The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (2003)
It’s hard to imagine a more appropriate
feature to watch on the eve of the impending War on
Iraq than “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.“
On the final evening of SXSW
2003, the last film of the festival was shown
in the majestic Paramount Theater, a mere 3 blocks
away from the Texas State Capitol building and the
Governor’s mansion here in Austin. Many UT students
back in town from Spring Break purchased individual
tickets to the film and the 900 seats on the lower
floor of the Paramount were packed solid with many
young people eager to see a film that represented
a portion of the world political arena. With anti-war
sentiment running high on college campuses, and in
George W. Bush’s home state (and city) in particular,
the crowd could best be described as having an astute
interest in politics. The young students there could
not possibly find a more intriguing and complex character
in the world arena than Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez. Chavez is the focus of this film.
It’s too bad that “The Revolution
Will Not Be Televised” is such a one-sided, biased,
blatant display of political filmmaking. Chavez is
introduced fairly here and shown to be a true candidate
of the people. We immediately liken him to Bill Clinton
in his ability to charm a throng of admirers in the
citizenry. His love for the people leads him into
the streets to meet them and hear their stories. For
quite a while the film builds Chavez as a wonderful
new hope for Venezuela and underscores the promise
he holds for a nation made up of very impoverished
people.
The stage is set quite nicely by
the film. Venezuela is the third largest oil producing
nation in the world but Chavez has suggested that
he will change the nature of the wealth of the country
and distribute it more evenly. In other words: He
is a communist. It is even mentioned that Chavez is
friendly with Cuban leader Fidel Castro (and many
images of Che Guevara also appear). It’s easy to see
why the American political leaders might have problems
with him. (When the Bush’s press secretary Ari Fleischer
was shown on the film here, many of the students in
the audience hissed). Meanwhile, Chavez was also elected
by a popular vote and has installed a very democratic
constitution and given his people many freedoms.
But the film’s bias begins to be
exposed when those who are against Chavez are shown.
There are surely many who oppose Chavez in Venezuela,
but the only ones we see here are the enormously wealthy
and snotty. There’s even footage shot at a wealthy
neighborhood association meeting where the gathered
gentry suggest that their domestic help should be
watched very closely. It is also suggested that these
servants may even provoke violence against their employers.
When these people are interviewed, only the most ugly
rich old widows are shown and they say the most inane
things. It’s so biased as to become farce.
Likewise the media is shown to be
controlled by anti-Chavez politicos. While the media
seems unfair and does not work to assist Chavez, he
does have a state controlled TV station at his disposal
to use as he wishes. The film also wisely notes that
Chavez supports free speech and therefore does not
interfere with the “free” media even when they speak
against him or call his mental stability into question.
But what is never questioned or investigated is why
the free media in Venezuela works so hard against
him. I assume they are owned by the same wealthy snobs
who fear for their status and wealth in the hands
of Chavez as the rich widows do but it is never discussed.
Yes this film is strictly pro-Chavez.
A lengthy interview with the president where he discusses
how his grandfather was a mercenary who perceived
to be a murderer by his grandmother is important to
understanding the man and his point of view. We even
see Chavez giving a speech condemning the United States
for starting a war where he comes across as both anti-terrorist
and also anti-war. (Talk about Clintonesque!)
But truly the most amazing thing
about the film is how a political coup takes place
disposing Chavez. The coup lasts two days before his
guards retake the Presidential Palace and insist on
his return. It’s an amazing scenario and the cameras
are there to capture it all. The filmmakers behind
this piece have full access to the palace and catch
much interesting footage for our perusal. It is unlikely
that any footage exists anywhere that is as “you are
there” during a political coup than what we see here.
But again, all of this is shown
from a pro-Chavez, anti-coup point of view. Now, I’m
not saying that this isn’t perhaps the way I should
feel about the story. I would like to watch this film
and be Pro-Chavez; but this “documentary” is so biased
and so pro-Chavez that I felt I was being manipulated
and coerced by it. It was my natural inclination to
rebel against Chavez when he is shown in a film that
appears to be basically the equivalent of “Triumph
of the Will” for the next millennium.
“The Revolution Will Not Be Televised”
is made by Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain. I don’t
know who narrates it but I assume it is O’Briain as
he has an Irish accent and delivers his narration
as if he were there. The question that still nags
me is this: What do the Irish have to do with Venezuela?
If history is as much about who is telling it to you
as what actually happened, then why are Bartley and
O'Briain so adamantly pro-Chavez and so obviously
anti-American.
This film left me with more questions
than answers and more distrusting of documentary filmmakers
than ever before. To watch 900 American students rally
around Chavez as a hero without questioning the film
they were seeing or the way they were being told the
story frightened me beyond comprehension. If it is
this easy to manipulate and inspire our young people
than how long before there is another Hitler? And
another Leni Reifenstahl? And another Nazi Youth?
Notes:
Some very troubling violent and
bloody footage of the coup and rioting in the street
is shown.
Viewed in Austin in March at the
2003 SXSW
Film Festival.
