Chavez: Inside the Coup

I saw this movie at the Belfast Film festival tonight.

People, (above), said its a 'bad' documentary. They said its 'bad' because the events of the coup attempt aren't put in context. I would agree with that 100%.

There was no mention of Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Haiti, Panama, El Salvador etc. US Government condoned & supported dictatorships in South American states are a fact. If you support US governments, then you share a responsibilty for the actions of those Governments, and I can understand why a film that records an attempted coup by the US Government would not appeal to you.

Overall I would recommend this film to anyone who might enjoy seeing a US Government conspiracy to overthrow ANOTHER South American Government fail.

It was a very unique insight into the coup that was obviously engineered by the United States. Western news media never even bothered to report on it and it was just a speedbump on the way to the Iraqi war. It was unbelievable to see the level of corruption in Venezuela, where the State's oil riches mysteriously don't make it to the public, but instead reside the hands of a few wealthy venezuelan individuals. It is truly ironic that the Venezuelan oil crisis was not a strike by Chavez, but a lockout by the powerful oil industry leaders there to force a crisis.

The dark ambitions of the coup leaders combined with the private media collaboration really makes you angry. Watching a democracy get toppled as easily as a child's lincoln log house demonstrates the true fragility of a government for the people, especially if the people become complacent.

As a patriotic American, I am saddened to see that our government conspired to overthrow a democratic ALLIED nation. I could understand a conspiracy to get rid of the government of an enemy, but an ally? What is going on in Washington?!?

The movie is truly an eye-opener into the dirty dealings that we get into when we perceive that our oil supplies are threatened.

Never before and never after has there been a documentary like this. What you get here is the most fascinating and unique look at historical events ever captured on film: you get to be inside a coup d'état in Venezuela while it is actually happening.

What happens before your eyes is stunning, shocking - and if it weren't for the very real events of similar nature in the past in other Latin American countries, unbelievable. The footage shown is brutal, but as to what we are actually seeing and what we are led to believe by clever construction - as Chavez' opponents are claiming - has to be decided by the viewer.

The heated debate this documentary has started is nearly as interesting as the coup itself, and I certainly won't give my personal opinion about what I believe to be the truth. But whether it's the best propaganda film ever or the most compelling capture of true events on celluloid since the footage of the JFK assassination - this is essential viewing.

See it, read about it - and then make up your own mind. 10 out of 10.

Favorite films: http://www.IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/

Lesser-known Masterpieces: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070242495/

Favorite Low-Budget and B-Movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls054808375/

Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls075552387/

I was really interested to see this film because my roots are in Venezuela. My father is from the capital city of Caracas, and though I was raised with my mom I have never forgotten for a moment that that was an important part of my heritage worth exploring. It is very difficult in the United States to get an honest idea at what is truly going on in other countries--let alone, our own. All the reports I read about President Hugo Chavez and the situation in Venezuela talked about corruption, proceeded to make a villain of all sides, to paint it as a big, bad Latin American country that wasn't doing as the United States had wanted them to do. For the life of me, I couldn't get the stories straight enough to learn even basic information about the coups taking place, and what started the intense hostility, dividing cultural, social and racial groups in the country.

I am happy to say that THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED was a terrific and very educational look at Chavez, his progressive approach to politics--actually listening to the poor, and the more indigenous people in the community, instead of just catering to the needs of the upper class who basically rule the country, their money coming from oil and other exports. I take my hat off to the Irish filmmakers who bravely visited Venezuela to make this film, and that it was released in the United States for limited release in such a timely manner. The truth will set us free...

There are three reasons to interpret this film cautiously. First, it was made by people whose roots are far from Latin America. Second, the filmmakers were in Venezuela as guests of the Chavez government, and had been filming a documentary about Chavez for seven months before the coup. Third, we are never told anything specific about the people who orchestrated the coup. The film identifies two leaders, Pedro Carmona (who was sworn in as President during the 2 day coup) and Carlos Ortega, but doesn't say who they are (Carmona was head of the national Chamber of Commerce; Ortega still heads a federation of labor unions). No opposition motives or reasons for the coup are put forward, even for the purpose of discrediting them. Indeed, the film offers no analysis whatsoever of any of the events it depicts.

