The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Ireland, directors Kim Bartley and Donnacha O’Briain): Wow. This documentary was absolutely jaw-dropping. The directors travelled to Venezuela to make a profile of President Hugo Chavez, and in the course of their seven month stay, were witnesses to the bizarre 48-hour coup which took place in April 2002.
Chavez, an immensely charismatic leader, draws almost all of his support from among the poor, who make up about 80% of Venezuela’s population. Despite huge oil wealth, Venezuela has always been ruled by a small minority who have kept that wealth in the hands of the few. Chavez is obviously not a popular man among this crowd, nor in the eyes of the Bush administration, who clearly want Venezuela to remain a source of cheap oil, especially now. Chavez planned to shake up the state oil company in order to facilitate his plan to redistribute some of the wealth. This led to predictable protests from the wealthy class, who also happen to own most of the newspapers, television and radio stations in the country. This private media empire had been an unrelenting critic of the Chavez government, even in the face of genuine reforms (for instance, under Chavez, healthcare and education were made free, for the first time in Venezuela’s history!).
I don’t mean to ramble on, but it was incredible how this private media manipulated images in order to further the aims of the coup plotters. After a very tense confrontation between Chavez supporters and opposition supporters, snipers suddenly began firing on the pro-Chavez crowd, killing at least ten. In response, some of those in the crowd who had handguns (about 25% of Venezuelans, according to the film) began firing back in the direction of the sniper fire. The private media actually ran these images and declared that the Chavez supporters had fired on the opposition crowd, killing ten of them. This version of events was fed to the Western media, including CNN, who ran the manipulated footage uncritically. This crisis led directly to several high-ranking military officials calling for Chavez’ resignation, and then surrounding the palace with tanks to force it. All the while, the filmmakers were inside the palace with members of the Chavez government. Chavez refused to resign, but agreed to be taken into custody by the generals after they threatened to bomb the palace. The opposition then shut down the state TV station and broadcast that Chavez had voluntarily stepped down. In reality, he was kidnapped and held hostage on an island, unable to communicate with his ministers or family.
The “interim” government convened the next day, whereupon they dissolved the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, and dismissed the Attorney General and the Ombudsman, effectively abolishing all of Venezuela’s democratic institutions. As word filtered out to the people that Chavez had been imprisoned, and had not resigned, huge crowds began to surround the palace. Emboldened by a crowd numbering into the hundreds of thousands, the palace guards, who had remained loyal to Chavez even while continuing to do their job for the new government, hatched a plan to retake the palace. Within a few hours, they had succeeded, and although many of the coup leaders managed to escape, some were detained in the palace basement. The ministers of Chavez’ government, including the Vice President, all in hiding, were informed and all came back to claim their rightful places again. When it became clear that the rank and file of the military had not deserted Chavez, they went to release him from his island prison and he returned to Caracas in triumph.
The whole thing had taken about 48 hours, and if it hadn’t been for the massive demonstrations in support of Chavez, the coup would have succeeded. The film was an on-the-ground account and made no claims of objectivity, but the fact that so much of the story was altered or simply ignored in North America seems inexcusable.
So, although the filmmakers were simply in the right place at the right time, they also managed to cover a lot of details that were very illuminating. The fear and despair of the Chavez government ministers on the night of the palace siege, their relief and elation when they were reinstated, the protests of the ordinary citizens, and even the fears of the upper classes; all were detailed with great immediacy. A one of a kind film experience.
(9/10)
Why are all this people so angry about this documentary? It’s a good example of the type of opposition that we have in Venezuela. The truth hurts(la verdad duele).
I want to thank jmcnally for his objective explanations about the coup against Chavez. To all the hysterical responses against the film I would say one thing: it’s true viyai, truth hurts.
