
playing that scream?

You've got the technology
with all those electronic instruments.

Why don't you do it?

Because right now
nobody wants to hear that scream.

Or rather, tons of people
want to hear that scream

but no one wants them to hear it

for fear that they all start
screaming in unison.

Secondly, unemployment
among the young

is three times the national average.

With more and more jobs
threatened by automation

and the specialised industries
in decline,

the unions act to ensure employment
for those who already have jobs.

Newcomers to the labour market
can't find work

so unemployment is on the rise.

Stepped-up rates of production

and lowered safety standards
have a similar effect.

That scream from my guitar,

I want the people to hear it
first thing in the morning.

I want it to burn their ears
and be with them all day.

Why? So they'll have to wake up.

You can't sleep
with a scream in your ears.

I want them to hear a scream
in their ears all day long every day.

- Why?
- So they'll start the revolution.

On Sunday night he screamed:
"The street belongs to the people."

And he added,

- "Let's throw the pigs out!"
- How did the crowd react?

- They cheered.
- Was vulgar language used?

Objection, Your Honour.

The defendant's speech habits
are immaterial.

It's beside the point.

My client, Mr Jacky Martin,
is not on trial for bad language.

Objection overruled.

It is the point.

I'm beginning to get it.

- What did you say?
- I said, I get it.

The prosecution has the floor, not you.

OK, I'll shut my gob.

I would like to cite
a fact from the past

that may shed some light
on Jacky Martin's morals.

This man is already known
to the police.

At the age of 17 he had intercourse
with his sister, aged 15,

and was sentenced
to seven months in prison.

The legal-aid lawyer told him
to plead guilty to avoid a worse charge.

We only had one blanket between us,
that was why.

And the judge told me
I should kill myself.

He said beasts
have to be destroyed.

If the defendant continues
to ignore the court's directives

he will be found guilty
of contempt of court.

OK, I'll shut up. I get it.

OK, I'll shut up. I get it.

Will you be quiet?
Do you understand French?

Well? Do you understand French?

Will you be quiet?

Will you, yes or no?

Yes or no?

Yes, you motherfucking
fascist capitalist bastard!

For this black passage

Vladimir and Rosa decided
it would be a good chance

to pan from Jacky to Bobby
and back again

It would show the objective links
between the wild revolt of young workers

and the revolutionary movement
of black people.

We will later prove
by re-cross-examining this man

that he incited the crowd
to return to the park and fight the police.

- What a farce!
- Who said that?

- I want to know.
- David Dellinger.

I did. I'm overcome
by the prosecutor's dishonesty.

- Objection, Your Honour.
- Objection sustained.

- Himmler, I want to say something.
- "Judge Himmler" to you!

I forbid you to make a mockery
of this country's laws.

Stop, sir, stop!
I'll talk about violence.

Stop, sir, stop!
I'll talk about violence.

Stop, sir, stop!
I'll talk about violence.

The girls get him out of the car,
throw him onto an embankment,

strip him, and jump on top of him,
one after the other.

They leave him unconscious
from kicks in the stomach.

It took Angelo two days to recover.
He pointed out...

Women's Liberation Front, Year Zero!

Stop, sir, stop!
I'll talk about violence.

Stop, sir, stop!
I'll talk about violence.

Stop, sir, stop!
I'll talk about violence.

We in the movement feel
that there are only two choices.

Either we become soldiers
in the revolutionary war

or we sink into our bourgeois holes

and become anti-communist pigs.

Young people have
the greatest revolutionary potential

because their privileges
have not been institutionalised

and they are the most alienated sector
of the western white working classes.

Words alone will not transform
lefties into revolutionaries.

Only actions plus words can do it.

And this alone is not enough

since a young white person can always
crawl back into their bourgeois hole.

Always, unless they become
totally immersed in the revolution,

not only in terms of their ideas,
but also in their way of life.

Hello?

Is this El Al airlines?

Good afternoon.

In your opinion

what goes tick-tock,

weighs two kilos

and is flying at this very moment

from Tel Aviv to Washington?

Right now the armed struggle
is becoming more and more generalised,

not just with acts of sabotage
but with overt attacks

on all the forces of imperialism,
whatever and wherever they may be.

Fine, we're all lumpen, it's true,

from the lumpenproletariat

which has no vested interest
in means of production

and capitalist institutions.

There is no security in their links
with these means of production

and these institutions.

The lumpenproletariat forms
a reserve labour corps

which remains in reserve.

They have never worked,
and they never will.

They have no qualifications
and no aptitudes.

They have been replaced by machines,
automation and cybernetics.

Management refuses to invest in them
by training them in the new technology.

They live on welfare benefits
and social security.

Is agitation difficult? No.

Just print clear tracts
which are right on target,

posters you can stick anywhere.

But when it comes to distributing them,
you need the wiles of war.

Turn up at workshops.

Wait for the boss to turn his back.

If he never turns his back,

back him up against the wall
so you can agitate freely.

It's not hard, it just takes
a little daring and solidarity.

In an automated economy

you cannot ascribe
the high level of production

to the working classes alone.

Machines and computers are not
members of the working classes,

even if working-class spokespeople,
especially Marxist-Leninists,

seem to act
like machines or computers.

What's the use of discussing at length
a workshop's aims and objectives?

Do not focus on the future.

Only discussion
based on practice is useful,

or uniting around ways
of standing up to the bosses.

That's how you start to organise.
It's easy.

The lumpenproletariat must create
their own rebel forces

in accordance
with their living conditions

and their own links

with modes of production
and social institutions.

They must attack all the structures
surrounding them,

including the right wing
of their own class

when it tries to bar
the road to revolution.

Mr Kunstler, you may
cross-examine the witness.

This witness' testimony
concerns only Bobby X

and I am not his lawyer.

I'd like to cross-examine the witness.

You can't. That's been settled. Sit down.

Why did you follow me?

- Have you ever tried...
- Sit down, nigger!

...to infiltrate the Black Panthers?

Have you ever killed a Black Panther?

This court adjudges Bobby X guilty

of contempt of court

in sequences 7, 9 and 13

and sentences him immediately

to 15 months in prison
for each instance

with each sentence
to run consecutively.

Moreover, Bobby X's trial

for conspiracy against state security,

against state security,

will be heard separately
from that of his co-defendants.

Objection, Your Honour.

It was an insult
to defence and counsel

to read that sentence so theatrically.

I speak with the voice God gave me.

Palestinians hijack planes
that were not given to them by God.

What does this black section represent?

We just had a shot of John Kunstler
refusing to represent Bobby

and then one of the judge
banishing Bobby

for alleged contempt of court.

This black section represents
the disappearance of Bobby,

the black radical.

So for once this black screen
really means something.

It represents Bobby's absence.

For us, Vladimir and Rosa,
it's a great victory in filmmaking.

We've been trotting out
these black frames...

We've been trotting out
these black frames for ages...

May 1968 was a bit like
a gun without bullets

or a bladeless knife
without a handle.

At first, these black frames
were shots we couldn't shoot.

We were told
that the images belonged to CBS

or that the images
belonged to Gaumont

and we couldn't afford them

so we'd leave the screen black instead.

Then we realised
that those black frames

were shots we didn't know
how to shoot,

shots of bourgeois ideology
and imperialism

and they weren't even black.

They were coloured
like in any James Bond movie

or in westerns.

So we started
looking for black images,

in other words, images
of the production process,

images that defined that process.

The main difficulty
was going from black

to showing other colours
that didn't feature

in bourgeois and imperialist films.

And so now,

after shots of Yves or of the jury,

of Vladimir and Rosa or Juliet,

this black shot indicating
that Bobby is gone

at last has meaning,
so it's a victory.

A real victory,
not like Proust's pyrrhic victory

but more, "Until victory, always,"

with the Palestinians
and all the rebels in the world.

Your Honour, this has been rigged
by the government.

I won't tolerate insults
to the government in this court.

Be careful, Mr Kunstler.

Let a committee of two
look into the matter,

one chosen by the government,
the other by the defence.

I'm in charge here

and I'm quite capable
of making my own enquiries.

Miss Russel.

What's in this letter?

"Look out, we're watching you,"
signed by the Black Panthers.

Have you ever seen this letter before?

No, never.

Now that you have seen it,
tell me, child,

- can you still keep an open mind?
- No, sir, I cannot.

Objection, Your Honour.

The juror had never seen
the letter before.

It was Your Honour
who showed it to her

and led her to say
that she is no longer impartial.

Objection overruled.

As usual, Your Dishonour.

What? What was that?

What? What?

What?

I said, the defence's objection
is being overruled as usual,

Your Dishonour.

This is becoming intolerable,
Mr Kunstler,

is it not?

I suggest the jury be tested

to see if they have been affected
by recent events

or by the court's crazy antics.

- This is the last time.
- Objection, Your Honour.

The rudeness of the defence
is unprecedented.

My methods are identical
to those of the prosecution.

You leftist poof of a lawyer!

- Silence in court!
- You commie!

Silence!

The defence's request is rejected

because it was not properly stated.

