The War on Democracy is a bit hard to follow, both because of some intense story and thanks to a somewhat confusing execution. The idea behind the work is that it is an examination of mostly-American backed efforts to undermine popular movements in nations throughout Latin America.
It is no secret anywhere that the United States, like any major power in history, has intervened in foreign affairs in the name of its own national interests. In fact, Pilgir interviews a retired CIA agent who argues just that. The retired agent claims the USA did brutal things for what Washington would argue was a greater good. Many other individuals interviewed, especially those that suffered like an American nun who was tortured and raped by 1980's central American government squads, would argue that stability was and is not worth cruelty and death. Had Pilgir based his film on that argument and explored it much further (with more in-depth arguments on both sides), I would have doubled the number of stars despite his rather vocal and frankly preachy opinions and regardless of the the fact he delves no deeper in history than 1948. But he doesn't.
Instead, Pilgir devotes the first half of his film to an overly rosy depiction of a modern politician, Hugo Chavez, and modern Caracas. After a while one may wonder of "South America" just means "Venezuela." Whether he is good or bad, Chavez is a modern politician and pushing him so hard so early does not help the film (a shorter explanation of the coup and counter-coup in 2002 would have worked better). Eventually, Pilgir does go into some history on American involvement in Guatemala and Chile, but hardly in any detail save for the tour of Pinochet's stadium turned torture chamber. He has a couple of very short and edited interviews cut against his own, much more explained, opinions. His perspective is inconsistent too. Chilean poor are written off because their government is friendly with the west, but Bolivian and Venezuelan poor are considered heroes because they are fighting the good fight against capitalism. Brazil, Argentina (which fought open war with Britain in the 1980s), Mexico (invaded by the USA in 1846, 1914, and 1916), and Colombia are all ignored save for ominous implications that the US supported non-democratic governments there at one time or another. There is no mention of historically vital points like the Monroe Doctrine and the Cold War is quickly dismissed as American paranoia. Even the still active and divisive issue of the drug wars is forgotten.
Instead we get fuzzy camera lenses, a few sound bites from Fox News, quick cuts to what we are supposed to believe is either a brutal fascist scene (armed guys in fatigues) or an uplifting socialist one, heavy pull-on-heartstrings editing, and a frankly self-righteous and paternalistic tone that in some ways undermines the very people its trying to support by placing far more on their shoulders than they want or need. The poor of Latin America have been mistreated for centuries, by indigenous empires, Spain, Creole caudillos and juntas (which are common in Latin American History but never mentioned by Pilgir), Europe, and especially the USA, but I do not believe this film gives a good or even adequate account of that.
It is no secret anywhere that the United States, like any major power in history, has intervened in foreign affairs in the name of its own national interests. In fact, Pilgir interviews a retired CIA agent who argues just that. The retired agent claims the USA did brutal things for what Washington would argue was a greater good. Many other individuals interviewed, especially those that suffered like an American nun who was tortured and raped by 1980's central American government squads, would argue that stability was and is not worth cruelty and death. Had Pilgir based his film on that argument and explored it much further (with more in-depth arguments on both sides), I would have doubled the number of stars despite his rather vocal and frankly preachy opinions and regardless of the the fact he delves no deeper in history than 1948. But he doesn't.
Instead, Pilgir devotes the first half of his film to an overly rosy depiction of a modern politician, Hugo Chavez, and modern Caracas. After a while one may wonder of "South America" just means "Venezuela." Whether he is good or bad, Chavez is a modern politician and pushing him so hard so early does not help the film (a shorter explanation of the coup and counter-coup in 2002 would have worked better). Eventually, Pilgir does go into some history on American involvement in Guatemala and Chile, but hardly in any detail save for the tour of Pinochet's stadium turned torture chamber. He has a couple of very short and edited interviews cut against his own, much more explained, opinions. His perspective is inconsistent too. Chilean poor are written off because their government is friendly with the west, but Bolivian and Venezuelan poor are considered heroes because they are fighting the good fight against capitalism. Brazil, Argentina (which fought open war with Britain in the 1980s), Mexico (invaded by the USA in 1846, 1914, and 1916), and Colombia are all ignored save for ominous implications that the US supported non-democratic governments there at one time or another. There is no mention of historically vital points like the Monroe Doctrine and the Cold War is quickly dismissed as American paranoia. Even the still active and divisive issue of the drug wars is forgotten.
Instead we get fuzzy camera lenses, a few sound bites from Fox News, quick cuts to what we are supposed to believe is either a brutal fascist scene (armed guys in fatigues) or an uplifting socialist one, heavy pull-on-heartstrings editing, and a frankly self-righteous and paternalistic tone that in some ways undermines the very people its trying to support by placing far more on their shoulders than they want or need. The poor of Latin America have been mistreated for centuries, by indigenous empires, Spain, Creole caudillos and juntas (which are common in Latin American History but never mentioned by Pilgir), Europe, and especially the USA, but I do not believe this film gives a good or even adequate account of that.