In the following URL you can find interesting
criticism to the propagandistic film:
http://www.petitiononline.com/gusano03/petition.html
“…The attendants at this Film Forum have been able to confirm numerous falsehoods, distortions, and biased interpretations of the events that occurred in Venezuela during the month of April 2002, which constitute a clear breach of the information and investigation ethics on the part of the producers of this documentary. Among the several manipulations that have been cleared up during this Forum, we can tell you the most evident:
· When showing the presence of presumed working classes in front of the Presidential Palace “Miraflores” on the morning of April 11, 2002, the film used images of a concentration that happened on a different day and in a different city in Venezuela, where people appear happily singing, with children, while that day members of the government were really convoking people aggressively to “defend the Revolution”. Later, in the same film, a clearly different platform can be seen to be in place in front of Miraflores on April 11…..
..The film makers responsible for this film ignored the “radio and TV cadena” of President Chávez on April 11 from 2:30 to 4:30 pm, during which the President spoke for almost two hours …
….
The so called “case of the gun shooters on the Llaguno Bridge” is more complicated. Those who are not experts in audiovisual matters cannot have perceived what Eng. Wolfgang Schalk could notice and demonstrate. As you can remember, the images of a group of President Chavez’s supporters shooting from a bridge in the direction of the place where the opposition rally was coming became famous (the journalistic team that took the images was awarded the King of Spain’s Journalism Prize for this report). The film supported by you backed up the government “propaganda version” that those people were not shooting at any rally, and for this, film makers used images from an amateur video taken from a different angle than the one used by the journalistic team that won the prize in Spain. In this second video, the bridge and the avenue underneath are completely empty, without persons or rally walking and no person shooting from the bridge. Using a “shadow analysis” procedure similar to the ancient sun dials, Mr. Schalk showed that the images of this amateur video were taken from about 1:00 to 1:30 in the afternoon, when the opposition rally was not even near that location, while the images taken by the prize-winning journalists were taken between 4:30 and 5:00 ….”
It is an extense document, I’ll leave it up to you if you go and read.
Pedro
The revolution will not be televised…
…because there is no revolution going on in Venezuela. Nor is it a communist movement, but quite simply a military strongman with totalitarian intentions. A very corrupted one for that. Classic example of third world countries weak institutions. Nothing more. Nothing less.
This pseudo-documentary is a despicable piece of propaganda. It completely ignores the truth and presents events so one sided that we could puke.
1. The popularity presented in the film did happen, some 2-3 years before the events of last April, 2002.
2. State owned media was never shut down by the so called coup. However, while the government was committing its despicable massacre on peaceful unarmed demonstrators (20 dead, hundreds injured by professional sharpshooters trained and deployed by the government) I shut down the private owned TV stations.
3. The head of the military high command, minister of defense, and today minister of justice and interior appeared in the media announcing that the president had resigned, and that the military had accepted his resignation.
4. The resigned president was never subjected to a “barbarous captivity” but sent to La Orchila, were Venezuelan presidents entertain foreign dignitaries (as if Bush was confined to the dungeons in Camp David).
5. The facts reveal that the coup was staged by the military, and the reinstatement of the president was result of the highly authoritarian character of the junta they tried to installed, and to the sheer ineptitude of the military chiefs.
6. The film never shows the mass demonstration which produced all the events. Some observers have said that more than a million and a half demonstrators were presents, and the photographs does show one of the biggest public demonstrations of recent history. All of said demonstrators were asking for the president’s resignation. It is probable that if said demonstrators were as violent as the Bolivian indians led by Evo Morales, the Venezuelan dictator would either be in jail or killed by a murderous mob. On the contrary, the highly peaceful character of the Venezuelan opposition is at the same time its biggest liability and advantage.
All this are facts ignored by the film you are showing. You might as well show “The Triumph of the Will| (Leni Riefenstahl’s “documentary” on the Nazi rallies) as an extraordinary film for the ages).
Some day the truth will prevail.
Sincerely,
Bandera Negra
Actually, the documentary shows a reality we had to face those horrible days when the constitutional President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was kidnapped and we didn’t have any information about his wellbeing. The President Chavez was not given any chance to tell Venezuelans anything. The opposition, I call them Coupers, wanted to destroy what had been an achievement of most Venezuelans, a New Constitution, which includes everybody and guarantees a sustainable Venezuela for all. Most of us, Venezuelans and not, living in this beautiful country support President Chavez not only for his commitment with his comaptriots, but also with all the citizens of this vast continent. Our success is the success of Latin-america.
