I'm not sure that Pilger really hits the mark here. I've always appreciated his work for drawing attention to that which is too easily ignored, and this he does successfully. I sat through this at a preview in Sydney tonight with a friend who is normally very well-versed on such issues, but afterward admitted to being largely ignorant as to most of the content of this film, which really offered very little in terms of new information to myself. More of a refresher course in South American affairs, really. OK, it's pretty much all true... but...
It comes across very much as a one man, one camera, and limited budget for graphics effort. The directorial aspect seems to be mainly embodied in editing and glorious panoramic shots of various South American cities. And where is the real argument - about the "war on democracy"? There are veiled references to U.S. interference, almost as though this is not the real subject of the film in spite of its title and promotion. It's actually more of a self-contained examination of diverging aspirations of democracy, populist movements and the economic elite in South America, regardless of external influence.
However, the real problem here is Pilger's own personal struggle in trying to reconcile journalism - or his intended documentary - and what constitutes propaganda - or a new-age socialist diatribe. It's awkward realising that Pilger is trying to avoid allowing his own opinions to override the message of his piece, yet at the same time sitting through some inappropriate musical montages, pats on the back, embellished choices of shots and very poor selections of interviewees to offer any sort of a rational counter-point. I don't care if this particular character was head of the CIA in Latin America in the early 80s - he's senile. There really isn't any sort of decent argument mounted against the pro-socialist-democracy taint of this film. Thereby it allows itself to be tainted.
And I am absolutely, in no way at all, disagreeing with any of it. It's just that Pilger tries so hard to not be Michael Moore that his lack of audacity and commitment impinges upon the merits of this as a movie (i.e. a piece of fluff or engaging entertainment). At the same time, allowing himself to draw more rhetoric than conclusion or argument in his intros and outros can only attract criticism.
I really do hope that people go and see this anyway. It's a great summary of U.S. political interference in South and Central America over the last half of the 20th century, and without indulging them, raises issues that are parallel to our current conundrums throughout the rest of the world. And I guess a whole lot of the point of this piece is that people simply don't know, or don't pay attention to this stuff (and as pointed out, it ain't taught in school).
I think the biggest weakness of this piece is that those that disagree and have alternative pre-formed opinions will simply not pay attention - and this was evidenced by the skeptics who were sitting behind me, who initially wouldn't shut up from muttering "b..it" under their breath but ended up walking out half way through, well before any of the points they were reacting to were properly made. And there's no point preaching to the converted.
5 as a flick (which is why we're here), 7 because i believe in the message and its worth = 6 overall (sorry John, but I'm sure the next one will be better, and keep up the good work)
It comes across very much as a one man, one camera, and limited budget for graphics effort. The directorial aspect seems to be mainly embodied in editing and glorious panoramic shots of various South American cities. And where is the real argument - about the "war on democracy"? There are veiled references to U.S. interference, almost as though this is not the real subject of the film in spite of its title and promotion. It's actually more of a self-contained examination of diverging aspirations of democracy, populist movements and the economic elite in South America, regardless of external influence.
However, the real problem here is Pilger's own personal struggle in trying to reconcile journalism - or his intended documentary - and what constitutes propaganda - or a new-age socialist diatribe. It's awkward realising that Pilger is trying to avoid allowing his own opinions to override the message of his piece, yet at the same time sitting through some inappropriate musical montages, pats on the back, embellished choices of shots and very poor selections of interviewees to offer any sort of a rational counter-point. I don't care if this particular character was head of the CIA in Latin America in the early 80s - he's senile. There really isn't any sort of decent argument mounted against the pro-socialist-democracy taint of this film. Thereby it allows itself to be tainted.
And I am absolutely, in no way at all, disagreeing with any of it. It's just that Pilger tries so hard to not be Michael Moore that his lack of audacity and commitment impinges upon the merits of this as a movie (i.e. a piece of fluff or engaging entertainment). At the same time, allowing himself to draw more rhetoric than conclusion or argument in his intros and outros can only attract criticism.
I really do hope that people go and see this anyway. It's a great summary of U.S. political interference in South and Central America over the last half of the 20th century, and without indulging them, raises issues that are parallel to our current conundrums throughout the rest of the world. And I guess a whole lot of the point of this piece is that people simply don't know, or don't pay attention to this stuff (and as pointed out, it ain't taught in school).
I think the biggest weakness of this piece is that those that disagree and have alternative pre-formed opinions will simply not pay attention - and this was evidenced by the skeptics who were sitting behind me, who initially wouldn't shut up from muttering "b..it" under their breath but ended up walking out half way through, well before any of the points they were reacting to were properly made. And there's no point preaching to the converted.
5 as a flick (which is why we're here), 7 because i believe in the message and its worth = 6 overall (sorry John, but I'm sure the next one will be better, and keep up the good work)