Avaliações de usuários

Be advised that curiosity seem to be the major drive behind this movie. Not righteousness. Mads Brügger doesn't judge or morally question the conduct of the people in his movie, and to be honest, I found it incredibly refreshing! The movie asks a bunch of questions: How are diamonds smuggled out of Africa? How does one become a part of this corrupt diplomacy in the first place? And lots more! Yes, some of them remain unanswered – I didn't mind terribly.

Seeking answers, Mads Brügger turns himself into a neocolonialist cliché: The Ambassador. Name a stereotypical trait of a white, corrupt diplomat in Africa and you can be sure this Ambassador does it, says it, smokes it or wears it. His tailor made khaki suits, super glossy burgundy riding boots, silver cuff-links and constant smoking of (expensive) cigars... it's all a part of telling the story of how one man made his way into the business of diamonds and fake diplomacy. That's what you should watch it for.

Overall I found the Ambassador immensely fascinating and in some places funny, but informative at the same time. I learned something and I was entertained. Well done!

This documentary is a real insight into dealing and wheeling in Central African Republic. I heard all the bad things about that country. It seems that it is bad as they say. It looks that they are not only corrupt but cannibals as well. It gives me shivers down my spine.

I am sorry to say that more and more countries in the world look as failed states as they CAR. It really shows us in what sorry state Africa is in.

Just few days they showed footage of people trying to get into Mellia, so desperate to get to Europe.

More and more people like that are coming all the time from the failed states of Africa.

Nothing can be done to stop that.

Mads Brugger plays his character well as an under cover shady diplomat. It is humorous simply because you know he is faking it and everyone around him is taking him seriously.

The fact of the matter is that Mads Brugger was really risking his life to get this footage. There was no abort button, if things went horribly wrong we wouldn't even have this documentary. I would have liked him to go deeper into the shadow-world of Africa, but the fact of the matter is that he could have ended up dead in a ditch. He is lucky that he did not.

This is not a documentary about morals, it is simply a documentary about how easy it is for the wealthy to become involved in corrupt government. It shows how far money can go in a corrupt society. The fact of the matter is that as stated in the movie, 2,500 of people were registered as Ambassadors to that single country in one year. That is just to give you an idea of how many wealthy people are living this lifestyle.

It seems that all the less than positive reviews of this film have failed to realize the genre of the film--that is absurdism. Attempting to create an argument through logical and deductive reasoning--in the sense that everything be perfectly scripted and organized--utterly fails to consider the wider spectroscope of human nature. Absurdism tends to lends itself a generous victim to narrow and short-sighted attacks and criticism-- searching for meaning in an otherwise meaningless reality. Welcome to the wold of contradiction and compromise--in other words--reality. Watching or reading such genres never fails to stoke up some amount of internal conflict--yet somehow feel an awkward (e.g. absurd) connection.

The Ambassador looks like a ninety minute version of the television news program 60 Minutes, with only Mike Wallsce jumping out for a confrontation missing. A Danish man finds a couple of different companies who sell diplomatic credentials for cash. Using a series of videos from hidden cameras, he shows the widespread corruption which crosses all national and racial boundaries. A major problem is, although most of the meetings are in English, many are in French, without translation.

He buys an official diplomacy for $130,000 and sets up a match factory with an Indian guy as cover for diamond mining. Thousands of such "diplomacies" are uncovered by the filmmaker, which isn't a big surprise to anyone who watches the news. Everyone has a price, as the saying goes, and even here in America, we have over 30,000 lobbyists, who bribe government officials every day to pass laws favorable to their clients.

As far as the documentary goes, it is extremely redundant, with endless meetings with officials being paid off for helping the "diplomat" do business in Africa. The Ambassador is done with a satirical bent, but is never very funny, given the subject matter in the end, which is blood diamonds. Overall, it is a sad commentary on the human race; we are all doomed.