Prof. Gustavo López
La Universidad del Zulia
My problem is that the filmmakers chose to show only one side of the story. And by this I don’t mean to show what people like Pedro Carmona, Napoleón Bravo and others where thinking or doing. I mean people like my family, who were on the streets asking Chavez to leave office.
People were doing that simply because it was not working. Not because Chavez is darker, or because he speaks too much, or because he is friends with Fidel Castro. No. It’s because inflation is rampant, there are no jobs and public services are in decline (by the way, education has been free at the elementary level since the 1800s, when then president Guzmán Blanco enacted a decree making education free and universal).
Didn’t the people of California do the same when they recalled Gov. Davis? Didn’t the Bolivians do the same with their president a few weeks ago? Didn’t the people of Serbia do the same after years of being sick and tired of Milosevic taking them to wars?
Internationally, people on the streets asking for a president’s resignation is valued and praised by the public opinion. In Argentina, Peru, Ecuador, and Paraguay this was seen as ok.
But in Venezuela, the international media has chosen not to hear the people on the streets, mostly because THEY THINK THE DOMESTIC MEDIA HAS MANIPULATED THEM and that such is the reason for people to march up and down asking Chavez’ resignation.
This documentary, unfortunately, adds to that perception. And that is the problem I have with it.
When I see my mom, who is 64 years old, has no insurance, and receives no money for retirement because she always worked at home sawing to bring up her six girls, marching up the streets, because she wants to at least live thinking that in the morning she will be able to buy milk because it stays at the same price, it makes me angry to see that nobody listens.
True, there are people trying to take advantage of the situation. And these are powerful peope, who have penetrated the opposition. But it’s not ONLY about power, it’s about claiming for a better life.
My mom and dad also wanted a better life under Carlos Andrés Perez’ and Rafael Caldera’s second terms, which were highly corrupted (the first one prompting the same Chavez to attempt, twice, a coup d’etat).
And just to dissipate in the reader’s mind that I might be part of the “elite” I have to say that me and my sisters are very white and have a strange, foreign last name, because our grandfather was European. But we grew up in a low-middle class section of the city (not in the East as Carolina suggests), and don’t have any money.
I was the only one who got to get a career and now live abroad. And I send money every month for my mom and dad to live, cause otherwise, the government does not provide for them anything.
My point is, why not hear what the average Venezuelan has to say?
I won’t say don’t see the film. I would just say don’t make your judgement about what is occuring in Venezuela based on that film. Because I can assure you that my family has not been movilized by what the domestic media says, but by the hunger (yes, HUNGER) and the desire to lead a better and peaceful life which I think is just as legitimate as the desires of the people of Iraq, Serbia, Sierra Leone or Bolivia to have a government that takes care of their concerns.
Hi again,
to the people claiming that Amnesty International suspended the film because of their petition:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1090702,00.html
I quote:
“Last week, it was withdrawn from an Amnesty International (AI) film festival because Amnesty staff in Caracas said they feared for their safety if it were shown.”
It has nothing to do with the film content. Why did they feel threatened? Who would attack them?
Carolina
Ps. To Luisa, I understand your position and respect it very much. It’s too bad that the real opposition is hijacked by the power-thirsty crowd.
Then Read THIS, and (the problem is that the other side of the story, doesn’t exist, cuz those days april/12-13/2002, private medias where not televising what happened in the country streets.
For that the name of the documentary….
For that the critics to the documentary, cuz same people made Coup, don’t want that true be televised
from: guardian.co.uk
Chavez film puts staff at risk, says Amnesty
Recriminations after documentary on Venezuelan coup attempt is dropped from a Vancouver festival
Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Saturday November 22, 2003
The Guardian
An award-winnning documentary about the coup last year that briefly ousted the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, has become the subject of a bitter dispute. Last week, it was withdrawn from an Amnesty International (AI) film festival because Amnesty staff in Caracas said they feared for their safety if it were shown.