May I repeat it more properly,
Your Honour?

No, a thousand times no!

Don't try to outsmart me, Mr Kunstler.

Let's get back to it.

What is a riot?

According to the law of 1 May 1968

it's a public disorder
involving acts of violence

perpetrated by three or more persons.

Any one of the three can commit the act,
so long as they are all together.

Say there are three people lying in bed

and another comes and drops
an ashtray out of a window.

Legally, it's a riot.

There's also a definition
of violence here.

It can be aimed at property,
not just a person.

Three kids slashing a tyre, that's a riot.

To put it another way,
police officers have testified

that when Yves Alfonso
was taken to the car

the tyres were already slashed

and cross-examination
has shown who did it.

So we can reverse the accusation

and find the city police guilty of rioting
and not Yves Alfonso.

There are more than three of us
in this room

so this session is a riot too,

and as you yourself said,
you're in charge of it, Your Honour.

Do you wish to call
any more witnesses, Mr Kunstler?

- Yes, Your Honour.
- Then be quick about it.

Let's not waste time.
The holidays are approaching.

Your Honour deserves a holiday.

My last witness
is Judge Ernest Adolf Himmler,

Senior Presiding Judge
of the Chicago Courthouse,

appointed by the government

to stage the trial
of the so-called Conspiracy...

Eight, now...

eight minus one.

Why did the witness in sequence three

declare something to be clear
when it was not clear?

Objection, Your Honour.

Sustained.

Now, Your Honour,
should I answer that question?

No, honourable witness,
you need not answer the question.

In sequence seven a motion
by the defence was rejected

because counsel had not given
the required four hours' notice.

Two minutes later a motion
for the prosecution was agreed.

Why? Why?

Objection, Your Honour.

Objection sustained.

Must I answer the question?

No, honourable witness,
you needn't respond to the question.

I have been here
for four and a half months,

watching Your Dishonour
accept or refuse objections

like an old monkey with peanuts.

I now know that this is a fascist trial.

FRIEDRICH ENGELS
THE ROLE OF FORCE IN HISTORY

I say this from the bottom of my heart,

even if it means
I am to be disbarred and jailed,

for I know of no better reason
to be disbarred and jailed.

Right.

Right.

The country's future
and the solution to its problems

must no longer depend on the interests
of a handful of billionaires

or their coldly calculated profits.

THE BOSS CAN PAY!

Right.

Right.

There is no justice in this courtroom.
This trial is meaningless.

Jailing these people
is a legal lynching.

The Declaration of Human Rights says

that if a government violates
people's rights

insurrection is a sacred right,

indeed it is an obligation.

When an individual
seizes absolute power

they must be put to death by free men.

We are free since we nothing to lose
but the chains you have laden us with.

As free men, we sentence you to death.

The court instructs the jury
when deliberating its verdict

not to be influenced
by any personal hostility

it may feel towards
the defendants' long hair,

their weird clothes,

their wild manners,

their political convictions
or their inflamed speeches.

May God assist you.

Hitler may have been right:

in our society
wild beasts should be destroyed.

Comrades and friends
in the audience,

in a few minutes
the verdict will be given.

We know in advance
what it will be

since one of our jobs as radicals

is to analyse in the present

what happened in the past

so as to know
what will happen in the future

and thus to know how to act
tomorrow and the day after.

Our comrade Bobby X

is going to read out the sentences

and then draw his own conclusions
from the trial.

On the charge of conspiracy,
the Chicago Eight: not guilty.

On the charge of violating
paragraph 8 of decree number 14

of the law dated 1 1 June 1969,

a paragraph also known
as the Patrice Lumumba amendment

which bans crossing a state line
with the intent

or the intent to have the intent,
to incite a riot,

Anne Wiazemsky
and Jacky Martin: not guilty.

Friedrich Vladimir, Karl Rosa,
David Dellinger,

Juliet Berto, Yves Afonso
and myself, Bobby X:

guilty.

The maximum sentence
for the Patrice Lumumba amendment

is five years and $10,000.

Judge Himmler is too weak
to be too hard on us.

He'll give us five years
and maybe $5,000.

In addition, for contempt of court,

the defendants
will be sentenced as follows.

Yves Afonso: one year,

two months, 14 days

1 1 counts.

Anne Wiazemsky:

nine months, 17 days, 23 counts.

David Dellinger:
two years, five months,

five days, 14 counts.

Juliet Berto: two years,
one month, 18 days, 32 counts.

Jacky Martin: one year,
eight months, four days, 17 counts.

Friedrich Vladimir:

two years, six months
three days, 57 counts.

Karl Rosa: two years,
two months, 16 days, 62 counts.

John Kunstler:

four years, 13 days, 47 counts.

I, Bobby X: four years,
18 days, 237 counts.

The bourgeoisie would have us believe

that only hoodlums and gangsters
use certain methods to free themselves,

but the bourgeoisie reserves
the "right" to use force.

If anyone else uses force
to preserve his or her dignity,

they are immediately vilified
by the mass media

who are under bourgeois control.

The Black Panther party
is going to send a letter

to the Supreme Court,

the gist of which will revolve
around the fact

that the death penalty
is applied only to the poor

and to people of colour.

This is very apparent on death row
where they await the electric chair.

There, the cells are occupied
solely by poor white people,

black people, Arabs
and other people of colour.

The death penalty is a class weapon.

It's high time someone stepped in
between the people

and the bloodthirsty madmen.

We regard the judicial system
not only as a corrupt institution

preserving the interests
and power of the bourgeoisie

but also as a gimmick
in the hands of treacherous murderers.

Since the police are agents
of the bourgeoisie

and the big bosses

it is now clear that,

in order to combat the power structure,

we must lead a daily combat
against the ordinary policeman

for he is the foot soldier
of the bourgeoisie,

just like the Vietnamese,

in order to defeat
US imperialism in general,

must fight each GI separately.

Similarly, students must fight
ordinary lecturers

who are also foot soldiers
of imperialism.

Ours is a vanguard party

but for it to be strong
the masses must have confidence in it.

We are going to make shoes.

I've noticed that many prison inmates
become skilled at shoe-making.

All kinds of shoes.

They are worn by inmates

and also sold to government agencies.

Inmates are paid two centimes an hour.

Right.

Now we're going to make shoes
for our people.

Most of our children still go barefoot

in Harlem, Watts and Philadelphia.

We want to put an end
to the class system

and to the privileges
enjoyed by the few.

This does not mean putting an end
to cultural differences.

We believe that the union
of different cultures

can be as beautiful
as a bouquet of flowers.

This vision is essential
if the world is to be a better place

than it is now.

Comrades!

Comrades!
We are all in a state of revolt.

Against the bourgeoisie.

The distinction between ordinary
and political prisoners is artificial.

It is meant to divide us.

They don't want us
to communicate with you.

But bars cannot prevent
revolutionary ideas.

Why are you in prison, comrades?

Because you refused
to work for the bourgeoisie.

Because you didn't want
to be exploited,

you didn't want to work
for starvation wages

while the boss lined his pockets
at your expense.

Why kill yourselves for companies
like Ford, Mercedes and Renault?

You preferred to steal
from the bourgeoisie.

You were right, comrades.

You were right.

It's always right to rebel.

It's always right to rebel
against the powers of the bourgeoisie.

You were right, in a way.

But you have to understand, comrades.

You have to understand.

Trying to find a place in the sun
for yourself

doesn't change much in the long run.

One petty theft, two break-ins,

three hold-ups, four bank robberies
and five murders

won't stop the bourgeoisie
from exploiting us.

Comrades, we must unite.

That day, in Argenteuil,
the rebellion began.

Next came revolts in Ivry,
Bagneux, Maxéville and Seyssinet.

The workers and the poor farmers
must unite,

bar workers and small employees,

taxi drivers and students.

They must unite with you inmates

and you must unite with them.

We must all unite now,

right here in this prison.

We must unite.

Tonight, when you go back to your cells.

Comrades, you're fed up with this life.

So are we.

So let's unite.

Let's unite and rebel.

Right here, now,

in this prison, in our cells, in the yard.

Let's begin.

Let's begin right here and now,

in our cells, in the canteen, in the yard.

For example,
when you go back in a while

to, I don't know,
making light-bulb filaments

or when you go back
to fixing bicycle handlebars

for seven francs a day,
demand the union rate.

That should bring down profits
for Peugeot and Philips.

Comrades,

delinquency leads to revolution

provided you manage
to leave it behind.

Comrades, this prison is yours
as much as it is theirs.

Comrades and friends,
this call to resistance

must not make us forget
that class differences...

Conclusions come at the end
of an investigation, not at the start.

The only way
to get to the bottom of a situation

is to investigate society
and the reality of class differences.

Those in charge
should devote themselves

to a few towns or villages,

carrying out detailed investigations

from the basic Marxist point of view

of class analysis.

This is the basic way
to get to the bottom of a situation.

COMMUNISTS ARE
BOTH THE DRIVING FORCE

AND THE TARGET
OF THE REVOLUTION