South of the Border

The vast majority of North Americans know nothing or very little of what happens in South America. When our media is not concerned with "news" regarding Tiger Woods' latest romantic conquest or graphic details of some sick murder they give us some "real" international news. These international news help us decide - actually make us decide - who the good guys and who the bad guys are. Media can be "subtle" for the more "sophisticated" among us or simply brainwashing drivel of Fox news nature. In any case it more dis-informs than informs. In this film, Oliver Stone opens our eyes to what really happens in South America - their (many) problems their attempts to solutions their changes. If Fox News and The CNN have not brainwashed you completely and irreversibly, you've got to see this film.

South of the Border (2009)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Director Oliver Stone certainly isn't shy when it comes to controversial subjects but at the same time I'm really not sure he's the one you'd want to deliver a documentary. In this film he travels to five countries in order to tell the American people that the media is evil, George Bush is nothing more than Hitler and that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is one of the greatest men on the planet. Look, I don't know how much truth is in this film and let's pretend that every second in the 78-minute running time is nothing but the truth. That's fine but I have a hard time believing anything here because Stone clearly didn't set out to make a documentary but instead he wanted to give his political point of view without any other opinions coming in. I was a little surprised by the short running time but I guess that should be expected because we never hear from the "other side" and instead we just hear from the main guys as they tell us why they're so great and why the American media wants to paint them as monsters. Again, I'm perfectly fine in someone telling me that these guys are angels but at the same time I want to hear from those who are trying to paint a different picture. Stone clearly wants this film to be a love story to Chavez, Luis Inacio Lula de Silva, Evo Morales, Fernando Lugo and Rafael Correa. He interviews all of these people and they tell us all the great things they've done and inform us (again) that the American media has them all wrong. The film spends plenty of time telling us why Bush is evil and we hear why the American people are simply being fed lies and are too stupid to figure anything out on their own. SOUTH OF THE BORDER is a decent movie and I must admit I had a good time watching Stone interview these people. Again, perhaps everything said here is true but I still want to hear from the other side. I also have a hard time with any documentary that tries to show the subjects to be "down to Earth" by having them do childish things. This includes a scene where Stone directs Chavez to ride a bike like a kid and another scene where he plays soccer.

Stone is a heavy name in American film. It is used here to help balance the US media's ignorance of recent South American political inclinations. He interviews many elected officials, all of whom seem to be pretty enlightened guys, just like Stone. But they are politicians, each tooting their own horn - one couldn't expect any less. Big meaningful progressive issues are bandied about with revolutionary relish. And Stone could not be less inclined to investigate the ground beneath their feet.

If all this great stuff is happening in South America I couldn't be happier. But knowing how the world works I found it difficult to swallow all of the rhetoric as easily as Stone. His ear is surely closer to the ground than Fox, CNN or the NYT. But what does he need to do, as a filmmaker, to convince his audience of his point of view? He needs to show the proof in the pudding. Lets see the beans in the burrito. Not just the guacamole sauce.

How are these political changes working for the citizens? Let's hear it from the ground up, Oliver. How is Bolivarianism actually achieved within a 21st century global economy? I want to SEE this. If it is happening, why not show the nuts and bolts? Why not interview the newly empowered taxpaying residents and let them show the world how the new policies are changing their lives? To hear politicians gush about it will only move audiences to skepticism. By faith alone? - that's strictly for gringos.

As a fiction and fantasy auteur, it may be that Stone doesn't believe that a documentary approach can speak to the hearts and minds of a society raised on cable junk. He's probably right. But if he's a committed socialist he should work at it a little harder. Many of us are riper for it than even he may realize.

Latin American politics has moved markedly leftward in recent years. The shift might have extended as far north as Mexico, had Andrés Manuel López Obrador not been defeated in a much-contested election in 2006. A Wikipedia "History of South America" gives the following list of left wing South American presidents by date of election: Hugo Chávez of Venezuela (1998), Ricardo Lagos and later Michelle Bachelet of Chile (1999; 2006), Luís Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil (2002) and Lucio Gutiérrez and Rafael Correa of Ecuador (2002; 2006), Néstor Kirchner of Argentina, succeeded by his wife Cristina (2003 and 2007), Tabaré Vázquez and José Mujica of Uruguay (2004 and 2008), Evo Morales of Bolivia (2005), and Fernando Lugo of Paraguay (2008). (The remaining strong right-wing government in the region is Colombia, coincidentally the closest US ally there.)