Chavez comes across as an energetic, gregarious, intuitive sort who is comfortable touching and hugging people everywhere he goes. He disdains free market economic doctrines. We witness demonstrations for and against the government, and exchanges of gunfire, in the days leading up to the coup attempt. Private media sources are portrayed as mouthpieces for the opposition. We are shown how one private television station uses selective footage from a particular camera angle to distort the account of a gun battle in the streets, suggesting that pro-Chavez gunmen are firing at unarmed opposition protesters, when footage from another camera angle (shown in this film) seems to refute this interpretation.

Events during the coup attempt move briskly. The pace, tension, and grainy handheld footage - all remind one of a Costa-Gavras docudrama. The filmmakers are able to shoot up close - close to both pro-Chavez officials and opposition leaders after they take over the palace. (Chavez is taken into custody and driven elsewhere, but we don't see this occur). What lingers are impressions of the grim, quiet, calm of people within the palace, even in the midst of political chaos and noisy crowds at the palace gates. The smug cocksure demeanor of Carmona and his senior associates as they announce the coup. The coolly improvised efforts of the palace guard, who, after two days, bloodlessly seize opposition leaders and retake control of the palace on behalf of the pro-Chavez faction, as Chavez officials reemerge from hiding. Finally an uncharacteristically fatigued, subdued Chavez arrives by helicopter from the place he had been detained. He speaks on state television and in the quietest possible manner tells everyone to `be calm and go home.' It is absolutely the right thing to say delivered in exactly the right tone. This man does have exceptional gifts as a leader.

Taken at face value, this film portrays Chavez as a sunny populist champion of the little guy who's struggling against international fat cats and their domestic puppets to do the right thing for his country. My partner and I left the theater almost feeling infatuated with this warm and earnest man. A majority of Venezuelan voters obviously like him. Chavez was elected to a 5-year term as President in 1998 with 56% of the vote, and two years later, after an overhaul of the constitution, he ran again and won with 59%. It's no secret that the Bush administration doesn't like Chavez: they fear that with him in power Venezuelan oil supplies might become too unpredictable and pricey, and they also worry about Chavez's leftist agenda and hearty embrace of Fidel Castro. The C.I.A. may have aided the coup attempt. Diego Cisneros, who heads the largest private media conglomerate in Venezuela, is an old fishing buddy of George Bush the elder. The ("W") Bush government rushed to recognize Carmona's coup less than 36 hours after it began, and CNN continued to run disinformation bulletins, announcing the coup's success, well after Chavez had reestablished control. I learned on the filmmakers' website that Amnesty International pulled this film from a Human Rights Film Festival in Vancouver B.C. recently because of reports from its Venezuelan affiliate that screening the film could cause harm to some people, presumably associated with AI, in that country. Harm by whom? Certainly unlikely from pro-Chavez people. They couldn't hope for better propaganda than this film offers.

But a darker side of the Venezuelan President emerges from other sources. Information available at the Human Rights Watch (HRW) website and from Reporters Without Borders (RWB) indicates serious compromise of freedom of the press in Venezuela throughout 2002 and 2003, troubles perpetrated both by anti-Chavez and pro-Chavez forces. In 2002, 1 journalist was killed, 58 were physically attacked, and another 16 were threatened. In January, 2002, shortly before the coup, a bomb exploded in offices of a daily newspaper that had published anti-Chavez views. In July, 2002, just three months after the coup, a private TV station was bombed. RWB states that Chavez supporters `.staged many protests designed to intimidate privately-owned news media and repeatedly attacked journalists covering demonstrations.[these events were] spurred on by the President's verbal attacks on the press and the radically anti-Chavez stance adopted by privately owned news media...' In February, 2003, HRW reported that four opposition journalists had been abducted or murdered. In July, 2003, HRW wrote to Chavez, asking him to investigate `critical threats to freedom of the press.'. Journalists whose work supports opposition views `.have been the victims of aggression and intimidation by Chavez supporters,' HRW claimed.

The next elections are scheduled for December, 2006, but under the new constitution Chavez helped create, a referendum can be called for, half way through any presidential term. As of late January, 2004, such a referendum is formally being sought, with nearly 3 ½ million signatures collected. If the petition is validated in February by the government, this would mean a vote in May to either oust Chavez early or support completion of his term. (I gave this film two grades: A- for rare fly-on-the-wall reportage of history in the making, and C- for lack of balance in content and superficial or absent analysis.