SYNOPSICS
South of the Border (2009) is a English,Spanish,Portuguese movie. Oliver Stone has directed this movie. Tariq Ali,Fidel Castro,Raul Castro,Hugo Chávez are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2009. South of the Border (2009) is considered one of the best Documentary movie in India and around the world.
There's a revolution underway in South America, but most of the world doesn't know it. Oliver Stone sets out on a road trip across five countries to explore the social and political movements as well as the mainstream media's misperception of South America while interviewing seven of its elected presidents. In casual conversations with Presidents Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Lula da Silva (Brazil), Cristina Kirchner (Argentina), as well as her husband and ex-President Nestor Kirchner, Fernando Lugo (Paraguay), Rafael Correa (Ecuador), and Raul Castro (Cuba), Stone gains unprecedented access and sheds new light upon the exciting transformations in the region.
More
South of the Border (2009) Reviews
Freiends and enemies
Latin American politics has moved markedly leftward in recent years. The shift might have extended as far north as Mexico, had Andrés Manuel López Obrador not been defeated in a much-contested election in 2006. A Wikipedia "History of South America" gives the following list of left wing South American presidents by date of election: Hugo Chávez of Venezuela (1998), Ricardo Lagos and later Michelle Bachelet of Chile (1999; 2006), Luís Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil (2002) and Lucio Gutiérrez and Rafael Correa of Ecuador (2002; 2006), Néstor Kirchner of Argentina, succeeded by his wife Cristina (2003 and 2007), Tabaré Vázquez and José Mujica of Uruguay (2004 and 2008), Evo Morales of Bolivia (2005), and Fernando Lugo of Paraguay (2008). (The remaining strong right-wing government in the region is Colombia, coincidentally the closest US ally there.) This group isn't monolithic. Some are populist and international in focus, like the most visible figure, Chávez; others, like Lula and the Kirchners, are more focused on local problems. As the Wikipedia article points out, in 2008 the Union of South American Nations was formed, aiming to function like the European Union; it is a decisive signal of the end of US hegemony in the region. The days may be over when the CIA can conduct a boldfaced coup like the ouster and killing of Salvador Allende in Chile September 11, 1973, replacing him with a right-wing leader, Augusto Pinochet, friendly to the US and to business interests. As Wikipedia points out, "In the 1960s and 1970s, the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay were overthrown or displaced by U.S.-aligned military dictatorships." And then of course there is the scandal of Iran-Contra during the Reagan era of the Eighties, symbolic of the US' self-interested anti-progressive role in various conflicts, such as those of Nicaragua and El Salvador. One reason for the shift to the left and the rise of more democratically elected governments is the economic problems brought about by neoliberal, i.e., market-based policies that benefited the rich nations and further impoverished the South. The presence of former bishop Fernando Lugo may attest to the political influence of "Liberation Theology" in Latin America since the Fifties and Sixties, an activist philosophy linking Catholic faith with the struggle for the rights of the poor and dispossessed. North Americans don't know a lot about these developments, and it's hard to be informed about them from a US perspective, especially if one does not know Spanish. US government policy has long favored any malleable, pro-American regime, and views favorable to other regimes are hard to find on the English-language Web or mainstream media. The new left-leaning group of Latin American governments is despised in Washington circles precisely because its members are, if not strongly at odds with the US, like Cuba or Venezuela, no longer willing to bow to the major US-dominated economic forces represented by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It is easy to find criticisms of the new leaders, especially of Hugo Chávez, on the English-language Internet. Into this scene comes Oliver Stone's new documentary, 'South of the Border,' which focuses on Chávez, Morales, and several others; he does not interview all of the dozen leaders listed above. To cover them all, with their individual national issues, would be a daunting task for an 85-minute film. It is a mixed blessing to have Stone's film available to US audiences. Predictably, it has been ruthlessly attacked by the American press and reviewers. Unfortunately, Stone is an easy mark. Much of his information is valid. But in the voice-over narration, he repeatedly mispronounced Chávez as "Chavéz": accents do matter in Spanish names, and even George Bush got this one right. Stone has only one talking head, his political adviser on the film Tariq Ali, a London born leftist with a recent book on this subject who has a tendency to sound strident and dogmatic. Stone makes elementary errors, like saying they are flying over the Andes when for the most part they are not. He is entirely too chummy with the leaders, congratulating them, shaking their hands, and hugging them on camera in a manner that is not only a revelation of bias but vaguely condescending. There is also the problem of proportion. In the brief film Stone devotes at least twenty minutes to the story of Chávez's rise and the debates over coverage of the 2002 coup – time that might better have been spent presenting new material about the other leaders, about whom we know less. The Chávez coup has already been covered elsewhere in Bartley and O'Briain's 'Revolution Will Not Be Televised' (2003). The virulent response I received from the anti-Chávez camp in Caracas from my review on IMDb at that time showed how extreme the polarization is. This camp is particularly eager to propagandize against Bartley and O'Brian because their film is quite convincing. Stone has not done better. South America is rife with class conflict, and wealth remains in the hands of the few, while many are impoverished. The advantage of Chávez, Morales, and the others is that the poor are the vast majority. The opposition may resemble the enemies of the Egyptian leader and man of the people, Gamal Abdel Nasser, whom in my view Chávez resembles. Both carried out many reforms benefiting the people, sought to be world leaders dominating neighboring nations, and viewed favorably the idea of ruling for life. One would like to know more about how the other new left leaders differ from Chávez, and more about all their specific accomplishments and specific criticisms of them. Stone's coverage of the various countries (he misses several) does not involve anonymous investigation, only showpiece sessions with the leaders before an audience. Oliver Stone should be applauded for making 'South of the Border,' and for Americans interested in Latin American politics it's a must-see. But one wishes Stone had made a film of more depth and thoroughness.