This group isn't monolithic. Some are populist and international in focus, like the most visible figure, Chávez; others, like Lula and the Kirchners, are more focused on local problems. As the Wikipedia article points out, in 2008 the Union of South American Nations was formed, aiming to function like the European Union; it is a decisive signal of the end of US hegemony in the region. The days may be over when the CIA can conduct a boldfaced coup like the ouster and killing of Salvador Allende in Chile September 11, 1973, replacing him with a right-wing leader, Augusto Pinochet, friendly to the US and to business interests. As Wikipedia points out, "In the 1960s and 1970s, the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay were overthrown or displaced by U.S.-aligned military dictatorships." And then of course there is the scandal of Iran-Contra during the Reagan era of the Eighties, symbolic of the US' self-interested anti-progressive role in various conflicts, such as those of Nicaragua and El Salvador.

One reason for the shift to the left and the rise of more democratically elected governments is the economic problems brought about by neoliberal, i.e., market-based policies that benefited the rich nations and further impoverished the South. The presence of former bishop Fernando Lugo may attest to the political influence of "Liberation Theology" in Latin America since the Fifties and Sixties, an activist philosophy linking Catholic faith with the struggle for the rights of the poor and dispossessed.

North Americans don't know a lot about these developments, and it's hard to be informed about them from a US perspective, especially if one does not know Spanish. US government policy has long favored any malleable, pro-American regime, and views favorable to other regimes are hard to find on the English-language Web or mainstream media. The new left-leaning group of Latin American governments is despised in Washington circles precisely because its members are, if not strongly at odds with the US, like Cuba or Venezuela, no longer willing to bow to the major US-dominated economic forces represented by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It is easy to find criticisms of the new leaders, especially of Hugo Chávez, on the English-language Internet.

Into this scene comes Oliver Stone's new documentary, 'South of the Border,' which focuses on Chávez, Morales, and several others; he does not interview all of the dozen leaders listed above. To cover them all, with their individual national issues, would be a daunting task for an 85-minute film. It is a mixed blessing to have Stone's film available to US audiences. Predictably, it has been ruthlessly attacked by the American press and reviewers. Unfortunately, Stone is an easy mark. Much of his information is valid. But in the voice-over narration, he repeatedly mispronounced Chávez as "Chavéz": accents do matter in Spanish names, and even George Bush got this one right. Stone has only one talking head, his political adviser on the film Tariq Ali, a London born leftist with a recent book on this subject who has a tendency to sound strident and dogmatic. Stone makes elementary errors, like saying they are flying over the Andes when for the most part they are not. He is entirely too chummy with the leaders, congratulating them, shaking their hands, and hugging them on camera in a manner that is not only a revelation of bias but vaguely condescending.

There is also the problem of proportion. In the brief film Stone devotes at least twenty minutes to the story of Chávez's rise and the debates over coverage of the 2002 coup – time that might better have been spent presenting new material about the other leaders, about whom we know less.

The Chávez coup has already been covered elsewhere in Bartley and O'Briain's 'Revolution Will Not Be Televised' (2003). The virulent response I received from the anti-Chávez camp in Caracas from my review on IMDb at that time showed how extreme the polarization is. This camp is particularly eager to propagandize against Bartley and O'Brian because their film is quite convincing. Stone has not done better.

South America is rife with class conflict, and wealth remains in the hands of the few, while many are impoverished. The advantage of Chávez, Morales, and the others is that the poor are the vast majority. The opposition may resemble the enemies of the Egyptian leader and man of the people, Gamal Abdel Nasser, whom in my view Chávez resembles. Both carried out many reforms benefiting the people, sought to be world leaders dominating neighboring nations, and viewed favorably the idea of ruling for life.

One would like to know more about how the other new left leaders differ from Chávez, and more about all their specific accomplishments and specific criticisms of them. Stone's coverage of the various countries (he misses several) does not involve anonymous investigation, only showpiece sessions with the leaders before an audience.

Oliver Stone should be applauded for making 'South of the Border,' and for Americans interested in Latin American politics it's a must-see. But one wishes Stone had made a film of more depth and thoroughness.

This film points out how Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is erroneously called a "dictator" by the media, and particularly points out how naive the Fox News network is. The morning show, in particular, is full of fools and I am glad to see them called out here.

The film is also interesting in showing a very human side to South American leaders, with Chavez riding a kid's bike, and Evo Morales of Bolivia playing soccer. Particularly lucid is Rafael Correa of Ecuador, who explains his stand against foreign bases very clearly in terms that no reasonable person could reject.

The film is "plagued by the same issues of accuracy that critics have raised about" Stone's non-documentaries, according to Larry Rohter of the New York Times. Tariq Ali, one of the writers, admits that the film is "opinionated" and Stone himself has gone on record as saying he was not aware of certain facts that may have changed the tone or content of the film.

However, Stone did also write a lengthy letter to the New York Times, expanding on issues and citing references to refute Rohter's claims. While, in the end, how you want to interpret the film is up to you, I think by and large it is accurate, even if rosy. It is, if nothing else, a nice balance from the typical coverage of Latin America.