This documentary is both very funny, and very serious at the same time. Digging into a widely known topic, which on the other hand never gets exploited.

While the evidence may be rather thin, you're not in doubt what is happening the most of the time. And when the evidence are not there at all, there's usually the humerus way of exploiting the corrupt people in the process.

So overall a very good original humerus foreign political documentary, which still contains some good inside on the topic. The 9 is for the really creative way this is made, and thereby it's originality compared to similar documentaries.

Enjoy.

Crack reporter Mads Brugger invokes his inner Sascha Baron Cohen to turn into a Liberian diplomat searching for blood diamonds and the corruption surrounding it. Through his journey he comes into contact with brokers, who deal in diplomatic papers, thus offering despicable white guys opportunities to practise shady business matters in Africa. Laden with cash and an ultimate pre-ordained goal (of uncovering the blood diamonds trade), he dons a white suit, immerses himself into an eccentric European persona with racial stereotypes and ludicrous point of views, soon raining down on the Central African Republic, one of the most corrupt failed states in the world.

Despite touching some extremely fascinating issues, such as the brokerage in diplomatic passports, post-colonial back-room dealings and the mechanisms of power and money, "The Ambassador" poses several very problematic issues in terms of artistic honesty, limited contemplation and matter sensitivity by the director as well as some starkly distracting manipulative tactics. When Brugger is in character generally anything goes, much like the famed Borat, but unlike his British predecessor the Dutch director fails to capture the same controversial feedback, instead our quirky diplomat talks absurd nonsense to liven up proceedings with his unknowing counterparts just letting the powerful white dude churn out drivel, at best nodding in belated agreement. However the problem area lies in the overriding outlook by Mads Brugger, who often narrates his close-minded point of view, unfortunately one quagmired in generalisations, ignorance and a permeating lack of sensitivity. The basic message and ultimate downfall of Brugger being: "This is Africa", as if a documentary about Belarus could be summarised as "This is Europe". The Heart of Darkness is obviously invoked (despite the fact that the 'heart of darkness' by Conrad actually wasn't placed in Africa, but inside white colonialists), while Brugger dishes out overly generalised comments hidden within 'jokey punts' for the effect factor, making him almost as derogatory a character as his 'false diplomat' persona.

"The Ambassador" also feels overly fabricated as Mad Brugger has his mind set on reaching the pre-conceived conclusions, and if the facts say otherwise then f%^& the facts - such as the unapologethically misinformed attack on Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, which concludes the documentary. Another stark example: when shown a picture of what in my eyes looked like an amiable and friendly looking Asian, Brugger surprisingly narrates about how this person looks 'shady' (why? because he's Chinese?). The director's quest for so-called 'blood diamonds' ends up looking like a wild goose chase, but when he finally comes across a partner in business, it turns out that Brugger has a self-proclaimed definition of what 'blood diamonds' are (apparently government licensed diamonds mines using crude artisinal extraction methods qualifies as 'blood mining'). The stronger questions regarding corruption, the whole audacity of trading in diplomatics credentials and power mechanisms seems overshadowed by Brugger's incessant focus on getting a big story, instead of focusing on the small issues exposed to form the big picture.

The most divisive and contemptuous matters occur when Mads Bruger decides to have some mock fun at the expense of Pygmies, a side of the narrative, which should have been cut out for the director's sake, as he comes out as extremely exploitative and tasteless. A issue very well summarised by Docutopia reviewer Anthony Kaufman: "Thus, like the political stunts of Michael Moore, sometimes they work brilliantly when the target is right, as in Bowling for Columbine, when he goes after K-mart for selling bullets; but not when that target is misplaced, as when he goes after ailing NRA president Charlton Heston in the same film, trying to make him feel responsible for the shooting death of a young girl." Thus the inherent problem of Mads Bruger himself often feeling like the most embarrassing thing in the movie, something that "Borat" managed to avoid despite the titular hero running around with buttocks exposed in a five star hotel.