Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuA documentary on American political campaign marketing tactics and their consequences.A documentary on American political campaign marketing tactics and their consequences.A documentary on American political campaign marketing tactics and their consequences.
- Auszeichnungen
- 1 Gewinn & 2 Nominierungen insgesamt
Manuel Rocha
- Self - US Ambassadir to Bolivia
- (Archivfilmmaterial)
Adam Webber
- Self (GCS Associate)
- (as Amy Webber)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
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
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
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.
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.
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).
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).
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
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
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.
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.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesA feature length film with the same title out 2015 featuring Sandra Bullock and Billy Bob Thornton
- VerbindungenFeatured in 2006 Independent Spirit Awards (2006)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
Box Office
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 166.750 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 7.970 $
- 5. März 2006
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 166.750 $
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 27 Min.(87 min)
- Farbe
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen