The DuPage Peace through Justice Coalition presents
JUST VIEWS: a Monthly Video/ Discussion Program
FRIDAY, August 12.
The DuPage Peace Through Justice Coalition will
show the film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, a documentary
about the US government supported coup attempt against the
democratically elected government of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
(Please note that this is a change from the film that was announced in a
previous notice.)
For more information on this important documentary, see the Roger Ebert
review below. We think that, after reading it, you will definitely want
to see this film.
Time & Place: 7:20 p.m., DuPage Unitarian Church in Naperville (630/505-9408)
Address: 4 South 535 Old Naperville Road, Naperville IL 60563 Directions:
Go (south of Route 88) to the corner of Naperville Road and Diehl.
Proceed 1 block east along Diehl, then turn left/north. Enter the
Unitarian Church ahead on your right. Contact: Stephanie Hughes 630/420-4233
Chicago Sun-Times
October 31, 2003
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
Review by Roger Ebert
Was the United States a shadowy presence in the background of the
aborted coup in Venezuela in 2002? The democratically elected government
of Hugo Chavez was briefly overthrown by a cabal of rich businessmen and
Army officers, shortly after their representatives had been welcomed in
the White House. Oh, the United States denied any involvement in the
episode; there's Colin Powell on TV, forthrightly professing innocence.
But earlier we heard ominous rumblings from Jesse Helms, Ari Fleischer
and George Tenet, agreeing that Chavez was no friend of the United
States, and after the coup, there was no expression of dismay from
Washington, no announcement that we would work to restore the elected
government.
Why was Chavez not our friend? It all comes down to oil, as it so often
does these days. Venezuela is the fourth largest oil-producing nation in
the world, and much of its oil comes to the United States. Its price has
been guaranteed by the cooperation of the nation's ruling class. Chavez
was elected primarily by the poor. He asked a simple question: Since the
oil wells have always been nationalized and the oil belongs to the
state, why do the profits flow directly to the richest, whitest 20
percent of the population, while being denied to the poorer, darker 80
percent? His plan was to distribute the profits equally among all
Venezuelans.
This was, you may agree, a fair and obvious solution. But not to the 20
percent, of course. And not to other interested parties, including our
friends the Saudis, whose people get poorer as the sheiks get richer.
Charging Chavez with being a communist who wanted to bring Castroism to
Venezuela, the rich and powerful staged a coup on April 12, 2002. Chavez
was put under arrest and held on an island, and the millionaire
businessman Pedro Carmona was sworn in as president. This was in
violation of the constitution, but he blandly assured TV audiences he
was in power because "of a mandate better than any referendum." There
was no disagreement from Washington.
Incredibly, the coup failed. Hundreds of thousands of Chavez supporters
surrounded the presidential palace, and the loyal presidential guard put
the interlopers under arrest. Although the state-run Channel 8 was taken
off the air and the private channels told lies and showed falsified news
footage, Venezuelans learned from CNN and other cable channels that
Chavez had not resigned and a coup had taken place; they demanded his
return, and a few days later he arrived by helicopter at the
presidential palace and resumed office.
These events are recounted in "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised," a
remarkable documentary by two Irish filmmakers that is playing in
theaters on its way to HBO. It is remarkable because the filmmakers, Kim
Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain, had access to virtually everything that
happened within the palace during the entire episode. They happened to
be in Caracas to make a doc about Chavez, they had access to his cabinet
meetings, they were inside the palace under siege, they faced a tense
deadline after which it would be bombed, they stayed after Chavez gave
himself up to prevent the bombing, they filmed the new government, and
there are astonishing shots such as the one where Chavez's men, now back
in power, go down to the basement to confront coup leaders who have been
taken prisoner. Why no one on either side thought to question the
presence of the TV crew is a mystery, but they got an inside look at the
coup -- before, during and after -- that is unique in film history.
Film can be made to lie. Consider footage shown on the private TV
channels to justify the coup. Learning that the right wing was
sponsoring a protest march against Chavez, his supporters also marched
on the palace. Scuffles broke out, and then concealed snipers began to
fire on the Chavez crowd. Some in the crowd fired back. Although the
dead and wounded were Chavez supporters, the private TV showed footage
of them firing, and said they were firing at the anti-Chavez protest
march. Bartley and O'Briain use footage of the same moment, from another
angle, to show that there is no protest march in view, and that the fire
is aimed at snipers above the parade route. That this deception was
deliberate is confirmed by a producer for the private TV channels, who
resigned in protest and explains how the footage was falsified. (Private
TV did have one interesting slip; in a talk show the morning after the
coup, one of its elated leaders talks frankly about the plan to disrupt
the Chavez march and overthrow the government, while others on the
program look like they'd like to throttle him.) If private TV lied to
the nation in support of the coup, the doc itself is clearly biased in
favor of Chavez -- most clearly so in depicting his opponents. When the
right-wing leaders are introduced, it's in slo-mo, with ominous music
and funereal drums. He may have articulate opponents in Venezuela, but
the only ones we see are inane society people who warn each other,
"watch your servants!" Does everyone on the right in Venezuela dress
like (a) an undertaker, (b) a military officer, or (c) a disco guest
circa 1990? Interestingly, there was relative civility on both sides.
Chavez and his cabinet were arrested, but not harmed. After Chavez
regained power, he said there would be no "witch hunt" of those who
opposed him; although Carmona fled to Miami, several of the coup's
military leaders (stripped of rank) remained in Venezuela and still
continue as members of the opposition. This shows remarkable confidence
on the part of Chavez, and a commitment to the democratic process.
It is of course impossible to prove that the coup was sponsored by the
CIA or any other U.S. agency. But what was the White House thinking when
it welcomed two anti-government leaders who soon after were instrumental
in the coup? Not long ago, reviewing another film, I wrote about the
CIA-sponsored overthrow of Chile's democratically elected president
Salvador Allende. I got a lot of e-mail telling me the CIA had nothing
to do with it. For anyone who believes that, I have a bridge I'd like to
sell them.
Note: The last words in George Orwell's notebook were: "At age 50,
every man has the face he deserves." Although it is outrageously unfair
and indefensibly subjective of me, I cannot prevent myself from
observing that Chavez and his cabinet have open, friendly faces, quick
to smile, and that the faces of his opponents are closed, shifty,
hardened.
From:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031031/REVIEWS/310310305/1023