Oliver Stone’s new documentary “South of the Border” was well received by pre-screening attendees at the Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts on Thursday July 8.
Venezuelan Consulate Martín Sánchez and New American Media reporter Roberto Lovato led a panel discussion after the screening in which they stressed the importance of spreading the documentary’s anti-imperialist, pro-Bolivarian solidarity message. The response from the audience proved that there is great interest in the countries “south of the border” and the relationship they have with the Latino community in the United States.
My criticism of the documentary is not of what Sánchez called a lack of objectivity, as he responded to the criticisms I raised, but rather with something I call journalistic responsibility. When I speak of a critical view, I’m not speaking about the kind of balanced reporting that would require an interview with a Ku Klux Klan member if you were to make a documentary on Rosa Parks. I’m referring solely to Stone’s documentary. If this film’s mission statement is to document the political transformation of a region, it should aspire to include— at the very least the opinions of some of its inhabitants—not just its Head of State.
When the documenting of a region like South America is comprised of the interviews of only its presidents, the reality it portrays is limited in vision—a vision that is isolated and warped. Without a doubt, the opinions they share about their country’s state of affairs is at best biased and at its worst delusional. If the documentary solely intended to capture the personalities of Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, Cristina Kirchner, Lula da Silva, Rafael Correa and Fernando Lugo, it succeeded.
I don’t doubt writer historian Tariq Ali and Stone had good intentions in wanting to uncover the lighter side of the United States’ southern counterparts—a side that the mainstream media has buried in farcical dramas and soundbites. In fact, I think that debunking the demonic mystique of South America’s political leaders for those who routinely nourish themselves with CNN and Fox News is an important step in combating their dominance. If there is one thing the documentary does well it is showing how quickly Hugo Chavez was demonized by the US press as a dictator despite the fact that he was thrice elected through a democratic process.
Engaging these leaders in an intimate setting allows audiences to break free of the caricatures that the mainstream media so carefully constructed. Stone introduces viewers to the softer-side of Hugo Chávez at his humble childhood home riding a bicycle. Moments later, the bicycle collapses under his weight.
“Who’s bicycle is this? We’re gonna have to pay for it,” he says holding the small rusty bike with one hand, looking embarrassed.
We also get to see Chavéz in his office,
“When did you go to sleep last night?” Stone asks him. “At three (a.m.),” Chavez answers.
“And until what time did you work?” Stones continues.
“Until the time I went to sleep,” responds Chávez, showing Stone his binder full of papers. “I have a lot of things to read, to study,”
The documentary manages to show the president’s humanity, as well as quash lies propagated by the mainstream media,
However, kindness and humility should not be mistaken for competent leadership. I am certain that if George W. Bush were to invite me to his ranch in Texas, we would have a great time grilling steaks and riding horse–leaving me to think that I was in the company a very nice guy. I’d laugh at his jokes, be taken aback by his kindness and amused by his silly cowboy hat and childish sense of humor. But I would not assume that a pleasant demeanor makes him a good leader.
After the screening, attendee Brett Bottorof expressed a sense of disappointment with the documentary and its lack of objectivity. As it stands, he says, the film seems more like propaganda and not a documentary.
I think that even if I knew nothing of the situation in South America, I would at least find it suspicious that there was no criticism of Chávez’s government.
Strangely enough, the documentary also fails to talk about Chavez’s Bolivarian missions and the social services that have been instituted by his administration. It also does not to mention the misleading claims of economic growth by oil states that tout a high gross domestic product that fails to reflect current social inequality or internal corruption, or the growing black market for the US dollar.
I would not be surprised if the numbers the documentary flaunts as true about Venezuela’s recent economic growth were coming from Chávez himself. When a documentary exhibits so many factual errors, as the NY Times points out, its credibility gives way to doubt.
Despite the producer’s attempts to counter those criticisms, its educational value remains debatable.
My criticism concerning a journalists’ responsibility is directed squarely at Ali and Stone, two very-capable dissenters of American imperialism. The responsibility that comes along with agreeing to make a documentary about Latin American politics should not be taken lightly, especially given the unprecedented access they had to region’s political elite.
If Ali and Stone hope to present alternative to corrupt mainstream media entities and American imperialism, it should be well-researched and unbiased. It should be inclusive of a critical view that highlights the positives and negatives of that political alternative. This is necessary for it to be a reliable resource of information for audiences.
I’m not only disappointed with the lack of meaningful content, but also with the sloppy and poor production values and editing.
As someone commented upon exiting the building, “Stone is like a decaf Michael Moore.”
At times it seems as though Stone is either confused, uninterested or simply bored by what he is hearing and looks engaged only after Evo Morales hands him cocaine leaves to chew on to combat altitude sickness.
“South of the Border” doesn’t just lack the presence of Latin America’s numerous social movements, but also the voice of the opposition, If only to balance the heroic words Chávez closes with, “Yes it’s possible Oliver!”
Personally, I would have liked to have met the individuals necessary for making such a statement—like that a reality—the region’s citizenry—to have seen them not just as a convenient backdrop, but as participant of equal standing.