It's said that this film is or was banned in the US since it was released. Since there is no information on IMDb I must rely on my other sources and believe it. If this is really true, the movie is even more hurtful and frightening and is it is anyway.

The movie is a so-called mockumentary, although I think the topic is too serious call it like that. It creates a scenario where America is like a military state and all revolutionary objects are arrested immediately without proof. After an obligatory tribunal they have to decide if they go to prison for some years or choose the punishment park. In that, they have to walk through the desert for three days to reach an American flag, posted 50 miles ahead, while they're are followed by police and army troops.

The movie itself pretends to be a documentary about these incidents and follows both the tribunals and the hunting through the desert, filmed by European film crews. All the facts are explained, the interviewers ask questions and film everything. People stare directly into the camera, shouting at it. It seems very, very real. Talking about realism here is nonsense. This movie is not about how to make a realistic film, it is about how such a film would look like, if it was real. And it certainly would look like this. If it would be filmed anyway. In an 'utopian' state like this, there surely wouldn't be a European film crew allowed to film those things.

There are many things that frighten us. The defendants are people from all social classes. Political leaders, musicians, authors, philosophers, unemployed, etc. They seem to be hopeless, rebellious or scared. They are no heroes. They talk a lot in the tribunal, knowing it doesn't lead to anything, saying nevertheless all they said in speeches and books and songs before. One says he's not afraid to die. Is this true? Well, he doesn't have to run through the desert hunted by cops. The defendants have no chance, or at least, their only chance, the decision between prison and punishment park, is no chance really. The way they decide in the end and the way film ends, makes it clear that this kind of heroism is suicide.

These tribunals remind us a lot of tribunals in the Third Reich. The officials use the same kind of idealistic speeching, ignoring all the arguments from the defendants, starting to scream at them and then telling them they should be quiet. They warn the defendants of "watching their language" and insult them much more. They ask them questions, the defendants can not answer, but it's never intended they should. These scenes are a statement about what we call justice.

The scenes in the desert are on a different level. When we see the prisoners for the first time, we realize that they realize, they haven't got a chance. Seeing the desert and the mountains, feeling the sun and the thirst, they don't have a clue how they should stand those three days. The film crew follows them and talks to them while they try to escape this madness. They argue, should they play the game, or escape, or revolt? It all leads to the same and no one is surprised. Some will question if such parks would exist in reality in such a state? Why not? It empties the prisons and allows the government to punish the revolutionaries as they want to. It is not a gas chamber, but the Nazis killed jews before concentration camps were built. The comparison is fair, since there is no real difference.

The movie is scary and depressing. The problems that are talked about sound to familiar to ignore. This is not science-fiction. Talking about poverty, unemployment and crime is not utopic. The film shows us that government and democracy as it is presented to us, is not only useless, but dangerous. It also shows us that revolution is not definitely the solution. The defendants seem to be confused because they don't really know how to fight this. They do things, but for nothing. Even if this delivers no solution to us, it still is a statement.

To me, the most frightening thing is the fact of the banning of this movie. Here we have a film that accuses the loss of freedom, moral and peace. It accuses the government, a fictional government nevertheless, to be dangerous and inhuman. And then this very film is practically banned.

Contains Spoilers

This is a Peter Watkins film. If one has seen his BBC masterpieces "Cullodden" and "The War Game", one will recognize the style (and his voice) within seconds after the start. Made in 1971 it is set in a very near future, when the Vietnam war has escalated even more and now seems to involve China. Nixon is still president and civil disobedience and protest is dealt with violently using drumhead tribunals (outwardly civilian with 'everyday citizens' as judges). Because "prison building can't keep up", an alternative is introduced: The Punishment Park. Delinquents can choose between severe prison sentences and a man hunt in a hostile environment, in this case a 85 km trip through the Californian desert at 100°F. If they reach an American flag at the end without being caught by National Guard or Riot Police, they will be set free, or else they have to serve their sentence (or be dead, as we will see). The film is made in a completely documentary style with three European teams covering a tribunal and the course of two groups already sentenced. Scenes jump between the tribunal tent, the hunting troops and the hunted condemned. Watkin's scarce off commentary gives us raw background information (time, temperature etc.). The tribunal scenes show a kangaroo court on the one side and a wide range of personalities on the other ranging from real terrorists over 'undesirables' to clearly innocents (e.g. a total pacifist who can't even hurt flies). The defense lawyer (who does take his job seriously) has to take abuse from both sides. What makes these scenes especially eerie is their resemblance to the rhetoric of todays administration to the detail. Meanwhile, some unfortunate events in the desert make clear that the 'rules of the game' don't really apply. The question remains open, whether it is rigged from the start or arbitrariness by the troops due to those events that leads to the outcome (I suspect, it is both). At the end we are back at square one with the next group going to "Punishment Park". This description may indicate a heavily biased (or even demagogic) propaganda movie but that would be misleading. The behavior (all participants were nonprofessionals as usual with Watkins) looks and sounds real (the tribunal scenes may even contain text material from real contemporary trials). I'd say that this could be sold as the 'real thing' without problem. With Watkins's "The Forgotten Faces" the reaction was "We can't send that or nobody will believe our real newsreels anymore (because this is indistinguishable from the real thing)". With "Punishment Park" it ought to be the same. Effectively banned in the US as far as I know this is a must see that hasn't lost its power or its relevance (especially today).

Punishment Park is a brilliant piece of cinema. Shot in the Southern

California desert using his patent faux documentary style, Watkins

creates a film like no other. He follows two groups of prisoners (one

pre-sentenced the other post-sentenced) throughout the picture. After

they're tried by a military tribunal, they have the choice of either

serving out a prison sentence or they can participate in Punishment

Park (a grueling three day hike through the desert with nothing but the

clothes on their backs) whilst being hunted down by local law

enforcement officers who use the park as a live action training

ground). I can't say enough about this movie. Sometimes it feels as if

you're watching a real documentary. This is one of Peter Watkins most

accessible films. I advise you to look out for it. You wont regret it!

Highly recommended

A+