The Last Stand is "fast moving, balanced and up to date"

Honolulu Star Bulletin, 11/11/98

"...poignant...memorable...remarkable shots,"

Hazel Dawn Dumpert, The LA Weekly, 1/7/99

"The Last Stand makes it's proposal clear, but while the film constructs a solidly convincing argument for leaving the wetlands be, it also presents a clear-eyed and even tempered account of the many factions battling over Ballona's fate. The Last Stand proves that just as the wetlands are a small but integral part of the entire area's environmental weave, so this conflict is bound up by issues that reach far beyond California and into our ever-tenuous relationship with the earth."

Nick Madigan, Daily Variety, 1/7/99

"...the docu centers on the possibility of saving one of Southern California's last wetlands ecosystems and Los Angeles largest remaining open space."

Bob Scheer, LA Times

"So I went to see that documentary on the Ballona Wetlands...as an agnostic and came away convinced that this whole enterprise needs to be re-examined."...this is a good time for folks like me who have not paid attention to get involved."

As part of the production team of "The Last Stand - The Struggle for Ballona Wetlands we would like to respond to a number of incorrect and misleading statements that appear in both the article and review or our film about the proposed Playa Vista development in Los Angeles ("The Mudslinging in the Wetlands" by Lorenza Munoz, and "'Wetlands' More Promotion than Documentary" by James Bates on April 24.)

David Herbst's remark that "If the project were worthy of the truth it would not have been rejected by 60 foundations" suggests that Mr. Herbst knows nothing of the reality of fundraising for independent films, particularly documentaries. The rejections had nothing to do with the merits of the project and everything to do with the reality of fundraising for independent films. Many of the foundations we contacted, for example,
said they do not consider film projects, environmental projects or projects outside of their geographical area.It is fair to speculate that other possible sources of funding for our film, particularly in Hollywood, did not come through because of the controversial issue we tackled.

In criticizinb our project as "not worthy of the truth," Herbst didn't notice that a picture is worth a thousand words. Information presented was confirmed by documents, the developers' own plans and maps.

The Times reporter repeated a misleading figure given by the developers about the amount of open space at Playa Vista. In the film journalist Bill Gibson gives one of several examples of how the developers' tally of open
space includes areas such as the concrete Ballona Channel, where they cannot build anyway. This is confirmed by our showing a developers' document.

Herbst says that we neglected to show man's effect on the Ballona area. He must have missed the historical section which opens with an old newspaper headline, "La Ballona Valley History - One of Romance, Industry in Ballona Valley" followed by stills that include oil wells. The film also contains a number of images of the Howard Hughes' hangars and paved area. It's unfortunate that Herbst doesn't appreciate that much of the degraded Ballona wetlands ecosystem is capable of being restored, as shown by our footage of Madrona Marsh.

With regard to Heal the Bay, The Times reporter says the film portrays this organization as supporting the development. Comments about funding by Heal the Bay's director are inter-cut with comments about his group not being part of a coalition; we do not say that Heal the Bay supports the development.

As for the review, while we acknowledge that anyone can have an opinion about a film, it is worth noting that James Bates is a Times business reporter who has covered DreamWorks' efforts to build a studio at Playa Vista. Perhaps his criticisms are representative of the vested interests which have coalesced to build the development.

Mr. Bates's characterization of the film as an "infomercial" shows no knowledge of the gamut of documentaries from Capra's"Why We Fight" series during World War II to "The Panama Deception" and "Broken Rainbow" which won Oscars for best documentary. Bates should consult the definition of a documentary as "a nonfiction film that organizes and presents factual materials to make a point."

Bates criticizes our coverage of activists in the film. But since nearly 90 groups -including the Sierra Club, CalPIRG and Americans for Democratic Action -are members of a coalition that opposes Playa Vista, it is natural that we would cover some of their actions. He fails to mention that we also included well respected authors, attorneys, actors, politicians, filmmakers, a fisheries expert, scientists such Dr. Joy Zedler, noted author of Wetlands Restoration, and even Tom Brokaw's "Nightly News" coverage.

Bates feels that those who support the development are "made either to look sleazy or misguided" in the film. These are his characterizations. The film accurately portrays their statements.

Response from the public has been most positive, as have reviews in other publications. In addition to the Gold Star Award from World-fest Houston, the film has received other awards and screened at five film festivals.

For Mr. Bates' information, "Frontline" told us the Ballona issue was "too local or regional" for it to cover. Perhaps he should wonder why only Echo Mountain Productions had the inspiration and perseverance to complete a long form film on this hot issue. While we admit that we have our own points of view on the subject, this is not unusual for filmmakers and journalists who bring issues to light with little, if any, financial compensation.