South of the Border (2009 film): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:16, 26 January 2010 editRd232 (talk \| contribs)54,863 edits →Content: expand quote for smidgen of context← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:18, 26 January 2010 edit undoRd232 (talk \| contribs)54,863 edits move Weisbrot down from lead - WP:UNDUE much?Next edit →
Line 25:		Line 25:
	}}		}}

	'''''South of the Border''''' is a 2009 documentary produced and directed by ]. The documentary premiered at the ]. Writer for the project ] calls the documentary "a political road movie".<ref name="LAT"> by Reed Johnson, '']'', September 1 2009</ref> ] advised Stone on the documentary.<ref name=Redcarpet> MSNBC. 7 Sept 2009.</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1285/is_8_38/ai_n29461124/pg_6/</ref><ref>http://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/oliver-stone/2/</ref>		'''''South of the Border''''' is a 2009 documentary produced and directed by ]. The documentary premiered at the ]. Writer for the project ] calls the documentary "a political road movie".<ref name="LAT"> by Reed Johnson, '']'', September 1 2009</ref>

	The film has Stone and his crew travel from the Caribbean down the spine of the ] in an attempt to explain the "phenomenon" of Venezuelan president ], and account for the continent's recent ] tilt. A key feature is also Venezuela's recent ] and ]'s political progress in the 21st century. In addition to Chávez, Stone sought to flesh out several other Latin American presidents whose policies and personalities generally get limited media attention in the ] and ], notably: ] of ]; ] of ]; ] of ]; ] of ]; ] of ]; and ] of ].<ref name="LAT"></ref>		The film has Stone and his crew travel from the Caribbean down the spine of the ] in an attempt to explain the "phenomenon" of Venezuelan president ], and account for the continent's recent ] tilt. A key feature is also Venezuela's recent ] and ]'s political progress in the 21st century. In addition to Chávez, Stone sought to flesh out several other Latin American presidents whose policies and personalities generally get limited media attention in the ] and ], notably: ] of ]; ] of ]; ] of ]; ] of ]; ] of ]; and ] of ].<ref name="LAT"></ref>
Line 37:		Line 37:

	According to the Associated Press, "Stone said he didn't see it necessary to present the opposition's case in his film. 'He is a democrat and there is opposition to him, and he's not perfect. But he is doing tremendous things for Venezuela and the region.'"<ref name=Redcarpet/>		According to the Associated Press, "Stone said he didn't see it necessary to present the opposition's case in his film. 'He is a democrat and there is opposition to him, and he's not perfect. But he is doing tremendous things for Venezuela and the region.'"<ref name=Redcarpet/>

			US economist ] advised Stone on the documentary.<ref name=Redcarpet> MSNBC. 7 Sept 2009.</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1285/is_8_38/ai_n29461124/pg_6/</ref><ref>http://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/oliver-stone/2/</ref>

	==Reception in the US==		==Reception in the US==

Revision as of 10:18, 26 January 2010

2009 Template:FilmUS film

South of the Border
Directed by	Oliver Stone
Written by	Oliver Stone Tariq Ali
Produced by	Oliver Stone
Cinematography	Carlos Marcovich Albert Maysles
Edited by	Alexis Chavez
Release date	September 2009
Running time	102 minutes
Country	Template:FilmUS
Language	English

South of the Border is a 2009 documentary produced and directed by Oliver Stone. The documentary premiered at the ‎2009 Venice Film Festival. Writer for the project Tariq Ali calls the documentary "a political road movie".

The film has Stone and his crew travel from the Caribbean down the spine of the Andes in an attempt to explain the "phenomenon" of Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, and account for the continent's recent leftward tilt. A key feature is also Venezuela's recent Bolivarian revolution and Latin America's political progress in the 21st century. In addition to Chávez, Stone sought to flesh out several other Latin American presidents whose policies and personalities generally get limited media attention in the United States and Europe, notably: Evo Morales of Bolivia; Cristina Kirchner of Argentina; Rafael Correa of Ecuador; Raúl Castro of Cuba; Fernando Lugo of Paraguay; and Lula da Silva of Brazil.

Reasoning for production

I think Hugo Chávez is an extremely dynamic and charismatic figure. He's open and warmhearted and big, and a fascinating character. But when I go back to the States I keep hearing these horror stories about 'dictator,' 'bad guy,' 'menace to American society.' I think the project started as something about the American media demonizing Latin leaders. It became more than that as we got more involved. The press in America, I think you're aware, has divided the Latin continent into the 'bad Left' and the 'good Left'. They've now listed Correa as the bad Left, along with Morales and with Chávez. They call Lula, the good Left. I don't know what they make of Kirchner yet, because they go back and forth, but I think they're turning against Kirchner more and more. You get this distinction, and I think it's a false distinction.
— Oliver Stone

Content

The documentary examines the free-market economic policies pushed by the U.S. and the International Monetary Fund over the last several years, and how they have largely failed to alleviate Latin America's chronic income inequality. The film suggests that financial calamities such as the Argentine peso collapse of 2001, combined with Latin suspicions of U.S. drug-eradication efforts and resentment over the selling off of natural resources through multinational companies, also have contributed to the rise of socialist and social-democratic leaders across the region. Tariq Ali who collaborated with Stone to make the film has remarked that:

"These changes that are taking place are not coming about through armed struggle or guerrilla warfare or Che Guevara. All these changes have come about through democratic elections. And that makes it a very, very significant development in that continent."

According to the Associated Press, "Stone said he didn't see it necessary to present the opposition's case in his film. 'He is a democrat and there is opposition to him, and he's not perfect. But he is doing tremendous things for Venezuela and the region.'"

US economist Mark Weisbrot advised Stone on the documentary.

Reception in the US

The film received a negative reception by the US media such as Time magazine, which described it as "lopsided and cheerleadery" and stated it lacked any nuance in its worldview. Variety agreed, noting, "The docu offers little genuine information and no investigative research, adopting a style even more polemical than Stone’s earlier docus on Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat." This negative reaction was predicted by the film's director. Fabiola Moura wrote that "While the movie is explicitly rosy in its picture of South America's politics, it's a tonic dose of a perspective rarely seen in U.S. media coverage of the region." NPR says the film tells only one side of the story and gives "kid glove treatment" to Chavez and his allies.