Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: "South of the Border"

  1. #1
    Senior Member anatta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    flame above the ghee
    Posts
    29,563
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default "South of the Border"

    Oliver Stone heads 'South of the Border' to chat up Chavez and others
    The director's new documentary seeks to change U.S. perceptions of South America's leftist leaders.
    By Reed Johnson

    September 1, 2009
    E-mail Print Share Text size

    In his new documentary "South of the Border," Oliver Stone is shown warmly embracing Hugo Chávez, nibbling coca leaves with Evo Morales and gently teasing Cristina Elizabeth Fernández de Kirchner about how many pairs of shoes she owns.

    These amiable, off-the-cuff snapshots of the presidents of Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina, respectively, contrast with the way these left-leaning leaders often are depicted in U.S. political and mass media circles. That's especially true of Chávez, the former military officer turned democratically elected socialist leader, who has become the ideological heir apparent to Fidel Castro and the bęte noire of Bush administration foreign policy officials.

    In setting out to make "South of the Border," which is scheduled to have its world premiere this week at the Venice Film Festival, Stone, a lightning-rod figure himself for the better part of three decades, says that he wanted to supply a counterpoint to the prevailing U.S. image of Chávez, who's frequently represented in stateside op-ed pieces and political cartoons as a bellicose dictator-cum-comic opera figure.

    "I think he's an extremely dynamic and charismatic figure. He's open and warmhearted and big, and a fascinating character," says the director of "JFK" and "Wall Street," speaking by phone from New York, where he's working on a much-publicized "Wall Street" sequel. "But when I go back to the States I keep hearing these horror stories about 'dictator,' 'bad guy,' 'menace to American society.' I think the project started as something about the American media demonizing Latin leaders. It became more than that as we got more involved."

    In addition to Chávez, Stone sought to flesh out several other South American leaders whose policies and personalities generally get scant media attention in the United States and Europe: Morales; Cristina Kirchner and her husband, Argentine former president Néstor Kirchner; Rafael Correa of Ecuador; Raúl Castro of Cuba; Fernando Lugo Méndez of Paraguay; and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil.

    "The press in America, I think you're aware, has divided the Latin continent into the 'bad Left' and the 'good Left,' " Stone says. "They've now listed Correa as the bad Left, along with Morales and with Chávez. They call . . . Lula, the good Left. I don't know what they make of Kirchner yet, because they go back and forth, but I think they're turning against Kirchner more and more. You get this distinction, and I think it's a false distinction."

    Both Stone and the film's writer, the Pakistani-British historian, novelist and commentator Tariq Ali, say that the roughly 90-minute documentary isn't intended to be a comprehensive analysis of current South American political trends. It doesn't try to parse the radically divergent views of a figure as polarizing as Chávez. Nor does it substantially address the ongoing criticisms of his incendiary rhetoric (he once called Bush the devil), his frequent dust-ups with Venezuela's opposition media (which supported a 2002 coup against him), or his disputed role in aiding leftist rebels fighting the government of neighboring Colombia.

    "We had not set out in the spirit of, like, making this a contentious debate," says Stone, who first met the Venezuelan president in 2007. "When you try to get into every single rightist argument against Chávez, you're never going to win. You're going to bore the audience."

    Instead, the filmmakers decided to make what Ali calls "a political road movie" by visiting Chávez's peers throughout the hemisphere and asking what they think of him. Stone and his crew travel from the Caribbean down the spine of the Andes trying to explain the Chávez phenomenon and account for the continent's recent leftward tilt.

    A big part of the explanation the film advances is that the free-market economic policies pushed by the U.S. and the International Monetary Fund over the last several years largely have failed to alleviate Latin America's chronic income inequality. The film suggests that financial calamities such as the Argentine peso collapse of 2001, combined with Latin suspicions of U.S. drug-eradication efforts and resentment over the selling off of natural resources through multinational companies, also have contributed to the rise of socialist and social-democratic leaders across the region.

    Ali believes that many United States foreign policy officials still are operating on a Cold War paradigm that prevents them from grasping the changing social realities that have brought a new generation of politicians to power.

    "These changes that are taking place are not coming about through armed struggle or guerrilla warfare or Che Guevara," Ali says, speaking from London. "All these changes have come about through democratic elections. And that makes it a very, very significant development in that continent."

    For some viewers and critics, the political nuances in "South of the Border" may register less than the sight of Stone playfully kicking a soccer ball with Morales or listening empathetically as Chávez articulates his dream of spreading what he calls his "Bolivarian Revolution" across the continent. Stone was roundly criticized for taking too chummy a tone with Fidel Castro in his 2003 documentary "Comandante." He then produced a harder-edged follow-up, "Looking for Fidel," in which he pressed the Cuban leader about his treatment of dissidents and other sensitive matters.

    In an era when few Hollywood directors bother to deal with historical or political topics at all, Stone frequently has been targeted for playing loose with historical facts in movies including "JFK" and "Alexander," about Alexander the Great. On this score, he vigorously defends his record.

    "You do your homework, you do your research, we always did, whatever you think of my work," he says. "Even going back to 'JFK,' I've always done as much research as we could. And there's mistakes made, but there's a lot of truth, you know, as much as we can put into these movies."

    He's alert to accusations of "being soft-hearted or human-hearted" to politicians with whom he sympathizes. But he freely acknowledges where his sympathies lie in "South of the Border."

    "I'm rooting for this Bolivarian movement," he says. "I'm rooting for their independence because I think that America has a new role to play in this world, and that's not of an oppressor, but that of a cooperative and, let's call it equal, partner."

    The director says that the broader theme behind "South of the Border," and much of his other film work, is the question of "why does America reach out to make enemies." He plans to develop this theme in a 10-part cable TV documentary series "The Secret History of America" that is scheduled to premiere in 2010.

    "I'm fascinated by that subject, whether it's the Taliban or whether it's Iran or whether it's South Vietnam, going back to those days," Stone says. "As a young man I [was] brainwashed into believing we had enemies left and right. And now that I've traveled the world, I mean you have to wonder why. Why do we constantly do this? Where is this paranoia born in us?"


    Once disentangled, remain in the blissful state of ultimate tanglementlessness.

  2. #2
    Senior Member anatta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    flame above the ghee
    Posts
    29,563
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Any change in the Janquis attitude to explortation -really exploitation - would be welcome.
    We'd have to let th southern hemisphere find their natural co-operative levels, without US interference.

    We do have enemies though, the real enemies are the enemies we've always had to confront , because they threaten world order, or peace.
    A nuclear Iran would fit that description.

    The Americas should have a natural geopgraphical co-operation.

    Cuba END THAT EMBARGO might naturally move back to a healthy relationship with the US .

    Things would naturally co opt into political relationships


    Once disentangled, remain in the blissful state of ultimate tanglementlessness.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •