G7 Welcoming Committee Records. Uncooperative since 1997.
You appear to be using a shitty web browser. Brent suggests getting a better one.
At the pictures! Is it the Year of Democracy’s 11th Hour?
Posted by D-Rock on 09/25/07 (Films)
I’ve seen a few films in the past couple of weeks that I thought I’d mention here …
The 11th Hour - Leonardo diCaprio, Leila Connors Petersen and Nadia Connors present An Inconvenient Truth on steroids. Although it took awhile to really get going (with a “dramatic” intro that was more of a yawner than a screamer), this film mostly lives up to the idea (well, my idea) of being everything Al Gore’s stake in the “look at me I’m a good guy now that I’m not a policy-maker” pile could have been. It takes aim at both industry and government, and more importantly at the generally-accepted human idea that we have the irrevocable right to exploit the planet as we see fit.
For such a straight-up, hammer-you-in-the-face film, it tries a little too hard to end on a positive note (fancy eco-buildings will save us!) - but I suppose they didn’t want to be held liable for mass suicides following each screening. Plus, put David Suzuki in anything and I’m happy (the soundtrack from Sigur Ros and Mogwai didn’t hurt either).
War on Democracy - This is John Pilger’s latest film, which documents the United States’ legacy of systematically deposing democracies in South America and imposing murderous (but U.S.-friendly) dictatorships in their stead. Dude is an important journalist, responsible for a lot of groundbreaking stories, but this film contains a lot of propagandizing, complete with sound and film editing that implies whether the current scene depicts “good” or “evil.” (Picture a colourful, happy street of cheering Chavez supporters accompanied by bongo drums, followed by a dark, monotone, blurry pan of the White House accompanied by a throbbing ‘bwowooooowooooowoooooh’). All propaganda leaves a bad taste in my mouth - regardless of aim - so it was hard to get into this one. At least Michael Moore movies are funny (occasionally). Plus if you’re already familiar with the stories of Chile, Venezuela and Bolivia, you’re not finding anything new here. Too bad - I like the title!
Year of the Dog - OK, so putting Molly Shannon (you may know her as Mary Katherine Gallagher on Saturday Night Live) in the lead of any movie doesn’t exactly pique my interest. And the marketing for the movie suggests anything but a potentially-insightful, thoughtful movie. And maybe that’s because it’s not insightful at all - I can’t totally tell. I’m very samrt!
To most people, this tale of woman, her dog, and her reaction to the state of the world around her will be seen as that of an unstable woman looking for a place in the universe. But I saw it more as a tale of one person’s completely sane and ethical reaction to a world that is so completely unsane and callous. Regardless - it’s sad one, so clean off your makeup before viewing!
In other news, my bid to replace Roger Ebert was recently rejected.
16 fragments of dialogue thus far ...
(Subscribe to discussion about this post via RSS)
Comment by Movingpast on September 26th, 2007 at 6:23 am:
I saw War on Democracy last night and had the pleasure of a Q&A session with Pilger after the film.
I understand where The Rod is coming from, especially if you’re familiar with the situation and history of those South American countries. I had hoped for a greater look into how the social movements in Venezuela and Bolivia are different from previous movements, how such grassroots movements organise etc.
However after seeing the film and hearing Pilger talk about why he made it, I understand that what may seem ‘propagandizing’ in the film, is an attempt to balance and correct the demonisation of such movements, particularly of Chavez in mainstream media and politics.
That the film has to rely on such obvious techniques such as music cues etc may underestimate those in the audience unfamiliar with the history and politics of South America.
While I agree that propaganda leaves one feeling manipulated, films like Pilger’s provide an alternative perspective for many, creating a space for debate and competing views that might not have been present previously.
So I was hoping for a great film, but got a good film, worth seeing for some interesting interviews, a useful historical oversight and moving personal stories.
Comment by Yaniv on September 26th, 2007 at 10:59 am:
Sorry to say it, but I’ve yet to watch any film by the Left that is critical of Chavez and the Venezuelan state. Correspondingly, I’ve yet to read any articles critical - or questioning - of Chavez in any progressive/radical media outlet. Zmag, Counterpunch, Left Turn, Clamor - All these and more lend their unconditional, unflinching support for Caracas, while offering platitudes of debate and indepence of thought, without giving proper thought to Chavismo the advancement of authoritarian and Cuadillo-esque state policies (the two principal exceptions being Democracy Now! and the last issue of Adbusters). Perhaps I’m biased - as an anarchist - but I have a hard time reconciling two mutually exclusive ideas like participatory democracy and worker collectives espousing workplace-horizontalism and libertarian values while supporting a soon-to-be centrally-planned State that is seemingly opposed to ideas of autonomy, equity, and self-management. While I support Chavez’s initiatives on healthcare and education upon seizing and consolidating power, I’m not too convinced about the independence and self-management exercised by the so-called Bolivarian circles, the ongoing militarization of the country, and the ravaging of natural resources to finance and perpetuate his governance - not too mentioned the proclaimed aspirations to establish a hegemony of information.
