| The film focuses in many ways on Chavez, as it began as an interview with Chavez by Oliver Stone in 2009. However, once he got going, Stone didn't stop, continuing until he'd spoken with each of Chavez's allies in the region. I hope that Fox News gets a Best Supporting Actor nomination for its role in this film, because another focus of the film was the juxtaposition of the statements about these leaders coming from the U.S. media and the realities of their presidencies, their countries, and their histories. It's clear in the film that these men are not terrorists or dictators. They simply want the right to lead their people to prosperity without being forced to cave to U.S. interests. (For example, Correa says he would be happy to let the U.S. have a military base in his country, so long as Ecuador can have a military base in Miami.)
The underlying story told here is that in the past, these Latin American countries were NOT able to do whatever they thought was best for their own people. Instead, they were manipulated by various instruments of U.S. influence (the CIA, the IMF, USAID, and the DEA to name a few) often in ways that harmed their own people, leading to widespread unemployment and poverty and the cutting of social services. In the new paradigm, these governments are paying off or blowing off the IMF and telling the U.S. to stick it.
Also in the past, resisting U.S. influence would have proven lethal for the Latin American presidents. And perhaps it will be still. The U.S. got rid of Arbenz (Guatemala), Allende (Chile), Torrijos (Panama), Roldos (Ecuador), and Noriega (Panama). Not to mention Che Guevara. And lord knows we've tried to get rid of Fidel. John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman, believes that Saddam and Afghanistan inadvertently saved Chavez, by keeping the U.S. too busy to go to war with Venezuela (after the U.S. backed coup failed to take out Chavez). The coup, which is shown in the film, was temporarily successful but failed because the people and the military were so loyal to Chavez, they would not allow him to be overthrown.
A coup that was not botched, although it is not mentioned in the film, was last year's overthrow of Zelaya in Honduras. Recently, Zelaya came out accusing the U.S. for orchestrating it, which, if true, answers the question: "How will Obama deal with Latin American leaders who won't cave to U.S. interests?"
Although I loved the film, my one gripe (which can be construed as a compliment) is that I wish it was longer. I wish it said more. There's a very long, important story to tell about the countries profiled in the film and their relationships with the U.S. Perhaps Stone opted for the length and content he did because he knows how little the average American actually knows about South America and how short the average American attention span is. Perhaps the film, as is, is the best way to introduce American audiences to our country's misadventures in Latin America and the Latin American leaders who are stepping up to say no. But, I, for one, would have enjoyed a longer, more in-depth movie. |
