Our Brand Is Crisis (2005) User Reviews

Designing an election campaign in Bolivia

[jotix100 · 8/10 · 3 March 2006]

How to remake the image of a once unpopular president, who is now a candidate and how to market him and sell him to voters, is the basis of this excellent documentary. Rachel Boynton chronicles in vivid detail about the experience in this wonderful documentary.

The idea of importing a team of American image consultants that have been notorious in the United States for their work in helping elect president Bill Clinton, not once, but twice, seems to be a novel idea for politics in South America. How will this team, headed by James Carville fare in helping to elect Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, a man who was an unpopular president in that country, seems to have made some sense to this candidate for his successful bid for a second term. After all, Mr. Sanchez de Lozada governed the country from 1993 to 1997, so why try to have the campaign run by Mr. Carville and his gang of experts?

Ms. Boynton takes us, the viewers behind the scenes to meetings that one would imagine would have been closed to her camera crew. We see people like Jeremy Rossner and the advertising pundit Tad Devine shooting ideas about how to present the candidate for a possible victory. American style campaign tactics seem to be the selling point to the candidate and his team. After all, the stakes are high and the man running for office doesn't want to take any chances. There are a lot of candid moments in the film which seem to indicate the director got a free hand about what to capture in film.

Rachel Boynton shows a knack for capturing all the insanity of the situation and the people preparing a man to be accepted by his people with an American team behind him.

A real-life horror film

[jdevriend · 8/10 · 13 August 2006]

It's amusing and yet horrifying to watch the gang from Greenberg, Carville, and Shrum twist this election around to help an unpopular, clearly unqualified candidate win. They are gleeful at every positive turn of the polls. In one scene, Rosner seems almost orgasmic when he hears good things from a focus group. After the election, a demonic Carville gloats that the only time they led in the polls was on election day, then compares the peak of a campaign to the peak of sex. (Another highlight was Carville trying to spell "repetition" on a marker board and leaving out at least two letters.)

Whether they are immoral or amoral is up to you. GCS helps run Goni on a return to "capitalization", which means converting Bolivia's natural resources into money for its poor public services. But because they're landlocked and don't have the industrial might to extract and sell the resources themselves, they get fleeced by foreign companies and fail to create jobs for the natives. GCS either doesn't understand that their ideal policies don't work in countries like this, or they don't care and just want the paycheck from Goni's campaign. Either way, their arrogance is off-putting and Rosner's contrition at the end of the film about how things turned out doesn't seem heartfelt.

You can also, subtly, find a parallel in this movie to the first Bush campaign. To many, Bush is unqualified to be President and is simply a vessel for other people's ideas, but he was elected anyway. As it becomes obvious from the people and researchers that Goni has botched things in Bolivia, you can't help but think of former Bush administration officials who have left their posts and turned against their former leader. Except for the deadly riots in the streets, they are virtually the same.

If "The War Room" was a movie about the idealism of New Democrats, this one is about what happens when it is taken to the wrong place. Definitely two movies that could be seen back-to-back.

P.S. MF, I'm sure the movie knew modern campaigning goes on in Bolivia. The anger of the audience was from the hubris of GCS thinking they could sweep in from their cloud in Washington, help their guy win, and everything would turn out right.

Poignant and entertaining

[vernon-35 · 7/10 · 20 August 2006]

The film maker and movie are NOT patronizing in any way. The only patronizing is done by the GCC (consulting agency which James Carville is a member). For the most part, it is a great inside look into political campaigns and the consultants who run them. Although campaigns are mostly a game to GCC, it shows how who wins or loses can have serious consequences. Even though some of GCC may be sobered by the end of the movie, they state that they would probably not change their practices.

Unfortunately, the film maker does little to challenge GCC and its members which state that they support democratization and globalization - as if one has anything to do with the other. In fact, one of the members of GCC states that maybe Bolivian's didn't want democracy because they reject globalization. The film maker does nothing to challenge this view. As a result, the film maker missed an extremely important part of the story.

American-Exported Politics To Bolivia

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 3 January 2010]

In the early 2000s, a Bolivian politician tried to return to power and the presidency. Not content to do things the Bolivian way, he hired some American strategists, Jeremy Posner and the legendary James Carville. What followed was a campaign that was orchestrated to win, regardless of the methods necessary.

It's hard to say what the message of "Our Brand Is Crisis" is. My friend Chelsea, whom lent it to me, sees it as a critique of American culture and values pervading other countries. And she is, of course, right. I am not sure how Bolivian elections were run before, but here they were fine-tuned to the point of a science, where the formula wasn't necessarily genuine.