Just to clarify, I’m not basing any notion about Chavez on Western corporate media nor Venezuelan right-wing circles. Rather, if the idea of “debate” means anything at all, I also check both progressive outlets and Venezuelan anarchist periodicals like the El Liberartario and Infoshop.org.
Besides the reports by Michael Albert, If anyone can direct me to any piece of the aforementioned progressive outlets that questions and scrutinizes Chavez’s policies, I would be more than glad to check it out.
Comment by Movingpast on September 26th, 2007 at 4:56 pm:
Sorry Derek,
I think I called you The Rod in my post. Its all this talk of South America on both G7 and Propagandhi sites
Comment by Movingpast on September 26th, 2007 at 7:24 pm:
Yaniv,
I agree that its hard to find non-mainstream critiques of Chavez, though I have found that many of the articles about Venezuela and Chavismo have a ‘lets wait and see tone’, not critical as such, but I guess as in Albert’s words the changes are hopefully ‘non-reformist reforms’
Also most of the critiques leveled at Chavismo by the mainstream media would be similar to any made by progressive media- concentration of state power, use of resources, media diversity etc. Why they are critiquing may differ but the same points would generally be raised. Perhaps the less than critical discussion on Venezuela in progressive media is more a focus on the positive aspects of Chavez’s changes so far. Something that is not included in mainstream media discussions.
Im also reminded of Emma Goldman’s writings on the Spainish Revolution/Civil War, and her wish that anarchists had provided more solidarity with those within Spain rather than the harsh critiques for participating with the Communists.
Granted the situations and political approaches are somewhat different but i think the analogy can be drawn between the facist movement against anarchist Spain and the pressure (all be it less overtly violent) of US power on Venezuela. Both situations perhaps created the need for compromise within the revolutionary movements that are undesirable but felt necessary on the ground.
So I totally agree that one must always questions concenrated forms of power, I think its important to be careful that the purpose of questioning and scrutinizing Chavez’s policies isnt merely to provide or reinforce feelings of ideological purity.
This is by no means an attack, and I am not one who bows at the alter of Venezuela as the saviour of leftist politics like some, but I think that such considerations produce the caution shown by those radical blogs and magazines you mention. That Venezuala in many ways proves TINA wrong is also an important fact in the lack of too critical articles.
If the progress made in Venezuela stagnates or shrinks, then I think that measured voices in the radical/progressive media will become much more critical.
Apologies for the rambling
Comment by Yaniv on September 27th, 2007 at 10:31 am:
Movingpast: Although you mentioned that there is a difference between the critique rendered by mainstream, corporate media and that by progressive, independent outlets, again, I haven’t seen a meaningful, real critique that questions any of Chavez’s policies in relation to “concentration of state power, use of resources, and media diversity” by the latter. All I see is an incessant corroboration with anything emanating from the Venezuelan state media or by Chavez himself. Perhaps the progressive media outlets mentioned above are excessively infatuated with “focus[ing] on the positive aspects of Chavez’s changes so far” to the point that no critique whatsoever is made on, say, the repression of protestors who represent civil society in Venezuela and who do not necessarily agree with everything Chavez has implemented.
I’ve noticed, moreover, that most people who correctly point to U.S. imperialism and its ramifications abroad have a strange fixation with defending the domestic policies of any state which defies U.S. hegemony and seeks and independent course. It’s not surprising to see it from self-identified Trotskyists like Tariq Ali, but when a self-identified anarchist, libertarian socialist, or pareconist like, say, Chomsky concentrates his energy to describing the ugly reality of American foreign policy while giving no meaningful critical thought to the Chavezs and Castros abroad, is a glaring example of double-standard analysis, wouldn’t you say?
Comment by Sebast on September 27th, 2007 at 12:11 pm:
Yaniv,
¿Hegemony of information? I have no freakin’ idea where that idea comes from. I understood that actually he is fighting against the centralization of news in Venezuela, although I will not argue that it’s being done in the wrong ways. Censorship is not participatory, it’s mandatory. But… you can’t reallt be against the closing of the TVBroadcaster whose strings are being pulled by C.I.A. exPats. I mean, hey, they had it coming.
Also, the natural resource exploitation issue is a very deolicate one. 80% (rough personal estimation) of the Gas and Carbon companies were foreign, and thus 80% (again, rough) of the technical engineers needed to run the vast infrastructure were non venezolanos. Now that Hugo and Evo have kicked theese guys out of their borders, well… they’re left with their faces in the mud, and in consequence, running everything as they can. That means brutal and uncontrolled use of the only means they have to survive in this fucked up “global market”.
I dunno, just my 0.02$
—
Movingpast,
The so-called “communists” of the Spanish civil war you refer to had brutally assasinated most of the anarchist leaders during the last years of the second republic. I defend their “harsh critique”.
And BTW, Ms.Goldman is heartshaking, but not very accurate in points I am not about to start a discussion over.
She’s not well regarded in the CNT-AIT circles in Spain.
Always good to know (and to say, of course): ¡I could be (and probably am) wrong!
Comment by Dude Incredible on September 27th, 2007 at 2:22 pm:
If anyone is following what’s going on in Myanmar, here are a few blogs:
http://ko-htike.blogspot.com/
http://www.xanga.com/dawn_1o9
http://www.moeyyo.com/MM/
Comment by English Tony on September 28th, 2007 at 7:37 am:
Derek, you mentioned Michael Moore, I was just wondering what the general views of him are at G7, obviously they differ between each member, but do you not think his propaganda is often a ” for the greater good ” kind of thing. I lent my DVD of Farenheit 911 to this guy who was, lets say confused about racism/immigration issues, and it had a massive impact on him, I’d almost say it liberated him, so I kind of thought with it being a mainstream venture (meaning multiplex cinemas rather than arthouse etc) it was better that that particular film was just a one sided leftist onslaught rather than a well balanced piece. Like it served its purpose if you know what I mean.
I’ve started taking this Flax Seed Oil with my breakfast, rich in Omega 3’s and 6’s, and my brain has become thirsty with questions haha.
Comment by diddee on September 28th, 2007 at 1:18 pm:
I agree with the Englishman ;)
Michael Moore is truly an outstanding artisan of the silver screen.
I actually almost prefer obvious propaganda over not-so-obvious propaganda, because i think ALL media is propaganda to some extent. Humans are incapable of pure objectivity. At least overt propaganda is at least more or less up front with its agenda.
So yeah, i think it’s impossible for someone to make a documentary that is not in some way influenced by his or her worldview.
\m/
Comment by Movingpast on September 29th, 2007 at 10:26 am:
Yaniv- Regarding your comments on Chomsky and other like minded writers, I think their key question would still be strategical- what purpose would it serve other than seeking ideological purity/avoiding double-standard analysis? My reference to Goldman’s writings on Spain highlight (regardless of the accuracy of the facts she discusses) that struggles for progressive social change require more than black and white critiques, that those outside of the immediate situation need to consider more nuanced positions that support efforts, rather than perhaps add to pressures. But I understand and appreciate your argument, I just feel that it is counterproductive for the time.
Sebast- I totally agree that the actions of the communists in spain required harsh criticism and that the actions of Spanish anarchists may also be deserving of critique, but I think that Goldman makes a strong argument regarding the complexity of the situation requiring a more considered approach from those outside of Spain observing the events.
I have not come across many negative accounts of Goldman’s account of the Spanish Revolution, thanks for bringing that up, Ill have to look into it and seek out some critiques. Might bring a new perspective on things.
Comment by D-Rock on September 29th, 2007 at 12:48 pm:
Regarding the term propaganda … the definition I am working off of is this:
Official [government] communications to the public that are designed to influence opinion. The information may be true or false, but it is always carefully selected for its political effect.
So, propaganda as a tactic. Myself, I’m not always so good with (and at) tactical politics. I think I’m more concerned with the raw, unfiltered truth.
So when Michal Moore makes a movie about health care, and he goes to London, ON (the wealthiest city per capita in Canada) and shows us that ‘the health care system in Canada is amazing’, it may be effective to make his point (an important one to make!), but it’s not really true. It’s the positioning of facts selectively in order to meet his goal. I agree with that goal - health care in the US is fucked - but it’s not about the raw, honest truth with him. It’s about tactics. The things he shows are true, but the are not the whole picture.
