It's difficult for me to dis this perfectly well-meaning guy with committed, if vague, political and religious beliefs. The first five minutes of the movie were the strongest, and yet they also revealed the film's flaw. At the start we learn about the filmmaker's friend, who went to Chiapas to film a peaceful protest and was shot. Afterwards, the foreign journalists all left, and the lone filmmaker, our narrator, stands alone against the stormtroopers. That is when my wife said, "I don't like his voice."But why not? His voice is perfectly fine. I think it goes to the larger issue, which is that every filmmaker has a voice, just like every writer has a voice. And this voice is a little too centered on the filmmaker. When the filmmaker faced off against the troops, he said "I was scared." That kind of on-the-nose writing is a real buzz-kill.Because when a stranger tells you "I'm scared," the first thing most people think of is, "You're probably just a wimp." A movie shows, it's not supposed to tell. A horror movie is not a description of a scary event, a horror movie is supposed to scare you, or its not a movie. And anyway, what is the filmmaker, a white American, what business does he have being scared? The people of Chiapas, talk to them and you will hear about how scary it is. After all, you did take a plane to get there.So that's the problem, in a sense. A self-narrated piece has a dangerous tendency to accidentally portray the narrator as the hero in their own story, and in a documentary where people's lives are at stake, that can seem a little selfish.

The Netflix blurb said the film would "explore the concept of spiritual activism" and perhaps 50% of the content reasonably approximates that, which is why I gave it 5 out of 10. Meanwhile, the other 50% is documentary footage of typical left-wing protests and causes, such as anti-free-trade, presented from the protester's point of view.Naturally, your right-wing nutbars are going to hate this film and your left-wing nutbars are going to love it, as evidenced by the gushing praise I've read so far in most of the reviews. But what if the viewer is not highly polarized and politicized? After all, I'm not American. (That was a not-undeserved shot.) I share values of community, "we're all in this together" and so on; but I also understand economics: free trade is good for the poorest people.. although not for barely literate autoworkers making $50/hr (including benefits). How do non-leftists participate in this spiritual activism?

This film takes the viewer on a journey through different activist initiatives in order to explore the "new" coupling of spirituality and activism. Ripper has some really good footage and some great interviews... however the film is lacking focus. The idea of spiritual activism is stressed throughout the film, as if it is some new phenomenon. Ripper explains spiritual activism as working toward some greater good or change... well isn't that what activism has always worked towards? Ripper also stresses the importance of passive resistance, but then goes on to explain activists as warriors. Doesn't this defeat the point of showing passive resistance as the epitome of spiritual activism? There is also the issue of Ripper himself. His presence in the film seems unnecessary and detracts from the message of the film. Is it about him or is it about activism? Not to mention his voice is monotonous and slightly annoying.Although Ripper has some great footage, he uses too much of it. In this case less is more. The film looks at the civil rights movement, the "garden" in LA, the riots in Montreal in 2001, Vietnam, etc. It's just too much and distracts the viewer from what Ripper is getting at... which is a little foggy to begin with.What is spiritual activism? Why do we care? Why should we care? Ripper doesn't entice the audience to make a change... he is preaching to the choir. The only people who would probably pay to go see this movie are those who are already informed. So what is the audience coming away with at the end? The reconfirmed knowledge that activism is important and that Daryl Hannah sat in a tree for a month. OK maybe that's a little harsh, but we all know what activism is and what it entails. Ripper should have focused on passive resistance as activism by looking at the issue of the garden more in depth- who are these people, what is their story, why do they need this garden, why are they so passionate about it? All in all the film was disappointing.

As a long-time activist and some-time film maker, I attended Velcrow Ripper's latest film with an open heart and a critical mind. The subject matter is so important to express in a widely accessible way yet, in a world where we are necessarily kept from accessing this point of view, it will be a miracle if we can see this high quality film taken up for broad distribution and viewing. You, dear reader, can make that miracle happen if you insist that this film be show in your town, wherever that may be.Fierce Light honours a diverse selection of activists who have committed deeply, fiercely and lovingly to initiating and following through with compassionate actions that create the world we need right now. From the famous and well-known personalities to people we may never hear of again, Fierce Light captures beauty and love in the faces and words of people just like we are in our collective dream of a world of peace and justice.