Our Brand Is Crisis

Want a reminder of why so many people around the world think Americans are clueless, ignorant and narrow-minded? Go see "Our Brand is Crisis." Rachel Boynton seems shocked that Bolivians use modern campaign techniques: polls, focus groups, etc. Who would have thought, huh? I have news for Boynton: they also have highways, email, television and movie theaters. Yes, I know it must come as a shock to you.

The whole tone of the film is so patronizing (poor little people being helped by big-shot Americans) I cringed most of the time. At the movie theater where I saw this film there were many South Americans and once the lights went on, I could see them rolling their eyes and hear their comments: shallow, patronizing, clueless. I could not have agreed more.

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

9 of 10. This documentary has gotten better and more insightful and relevant without changing a thing.

I had forgotten about it until the recently released 2015 film by the same name. That film is more of an action/suspense/comedy version that should be enjoyable by everyone regardless of whether they're into the hidden secrets of politics.

Besides capturing the actual crisis and disaster that happened in Bolivia with the aid of what amount to marketing and advertising gurus for hire recklessly selling a candidate without regard to who the candidate is or what they are capable of.

The elephant in the room, alluded to but never addressed specifically, is that Bolivia is one of those countries targeted by the "war on drugs". The campaigners didn't think to ask why their group was bought and brought in for this particular candidate as opposed to one of the others.

Today's brand: Yes Your Country Can be Taken Over by Focus Groups.

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).

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.