Opponents were smeared in television ads, where a man's military background was exploited to make him look less trustworthy. Demographics were sorted out, and focus groups were asked very specific questions, and results were tabulated before each television ad to change the message and look. Failures (such as low job creation) were turned into promises. This was American-style politics, where style trumps substance, and promises don't mean any guarantee.

And, of course, while the focus was on Bolivia (and the aftermath that lead to a complete collapse of order), the same critiques can be made of America. We have calls for "hope" and "change" and try to portray politicians as someone we would want to have a beer with. Politics in general is a farce, with real ideas being ignored for less important issues. But nowhere do we see this more than during campaigns, where a military record could create or destroy a candidate, not to mention their sexual history. And, of course, neither military service or sex will determine how they vote in most cases.

I found this film to be very powerful, and for the most part unbiased. I think it had a general left lean to it, but there was little commentary. We were given Posner and Carville unfiltered, so we can interpret them as we see fit. I found some of their words insightful and inspiring, but mostly was saddened that Americans could come to Bolivia and change everything in a place they knew little about (though, in Posner's defense, he seemed to have a general knowledge).

Good Film Even Better Topic

[Cockeymofo76 · 8/10 · 10 July 2008]

The film is based around the 2002 Bolivian Presidential Election and the Gonzalo "Goni" Sanchez de Lozada Campaign.

The movie starts by introducing us to "Goni" and his flailing campaign and then quickly brings in GCS, Greenberg Carville Shrum, (yes, the James Carville) is an international political consulting firm. The film starts off kind of awkwardly and there is really nothing special about the first 3rd of the documentary.

But the movie quickly kicks into gear about 30 min. in and never pulls up. Rachel Boynton, the director, does a good job of just presenting facts, never bashing the audience in the head with something that can be seen. She asks pretty good, not great, questions of those she interviews and presents people fairly throughout the film. The movie centers on the topic of how can international consulting firms participate in a democracy that isn't their own. The movie shows the personal feelings of the consultants for GCS and the effects GCS has had on Boilivia.

That all being said I didn't like the camera angles or the audio. The audio was inconsistent; interviewer's voice was not miked so her questions were almost impossible to hear. The camera, at times, makes you feel not a part of the action.

The movie is for anyone who watches the news or would like to consider themselves "well informed." – 8/10

Political campaign in southern American country using U.S. tactics

[forindcine · 8/10 · 23 October 2006]

I'm sometimes asked why I enjoy foreign films, documentaries and independent cinema. The answer is simple, I love learning most things international, and I'm always in search of a different perspective. And you should already know, I have little use for a Hollywood blockbuster.

The documentary "Our Brand of Crisis" is a wonderful example of what gets me excited. It archives the behind-the-scenes strategy of a presidential campaign in the Latin American country of Bolivia. The American consulting firm Greenberg, Carville and Strum (GCS) has been hired to assist a former Bolivian president ('93-'97) in winning the 2003 election. The U.S. raised and educated candidate, Gonzales "Goni" Sanchez de Lozada demonstrates little concern for the people. At first Goni is seen by most voters as being cold and arrogant and one who takes no responsibility for the mistakes made in his earlier term in office. GCS coaches him, monitors the polls, produces negative ads against the front-runner and uses test-groups in their quest to win the election. The polls slowly begin to turn thanks to the skills of GSC. At one point, even the U.S. Ambassador throws a road block in Goni' campaign.

This gritty film swings the door wide open on the honest feelings of people during political strife, even as they hold onto hope for a better tomorrow. As GCS frequently conducts focus groups with average citizens to obtain their feelings about the candidate and the issues, you find yourself becoming part of the election. The documentary goes a step further by returning to Bolivia at different times after the election. The results clearly define the hazards of exporting American-style campaign strategy abroad.

If you enjoyed the Oscar nominated documentary, The War Room, a behind-the-scenes look at a 1993 U.S. political campaign, this film should not be missed.

Patronizing and clueless

[sleepyinnyc · 1/10 · 9 March 2006]

Want a reminder of why so many people around the world think Americans are clueless, ignorant and narrow-minded? Go see "Our Brand is Crisis." Rachel Boynton seems shocked that Bolivians use modern campaign techniques: polls, focus groups, etc. Who would have thought, huh? I have news for Boynton: they also have highways, email, television and movie theaters. Yes, I know it must come as a shock to you.

The whole tone of the film is so patronizing (poor little people being helped by big-shot Americans) I cringed most of the time. At the movie theater where I saw this film there were many South Americans and once the lights went on, I could see them rolling their eyes and hear their comments: shallow, patronizing, clueless. I could not have agreed more.

A must see for anyone befuddled by political campaigns

[wildkatzaz · 10/10 · 8 March 2009]

Essentially this film shows the US liberal war machine honing its skills in the impoverished nation of Bolivia - and offers a chilling preamble to our own presidential campaigns and elections.

James Carville and clan use a media defamation campaign, focus groups, and a corrupt and willing news media to play Bolivia for cash, ensuring the election of an arrogant man clearly out of touch with his people.

The opening shot gives you an idea of the results.

Not for the faint of heart - but a must-see nevertheless. It offers a candid, unfiltered look at politics at its worst and leaves you wondering: Can it happen here? Has it?

Disappointing

[brendan-821-654855 · 2/10 · 26 November 2013]

I am an avid documentary watcher, and I had heard good things about this movie, so I went into it expecting something far greater than what was actually delivered.

Ironically that made this movie much like the political campaign it explored - a lot of hype, but very little substance.

There are some technical issues with this documentary (like the very obvious use of ADR questions), but ultimately it falls down because of the fact that it presents a premise that really doesn't have a lot of merit.

Effectively this film tries to blame the US political marketing firm for the violence and unrest that followed after their candidate won the Bolivian election.

I'm not from the US, and I'm no fan of political spin doctors, but at the end of the day, it's quite absurd to try and blame the campaign strategists for the leadership failings of the man who they were paid to see elected into office.

At the end of the day this documentary completely fails to explore the fact that the other two candidates in this election almost certainly had their own campaign advisers proposing similar PR strategies to give them the edge on the campaign trail.

In the end this documentary felt a little unbalanced, and a little bit pointless, in the sense that it didn't really offer much in the way of deep insight into the election in which this campaign unfolded.

This film shows what a group of American Mercenaries can accomplish if they really try.

[dans-18 · 10/10 · 13 November 2006]

American mercenary consultants led by James Carville go to Bolivia to influence and control the 2002 Bolivian Presidential Campaign. They claim to represent the candidate who stands the best chance of improving the plight of the Bolivian people, but in fact they are representing the candidate willing to pay them to come to Bolivia. Their client Goni (GONZALO SANCHEZ DE LOZADA) is an arrogant ruling class cigar-chomping goof who does whatever the consultants say. Ben Stiller's separated-at-birth twin, Jeremy Rosner, is the key Carville employee.

Carville's people proceed to intentionally distort the record of the leading candidate, center-right leading candidate, Manfred Reyes, the mayor of Bolivia's Cochabama. Their negative campaigning seems to know no bounds, taking tactics right out of Karl Rove's playbook. They also attack Evo Morales and are helped in their efforts by the Bush Administration's Ambassador to Bolivia, Manuel Rocha. Manuel Rocha attacks Evo Morales, resulting in a huge gain in popularity for Evo.

Goni eventually wins with 21% of the vote, thanks to Carville's consultants. Then the whole country falls apart. Goni goes into exile in the U.S.

Great insight into the mindset of James Carville and his employees. Not exactly flattering for Carville, who doesn't seem to get the point.

Ethnocentrism in Living Color

[cadmandu · 10/10 · 26 August 2006]

This film is a documentary about how a group of American political consultants, led by James Carville, helped elect a president in Bolivia.

It is a cliché that colonialism is a natural byproduct of the industrial revolution. The need for export to foreign markets seems to include our political machinations. What else are political consultants going to do in off years? This film is outstanding if only for the fact that the cameras rolled everywhere; we get to see some very private moments with both the consultants and their clients.

What is most shocking about this film is how out of touch their candidate is, a fact which seems to phase the consultants not at all. Their advice to him is right on ("You have to act quickly after the election") but the obvious incompetence of their man does not really register with the Americans. Once he's elected, he raises taxes on the poor masses, who have already been protesting in the streets for months, and who then riot, burn buildings, and get massacred by the army. Duh! It's a real Marie Antoinette moment.

The only thing I felt was lacking from the film itself is some information on the second candidate (Manfred Reyes) though technically the filmmakers were not responsible for reporting on the other candidats. The third candidate was an obvious sleazeball (advocates the coca trade as a solution to Bolivia's problems) but the middle man was a mystery. Was he really a fascist? Where did his money come from? How sincere was he about anything? We don't really know. I wouldn't trust any of these creeps to watch my 50 cents while I left the room.

So if you want a good dose of how disastrous and pathetic Americans are when it comes to foreign countries, this film is a gold mine. In the age of Iraq it's kinda tame, but the principles are the same. It made a big impact on me. I walked around for a few days wondering what it would actually take to turn around a country as messed as Bolivia. I was also annoyed by how dependent Bolivians seem to be, looking to the government as their only solution. It's a different world out there, amigo.

Completely underwhelming and unworthy of praise

[tallard · 2/10 · 7 April 2013]

This is one of the least compelling documentaries I've ever watched. I was going to just pop onto IMDb and vote 2 and leave. But when I saw the number of positive reviews, I felt I must have missed something, so I watched it again. But was revealed nothing new from the first viewing.

The first purpose of a documentary is to inform, to reveal information not yet known to the public, or to present old information in a new light. There is also propaganda that passes for documentary... this is closer to propaganda than to documentary. We herein learn absolutely nothing about the socio-political context of Bolivia, the presidential elections are presented outside of any factual reality context. The documentarist seems to view the election process within a vacuum.

I suppose there are youth who watch this movie, who are inexperienced enough to not realise that electoral victories are purchased with money and statistical analysis of critical demographics, but the rest of the adult world already knows this. If this documentary was meant for those youth, it would have had to spend a little less time watching boring speeches, and more time giving a bit of context and history.

As for the adults watching this, there is simply no content, nothing that we all haven't already experienced in North America. In fact, the documentarist, more than any other sentiment, seems to side with the consultants, asking non weak questions, observing them doing what the candidate pays them for, without questioning their presence, their cost, their previous achievements, and the expenses/actions of the other candidates. No history of Goni is presented, he looks like an idiot, behaves like an idiot, and the documentarist does not question any of this.

What's the point of this documentary, it has no world context, no Bolivian context, no N.American context. Frankly it looks almost more like a sales pitch for those poor "good guy" consultants than anything else. Hire us, we'll get you elected... This is neocon propaganda disguised as "unbiased" docudrama. Blah

America's right? not necessarily!

[smax21 · 17 February 2007]

I think it's a universally known fact that many Americans actually don't know a lot about other nations and cultures.

For me, I thought the focus was more about how clueless the Americans were trying to run this campaign for a country they knew little about and seemed to simply do what they could to get Goni in office then fail to help follow through with the promises they made.

I blame the Americans for Goni achieving the presidency and then his demise for never coming through. I do believe without the Americans Goni would not have won and therefore the issued that followed would not have happened.

I felt the film showed the power the people hold in Bolivia and how significant their opinions are as well as their ability to be heard.

I suppose each person will see this film in their own way, but if you don't know a lot about Bolivia or the recent politics, this is a good film to watch to learn about the recent presidential topics.

Better Today then When Originally Released

[in1984 · 9/10 · 24 January 2016]

9 of 10. This documentary has gotten better and more insightful and relevant without changing a thing.

I had forgotten about it until the recently released 2015 film by the same name. That film is more of an action/suspense/comedy version that should be enjoyable by everyone regardless of whether they're into the hidden secrets of politics.

Besides capturing the actual crisis and disaster that happened in Bolivia with the aid of what amount to marketing and advertising gurus for hire recklessly selling a candidate without regard to who the candidate is or what they are capable of.

The elephant in the room, alluded to but never addressed specifically, is that Bolivia is one of those countries targeted by the "war on drugs". The campaigners didn't think to ask why their group was bought and brought in for this particular candidate as opposed to one of the others.

Today's brand: Yes Your Country Can be Taken Over by Focus Groups.

Arrogant

[girlpuny · 2/10 · 3 September 2006]

I have rewatched Our Brand Is Crisis and am changing my review. The documentary film provides amazing access to a group of people (mostly Amercians) trying to change the outcome of a presidential election in Bolivia through instrumental and deceptive methods. Unfolding in a true three-act structure, the film leaves you wondering up until the end who will win. However, the essence of the film transcends the outcome of the election and shows how neocons utilize ideology and personal interests that connect to the interests of the United States. The film is clear, despite the director's naive comments about "knowing people who have money in order to make a film." My previous review criticized the filmmaker for her outrageous and incorrect comments that reveal her worldview just as the film reveals the worldview of the subjects in the film. Overall, the film contains excellent scenes that that slowly build into a true narrative.