The film, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, was made by two Irish film makers, Kim Bartley and Donnacha O’Briain. They were preparing a documentary about Mr Chavez, with his cooperation, before the coup and were inside the presidential palace in April 2002 when the events unfolded.
The film has since been shown on television by the BBC, by RTE in Ireland, and elsewhere in Europe. This week it won two prizes at the Grierson documentary awards in Britain.
Mr Chavez was briefly removed from office by a military coup but returned to power after 48 hours. The political situation was then, and remains, highly polarised. The president as portrayed by his opponents is a dangerous, anti-US communist, while Chavez supporters see the opposition as the privileged seeking to preserve their powers from the underprivileged.
The film portrays Mr Chavez in a sympathetic light. It was shown on the public television channel in Venezuela earlier this year. The private television channels are all opposed to Mr Chavez.
Last week, the film was due to be shown at the AI film festival in Vancouver. The organising committee came under pressure from Chavez opponents in Venezuela and eventually decided not to show it.
John Tackaberry of AI said yesterday that the decision had been taken only after Amnesty staff in Venezuela had said that, if it were shown, it would present “some degree of threat to their physical safety”.
They told colleagues that, even if Amnesty ran a standard disclaimer, the organisation would be associated with the film, thus endangering its staff.
Mr Tackaberry said the withdrawal was not to do with the film’s quality or its politics, as Amnesty did not endorse any of the films at its festivals.
Other festivals due to show the film, and broadcasters who plan to show it, have been urged not to do so, or to allow a right to reply.
A Venezuelan TV producer and engineer, Wolfgang Schalk, is leading the campaign against the film. He said yesterday, in an email, that the film presented a distorted version of events. Mr Schalk said he had spent five months investigating the film.
“It tells a nice story with ‘true’ images of a ‘coup’ from the inside. But my 24 years of experience with TV, and a lifetime of living in Venezuela, told me something was wrong.” He assembled a forum with a general, a news executive of a private television station and the chief of police to analyse it, he said.
He claimed it became clear that the producers had “changed the order of the events to fit a story that appeals to audiences.”
An online petition was organised to complain about the film, which Mr Schalk said did not meet the ethical standards of the BBC.
The film makers are angry that attempts are being made to stop the film from being shown and defend its accuracy. “Our film presents a perspective on the events of April 2002 which is different to the one presented by the privately owned media in Venezuela,” they said in a statement.
“Unfortunately, this perfectly legitimate decision by AI to protect the safety of their workers has been distorted by some in order to claim that AI dropped our documentary because of its content.”
The following document is available in Amnesty International web services:http://web.amnesty.org/library/engindex
AI Index: AMR 53/006/2003 (Public)
News Service No: 087
10 April 2003
Venezuela: A Year on — Face up to the Facts of April 2002
“…The investigation and judicial process must lead to justice for the victims and their relatives, in order to avoid the pattern of impunity of other notorious cases of serious human rights violations which haunt Venezuela’s recent history,” said Amnesty International.
“Impunity for human rights violations leaves the victims and their families without redress and encourages further violations. This can only fuel the climate of violence undermining the rule of law and human rights in Venezuela.”
To ensure the success of the investigations, Amnesty International urges the authorities to guarantee that all agencies, including all police forces and the National Guard, cooperate fully with the investigation and ensure there is transparent and effective coordination between the Attorney General’s Office (Fiscalía General de la República) and the Scientific and Criminal Investigation Force Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalisticas (CICPC).
“It is vital that both these agencies receive the support and resources necessary to make their work timely and effective. The judiciary must also play a fundamental role by ensuring its timely, impartial and effective handling of these highly politicised cases; the executive and the legislature must ensure support for the investigation while avoiding any implication of undue influence on the results, ” said Amnesty International.
“If the responsibility, both criminal and moral, for violence of April 2002 is to be established it is vital that the opposition, including the media, contribute to the clarification of the facts, even if these do not coincide with their immediate political interests.”
A proposed commission of enquiry, to establish the truth surrounding the human rights violations committed in April 2002, has not been set up due to the failure of the opposition and government to guarantee its independence, impartiality and effectiveness. Amnesty International believes that another possible means of ensuring an impartial and credible enquiry could involve the participation of independent international experts, under the auspices of the international community, to visit Venezuela to evaluate the investigation and make binding recommendations. These mechanisms would be a step toward creating space and credibility for the facts of April to emerge from the political polarization affecting the country.
“One of the challenges to any such investigation is to clarify what led to the violence and the responsibility for it. Since April 2002, the political crisis destabilising Venezuela has repeatedly led to violence, with the police and National Guard employing excessive force against pro and anti-government demonstrators.”
The film may have been projected in whatever festival and may have won whatever award, nevertheless, it doesn’t make it a fair film. I believe that the production and support of that film by some europeans entities is just an anti-american position. I would have liked that Venezuela were not the object of this dispute.
As a Venezuelan and a former correspondent for both The New York Times and The Washington Post from Caracas, I had plenty of occasion to be outraged by the shoddy ethics displayed in the making of the film. I’ve written extensively about it in my blog, at:
http://caracaschronicles.blogspot.com/
and I urge you to have a look at the considered second opinion contained in that site about this harmful, propagandistic film, and about the need to defuse the climate of raw political confrontation that now pervades my country. With any luck, I would be thrilled if you linked to my blog from the bottom of your movie review.
Thanks for considering this request,
Francisco Toro
Chavez is the hope of the venezuelan poor people, thats why venezuelan rich people doesnt like him.
Before Chavez, venezuelan governments made too many mistakes, perhaps with intentions or because of corruption. In taking a critical position towards the current government it would be wrong to assume that before it the situacion was like heaven on earth.
Nevertheless, I feel that the thought of Chavez as the hope of poor people is rather naive.
Statistic reports published by government and independent agencies reveal that about 80% of the population is poor, meaning that they make an income less than enough for proper nourishment. Chavez has been in government for 5 years, and there is not even a tendency for changing the reality of poverty, there are no plans published, and therefore there cannot be believable hope. The only facts that can be observed is that private industry is finding problems to survive with the consecuency of growing unemployment. If the exercise of democracy allows venezuelan people to change things my hope is that new politicians in charge serve the best interest of all the population because Venezuela deserves it.
Most of the analysis I have read and heard about Chavez and the Venezuelan situation tend to oversimplify the problem and to make it appear as a just fight of the poor and oppressed against the rich. This is far from being even close to reality. Like all previous analyses that talk in favor of the infamous Chavez government, they correctly point out the problems (corruption, uneven distribution of the nation’s wealth, control of the economy by small elites, and so on) that the country has faced for decades. Everything sound reasonable until they try to make appear Chavez’ government as a competent one. Chavez and his government altogether represents one of the biggest scams put up by any group or political party in Venezuelan history, with the unique intention of preserving power for as long as they can get away with it. They took advantage of the growing dissatisfaction of the majority of people that always felt left aside by a succession of democratically elected governments. Chavez obtained what he wanted: Power, by offering people to “cut the heads of corrupt politicians” and “eliminate poverty” (nobody knows how yet, there is no known plan except for letting people starve, which he has done very well). In a nutshell: this the most obvious and grotesque case of demagogy only comparable to the Peron years in Argentina. Chavez and his entourage could not care less about poor people or about the well being of Venezuelans. The whole thing is a huge fraud, and all Venezuelans, poor, middle class and rich are paying the consequences and will pay them for decades. It is very sad to see what looks like educated people like you (the hosts of this web page) could fall for such a low scam put up by a mediocre-medium-level military man whose only merit in life was a failed coup d’état. If you want to know the truth, come to Venezuela, spend a couple of weeks here and talk to people. You will be able to find some supporter of Chavez here and there (pools say that 30% of the voters still support Chavez, despite the disastrous situation of the country after five years of government), but mostly, you will find millions and millions of people (the other 70%) that not only oppose the current regime, but simply despise it and can not wait one more minute to get rid of it.