I felt this same way about the Pilger film. Why the visual and auditory effects to indicate good and bad? It’s so over the top - anyone with a slightly critical viewing eye who may not be already “on side” with Pilger’s worldview will look at that and think “why is this necessary? Aren’t the facts enough?” Which is exactly what I ask. The skeptical viewer may wonder what the flourish is there to mask.
The facts are enough. I believe - generally - that progressive social movements are the ones who’s views reflect a just, sane, sustainable world. And the facts are on their (our) side. And the facts are our “corrective measure” against the drumbeat litany of right-wing views that hammers down on us daily.
I believe that most people recognize when someone is laying it all out on the table - and the sincerity that represents - and that could be the most persuasive tactic there is.
That and armed struggle, hahahahahaha.
Comment by jammer on October 3rd, 2007 at 4:31 am:
beautifully put derek, nah, erotically put. Propaganda just sets everything back. people who fear the truth use propaganda. Shoot straight. I dont know how many documentaries I’ve seen with halloween theme music in em. Its like what the fuck count chocula wrote the score again. Rhetoric, dressed up prose and embellishments dont help any either. Its sorta reminds me of a point in ‘thank you for smoking’ - which could have easily been called ‘Ernst diarrheas all over your sense of justice’ - wherein a posable-Al Gore-doll-like politician tries to look good taking down assholes and powdering his nose at the same time. this politician played by William H Macey hopes for the suffering of smokers in order to prove his point and save the day. I don’t think that people really or at least often actually think that way nor am I saying that Macey’s character was wrong. I’m just saying people on the left at times should be happy to be proven wrong. I.E. war is going peachy… if that were actually the case embrace it. “Be wrong Be strong”
Comment by Sebast on October 4th, 2007 at 10:26 am:
Just came to mind, but… ¿isn’t saying “Michael Moore is for the better good because he aims to the general public cuz he uses commercial means” the same as saying “Green Day is a good band cuz they expose punk music to the kids”?
Dunno, i guess i’m to exposed to “the awful truth”.
Comment by saoirse on October 9th, 2007 at 9:59 am:
Another irrelevant post for another good cause..
Y’all may remember me posting a while back about a lady called Beatrice, who fled Cameroon to the UK five years ago and has since suffered terrible abuse and psychiatric problems. Well, it didn’t end there for Beatrice.
She got put on a plane at the end of August and sent back to Cameroon, via France, with immigration officials. When she arrived, the Cameroonian immigration authorities wouldn’t take her because she was so distressed and had been so badly beaten (bp2.blogger.com/_1hLGnoNrUoc/RwudR7…). This is unprecedented. She was sent back to England, where she spent the night in hospital and was then returned to detention, where she was examined by a doctor (medicaljustice.org.uk, brilliant people) who said:
“Her physical injuries and mental state are highly consistent with the history of her assaults during her recent attempted removal from the UK … She should have an independent psychiatric assessment urgently… She is totally unfit to be removed to Cameroon … There is abundant evidence that she has suffered and continues to suffer from severe and enduring mental illness; she is very vulnerable, and is at risk of suicide; her recent assault during her attempted forced removal, and her forced incarceration in a detention centre are highly likely to worsen her condition”
Beatrice’s story was recently featured in The Independent newspaper ( http://news.independ...n/article3028716.ece ) and this attention to her story, combined with support for her at a protest today and your support, could give her a second chance which is extremely hard to come by. My heart breaks for this poor woman. She has been through all of this for daring to do in her country what you and I do ever day in ours; dissent.
C’mon people, you KNOW this is wrong, and you know from the Lordorice campaign that these things can take effect. It wont cost you a penny or take more than a few minutes of your time but you could play a part in ending this woman’s suffering [and in so doing, remind the immigration officers that brutally asaulting failed asylum seekers is not acceptable, and will not go by unnoticed]. Email me: saoirse_ionannas_aonad [at] yahoo [dot] co.uk with your details, or send a fax yourself to
Rt. Hon. Jacqui Smith MP
Secretary of State for the Home Office
3rd. Floor, Peel Building
2 Marsham Street
London, SW1 4DF
Fax : 020 7035 3262
Quoting: Beatrice Guessie ref no. K1123945
Comment by Sebast on October 11th, 2007 at 8:14 am:
Happy fuckin’ Conquistadorian Genocide Day
Comment by @ » links for 2007-09-29 on October 13th, 2007 at 9:11 am:
[…] Blog // G7 Welcoming Committee Records // At the pictures! Is it the Year of Democracy’s 11th Hour… Movies to watch. (tags: film g7wc blog) _ […]