This is like the left-wing mirror image of the worst and darkest FOX-News-style propaganda. Extremely biased and manipulative, always telling only one side of every single story it mentions, and conveniently forgetting every story that it cannot manipulate. Such a propaganda piece, probably effective in the past, is laughable nowadays. Sad thing is, many of the issues raised in it are worth a good, unbiased documentary, for example Chile. But this trash does not help.
share[deleted]
I must have watched a different film to the one ihorl saw. John Pilger has a point of view and expressed it, backing it up with some pretty lurid facts.
He also has a point of view about Hiroshima (63rd anniversary today). In today's Guardian article he backed that up with facts too. Can't say that overall I disagree with him on either count. Does that make me a left-wing looney?
Watch James Caan's Rollerball and try to understand its political message.
For Christ sake. I live in Chile; i've been living for over ten years here. It's a beautifulm, wounded country; yet the word "Pinochet" still instills fears in everyone. Even american self centered and objective people have acknowledge that the facility in Georgia was created to instruct terrorists. Although i admit this documentary was slightly biased, it yet reveals facts, hardcore facts amidst the political propaganda.
sharemaybe, but can you give any examples or do we just have to trust you?
shareI've seen many documentaries and OF COURSE this is "biased" just like everything else you see. This is just another point of view. And two opposing points of view make up what we call the BIG picture. Nothing is unbiased, selection, and even not having a point of view is a point of view, the one of the status quo.
Everything is a battle of interests, either you're on the side of the ruling class or on the same side as those abused by them. What's good for one class doesn't have to be good for the other. And it isn't.
Unfortunately we only see movies sanctioned by the ruling class in their society. Or at least at a proportion 1-10.
In this documentary the ruling class admits that democracy and freedom are words used to combat democracy. They admit their hypocrisy. That's BIG.
If this was to be aired on all private owned channels in the US it would be the end of a lot of things because people would see how things really are.
Just use your common sense to put things in perspective. It's very rare something is completely unbiased, and then usually it's then too boring to be entertaining. This film doesn't pretend to be a 'sterile' ancient history like documentary, no, there's passion behind this. But yes, you should always be critical of authors with political motives.
shareI agree with ihor1 the views made in this documentary are so charged to one side that its almost too obvious that is just leftist propaganda.
Especially with the liberal use of the word "fascism" to describe the defeat of marxist Allende and the military government in Chile that brought respect for private property and rights and incouraged individual freedom and free markets..... not very fascist.
And Pinochet was not "feared" in Chile, respected absolutely, but not feared by the law abiding mayority of the country. Altough I have to admit that if you were a socialist terrorist you were better off escaping some place else.
Pinochet was condemned as "fascist" (not without considerable justification) for the reason that he and his goons had participants (and suspected participants) in the democratically-elected government of Allende, tortured and murdered (not to mention Allende himself).
It was (too some extent) on economic policies that Pinochet differed from Hitler and Mussolini in that he believed workers uprisings could be prevented without significant state regulation of industries. Nonetheless Pinochet was a thug and a murderer who was feared by many Chileans; approximately the same number of people were murdered on 11 September 1973 as were murdered on 11 September 2001. It is worrying that many still have nothing but praise for Pinochet, who had more blood on his hands than Bin Laden.
An obvious shortcoming of this documentary was that it did not ask whether Allende's economic policies proved to be sustainable. Neither did it ask whether Chavez's policies will also be sustainable once Venezuela's oil reserves run dry.
Nonetheless I found this an insightful documentary. Instead of simply blaming the US alone for political oppression in Latin America, it showed that the paths of freedom and oppression are paths that Latin Americans themself have had some degree of chosing; while Latin America's marginalised communities consist of some of the most politically-conscious people in the world, Latin America is also home to some very right-wing individuals who embrace the worst elements of American culture (remember the Venezuelan man who was whinging about how unskilled labour in Venezuela is not as cheap as it used to be when he was still able to afford regular holidays to Florida) and openly embrace politicaly oppression on a level that has never existed in the US domestically (remember the Chilean woman who asked "why torture somebody when you can shoot them?").
1. Allende only won with 30% of the votes, a clear minority and his coalition NEVER got over 40% of aproval...... not very democratic.
2. The marxist far left, was armed and with the support of the KGB and Cuba was ready to imposed his socialist nightmare to the other 60%, this is well documented.
3. Allende was a criminal, he broke the constitution and the laws of the republic by defying the courts of justice and the chilean parlament (chosen by the people too), stepping over the rights and property of millions, again this is well documented.
4. Allende was little more than a puppet used by other leaders in the UP like Altamirano and Chonchol who made the deal with Cuba to arm themselves and his supporters to copy the cuban revolution.
5. Allende killed himself, he was not murdered.
6. Pinochet was an economic liberal, a very strong one, he believed in defending the rights of the individual over the totalitarian states, he believed in the right to own private property and in free competitive markets, if you know ANYTHING about fascism or german corporativism you would know ITS 180ยบ degrees opposite to what Pinochet did.
7. Pinochet was not perfect, far from it, he stayed too long and got drunk with power but what he, and millions of chilean patriots, did was necessary to defeat marxism and to preserve the republic.
[deleted]
When neocontards attempt to defend Pinochet, you know they're clutching at straws. What next? Hitler was an under-achiever?
Dolt!
I have opinions of my own, but I don't always agree with them - George Bush
1: He won by getting more votes then anyone else, if that is undemocratic then democracy is undemocratic. The Unidad Popular getting 40% approval in a 3 party system makes them far from a small minority.
2: Well documented where? Allende wanted to (obviously) make Chile more socialist, but there are no evidence that he (unlike Pinochet) ware willing to use violence to reach his ideals.
3: While this on the other-hand is documented, a lot of these accusations came from propaganda by the Patria y Libertad (basically a violent group of rich teenagers pissed-off for having to pay tax) who, if not completely fascist, was pretty damn close. Anyways, the crimes Allende was accused of are just peanuts compared to the atrocities of Pinochet. Actually the Patria y Libertad them-self is a good example, had a similar but far-left group, existed under Pinochet they would have in no way the same freedoms the PyL had under Allende because, frankly, they would be killed.
4: Got any documentation of that? Nothing Allende ever did mimicked the Cuban revolution.
5: Most likely true.
6: Correction: He believed in the rights of the individuals who agreed with him, and only those. Also far from all fascists are supporters of Corporatism.
7: Preserve the republic? Pinochet never had a Republic! From he came in power in 1973 to he gave it up in 1990 his government was nothing but a military dictatorship and police state.
I can't believe this troll!
Pinochet respected in Chile? Have you ever been in Chile?
He is the most despised figure in Chile's history. It is true that we, people who was born and raised during military dictatorship, use the term "facho" (slang term for fascist) to describe people like the troll who's saying Allende was "marxist" (oh, "marzista lininista"), when we all know he was socialist, not even communist! It's unavoidable, because they have fascist behaviour, and they don't know the meaning of the concepts they refer. Basic semiology, I guess.
Well, another user stated the issue of the democratic election (not with the 50%+, but he still won democratically) of Salvador Allende, and you all know more or less, the atrocities committed under Pinochet dictatorship. But I couldn't help to be amazed (and ashamed) of the troll posting incoherences about Chile's situation.
Please excuse my terrible redaction, english is not my native language.
Barely. The language is slightly biased, but everything in the film is supported by evidence and borne out by any casual investigation. One might disagree with the conclusions, but the premises are entirely founded.
shareI generally think we need films to remind us that the US creates most of the thugs it later has to fight - however, I found the segment on Venezuela to be at best naive and at worst deliberately rosy (which makes it propaganda).
Having said that - and being a screenwriter, I quite like Hugo Chavez becuase he is an interesting character. So was Bush...granted 8 years with him has done more harm than you can possibly fathom, but damn it, it was never boring. But staying on topic: I find it problematic that the documentary does not touch much on Chavez rise to power, or that he upon being sworn in changed the constitution, altered the oath of office, dismissed and replaced the existing Congress and Supreme Court - he instead installed 'Citizen Power' which consisted of the ombudsman, comptroller general and a public prosecutor - all this to prevent corruption. That's all fine and dandy, and the doc also talks about some of this stuff - then completely neglects to tell us that Chavez ruling party controlled these instances + the intelligence services and the electoral commission.
What about the internationally monitored recall vote proposed by Jimmy Carter - why doesn't the doc touch on this fiasco? Chavez stalling it because he had horrible support due to declining oil prices, names of recall petition signers leaked and published on the internet - them being harassed - people being fired for supporting a recall etc, voter registration being manipulated etc. - and when the vote finally went ahead in august 2004 it was plagued by malpractice, delays, limitations put on the number og international observers present etc.
The portrait of Hugo Chavez put forth in this doc IS incredibly one sided - I love that Chavez got in Bush' face and it's great that he stirs things up from time to time - but this does not change that Venezuela is a pseudodemocracy, and Chavez is hardly what you can call a democratically elected leader anymore - my guess is he will do whatever it takes to stay in power - but that is a personal opinion.
http://everzaar.blogspot.com/
I'm glad you were entertained and not bored when he led the industrial scale murder, torture and theft.
shareWhat a cheesy reply. The topic is about whether or not this is shoddy documentary making. It is - docs should at least attempt nuance. My post was exactly about why they do not cover all the corruption and violence that Chavez is clearly guilty of - I even call the the doc naive. The fact that I found it funny that he pissed in the face of Bush, hardly means I condone the blood Chavez has on his hands.
I get that the other question wasn't for me - but I'd like it told with just an ounce of integrity. Not only Chavez is manipulative - so is this doc - Pilger clearly let's his own rosy fantasies get in the way of research and proper journalistic investigation.
Why don't you launch your beef with Pilger - he seems to fully acquit Chavez, which does not makes this a documentary, but rather fan fiction. (as I remember it, I saw it in 09)
And here's one I've been pondering, why are you bashing people who essentially agree with you? Bored?
http://everzaar.blogspot.com/
I'm not out to 'bash' anybody. I just find it amusing and strange how people's attention gets diverted to things like arguing bias when events like Pinoche's murders are depicted.
shareFair enough - but again, we're discussing documentary film making as a genre. In other words the argument is that Pilger fails as a documentary film maker, at least in the case with Chavez. I can't recall all of the film, but it's on the shelf, so I guess I could re-watch it.
I remember being incredibly dissapointed when I saw it, mainly because I found it useless as a source for...well, anything :( but I guess he's not any worse than Moore :)
http://everzaar.blogspot.com/
[deleted]
Since you bring up Americans - and suggest that all of them harbor such fantasies - let's look at their saying 'when you assume you make an ass out of u and me' - well mostly yourself in this case. I am European and I do not approve of the US meddling everywhere, I never have. Your argument is: I am imagining things because Americans are essentially racist *beep* (really, all Americans?). Did I deny he has done good things for Venezuela? No. If you want to perpetrate some rosy fantasy about what his rise to power entailed, be my guest.
Must be nice to live in a world where everything is either black or white, good or bad.
You may continue to refer to me as a loser, but please, bring at least one argument to a discussion, or don't bother at all.
Yes, Americans are personally responsible for electing governments that kill brown skinned people. Grow up. There's nothing biased about that.
Sometimes, there are bad guys. Most of the time on a geopolitical basis, these are the Americans. Deal with it. Don't be surprised if you get suitecase nuked one day. If you keep killing, torturing people like you do, payback will come.