Recriminations after documentary on Venezuelan coup attempt is dropped from a Vancouver festival Saturday November 22, 2003
The Guardian
An award-winnning documentary about the coup last year that briefly ousted the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, has become the subject of a bitter dispute. Last week, it was withdrawn from an Amnesty International (AI) film festival because Amnesty staff in Caracas said they feared for their safety if it were shown. The film, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, was made by two Irish film makers, Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain. They were preparing a documentary about Mr Chavez, with his cooperation, before the coup and were inside the presidential palace in April 2002 when the events unfolded.
The film has since been shown on television by the BBC, by RTE in Ireland, and elsewhere in Europe.
Amnesty staff in Venezuela had said that, if it were shown, it would present "some degree of threat to their physical safety" |
4 comments:
Pokkets says ...
These days things like a documentary can be taken from the public view, but if there is something worth seeing, it can be broadcast on the internet, and distributed beyond the reach of political interest. Now they have difficulty with internet censorship. They can legislate but can they apply it ? The first thing I wondered was. Why did these people in danger join Amnesty ? So they could abandon the principles at the slightest threat?
Peace is not achieved by rolling over. It is achieved by standing up and having faith that being struck without having our principles tainted, can encourage others, and draw attention to the corruption of the assailant. It can take one fool to start a war, but peace involves everyone.
Delete101 says ...
A film of Chavez being overthrown by a coup is documentation of his short comings and weakness. I think a leader or any leader for that matter, such as Chavez, would go to great lengths to save face and keep his image in tact. Leaders want to be percieved as strong, powerful, and resilient and anything contrary, such as video of him downsized, would make him unfavorable to his people. Think of the ramifications of someone airing your dirty laundry at work, for instance.
People are naturally judgemental, so you would definitely be seen in a different light, if not ousted.
Now back to Chavez, judging by the type of country he's the leader of and how outspoken he is, I would expect him to go to great lengths to preserve his image at home and abroad, and people being murdered or vanishing is not excluded.
Why did these people in danger join Amnesty ? So they could abandon the principles at the slightest threat ? Peace is not achieved by rolling over. It is achieved by standing up and having faith that being struck without having our principles tainted, can encourage others, and draw attention to the corruption of the assailant. It can take one fool to start a war, but peace involves everyone. .....Pokkets
Very well put. One small difference was joining Amnesty as a member/subscriber as against a paid worker. Like working in an American abortion clinic but not as a medic. But, yes their excuse seems a bit lame. I suppose Amnesty cannot only employ the 'right' people.
I do know the protracted efforts that were made here in Ireland to prevent its screening. Its other title was apt.
"The Revolution will not be Televised"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolution_Will_Not_Be_Televised_%28documentary%29
Revolution will not be Televised
A film of Chavez being overthrown by a coup is documentation of his short comings and weakness ...Delete101
I don't believe you can have seen this documentary. Whatever his popularity prior to the coup as at least doubled afterwards. This man is no puppet needing the media to promote him. Everyone of the TV and papers were right wing and RACIST. Only the state TV station was neutral and it was one of the first targets of the supposed 'revolvers'.
The coup attempt gave him a whole new audience in the real free world where our media is not as well controlled as in the US. I respected his man before he ever went to New York to kickass with your 'taken short, Condi help' president. Or who ran bush our of Latin America on his recent 'flyby' tour. You should thank god for his 'balls' in standing up to the emperor without. Chavez has enough backbone for the whole of the Andes. I can hardly bring myself to put george in the same sentence as the Rockys.
I think you will gather that I admire this man. Yes, Hugo Bill and Nelson, the 'terrorist'. Is even one on your list.
Now back to Chavez, judging by the type of counrty he's the leader of and how outspoken he is, I would expect him to go to great lengths to preserve his image at home and abroad, and people being murdered or vanishing is not excluded.
...Delete101
Evidence, please. Substitue Bush for Chavez in your sentence, and it is nearer to the truth. For my evidence try CIA in South America or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins and published in 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
Post a Comment