South America rejects US policy
Argentinian ex-president Néstor Kirchner's death last month brings to mind his role as one of the progressive leaders who rose to prominence in South America in the early 2000s. Oliver Stone's "South of the Border" looks at this leftward swing. Prior to the release of "South of the Border", I had heard both praise of it and criticism of it, both coming from sources that one would expect. If you know nothing about US policies in Latin America, then the documentary might be a little hard to understand. But this is definitely something that everyone should see. Stone interviews a number of the leftist leaders who rose to power in South America in the early 21st century: Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Bolivia's Evo Morales, to name a few. The leaders explain how the US had kept Latin American economies beholden to the IMF, and often kept despotic regimes in power to enforce its will. To be certain, Argentina's Cristina Fernández de Kirchner details exactly how the IMF sent Argentina's economy into turmoil. Part of the documentary's focus is on the misleadingly negative portrayal of people like Hugo Chávez in the media (and in particular, how they manipulated footage of the failed 2002 coup against him to make it look as though his supporters attacked protesters). The criticism of the documentary has been that Stone does not interview critics of the leftist leaders. Of course, we have heard mostly criticism of these leaders - of which Stone shows an example from a Fox News talk show - so this documentary IS the alternative view. As Stone also notes, the US ally Colombia always gets a free pass despite its atrocious human rights record. I certainly recommend "South of the Border". And remember: Bush, you are a donkey!
Take a tour "South of the Border"
Saw the film at the premiere in NYC; A Q&A with Mr. Stone, Tariq Ali, the producer, and a professor on LA affairs followed. All in all an important piece touching upon many key aspects of how the leftist rise in Latin America is a direct and cohesive response to the suffering brought on by decades of neoliberalism. The film is basically an overview of the democratic leftist rise in Latin America in the past decade. The leaders speak for themselves through interviews with Stone affording somewhat of a personal look at who they are. It is certainly refreshing to listen to these leaders speak candidly and authentically about the global economy and the state of their respective countries. Free from the restraints of lobbyists or corporate interests, these leaders come off genuinely passionate about the welfare of the people first. Chavez makes reference in the film expressing hope that such a leader could one day emerge in the U.S. in the mold of an FDR type. Stone captures the way these leaders care for each others well-being, as well as a desire for regional unity and cooperation, an encouraging sign for the future. Lula's segment was especially brilliant - he is decades ahead of his time. A number of Venezuelan, and other S.American nationals were in attendance at the screening, and many voiced their sincere thanks to Mr. Stone for backing a project that simply illustrates the truth of what these leaders stand for - a more inclusive and unified road to development in Latin America. I urge all of you that feel the need to relentlessly bash Stone, socialism, and these leaders to put your own psychological dysfunctions aside and look at facts. It's not even all that necessary for you to think critically, just address fact. Latin America suffered under extreme poverty before these leaders, and there is no instantaneous solution. A relentless resistance has thwarted the movement at every turn, as these leaders attempt to move independently of IMF led development strategy. There is no question that Chavez has an uncomfortable and often autocratic style, but he is surely not a dictator in his actual governance. Chavez will not compromise, and will not put on a mask, an it is precisely this which has elevated other nations in the region to follow suit. These leaders withstand unfathomable international pressure, and they deserve all the credit in the world for what they have done in less than a decade in terms of socialist development. The fact that Mr. Stone has attempted to bring these truths to a larger U.S. audience is necessary and timely. It is a wonderful introduction intended for a U.S. audience who is largely misled about what his happening "South of the Border." Excellent work
An eye opener
The vast majority of North Americans know nothing or very little of what happens in South America. When our media is not concerned with "news" regarding Tiger Woods' latest romantic conquest or graphic details of some sick murder they give us some "real" international news. These international news help us decide - actually make us decide - who the good guys and who the bad guys are. Media can be "subtle" for the more "sophisticated" among us or simply brainwashing drivel of Fox news nature. In any case it more dis-informs than informs. In this film, Oliver Stone opens our eyes to what really happens in South America - their (many) problems their attempts to solutions their changes. If Fox News and The CNN have not brainwashed you completely and irreversibly, you've got to see this film.
The Revolution is not being televised.
The Revolution is not being televised. But thanks to Oliver Stone I can see some of it anyway. This film clearly exposes the growing gap between our "news" media and what's really happening in the world. It's not just the lies from the usual Fright Wing suspects; it's the complicity of even our 'alternative' media when even my precious Maddow mouths flippant digs on Hugo Chavez's refusal to allow the renewal of a license of an opposition TV station. She either doesn't know or doesn't care that the station in question makes FOX look rational. What is happening in South and Central America is inspiring and newsworthy. So why do I have to go to a theater to see it? This information should be on 60 Minutes or PBS at the least. And why the shallow critical dismissal from such supposed media luminaries as the NY Times and LA Times, while the mindless pablum that dominates the major theaters is being discussed as if it comprises more than 90 minutes of cinematic wanking? South Of The Border contains real conversations with the men that our corporate owned government is trying to paint as tyrants and petty dictators. They are in fact the duly elected leaders of a revolutionary trend started by Fidel Castro and renewed by Hugo Chavez. They have ousted the empire and proved they can function just fine without our imperialist interventions. They have also disproved the myth of free market solutions for their societal problems. Perhaps this is the reason the official word is no word at all. Socialism is scary, especially when it makes people lives better. This film is one of the few moments of reality you're likely to see on the big screen right now. So catch it, or at least get the DVD. Ignore the critics this time. Better to trust their opinions on who should play the next Hulk than on matters of political relevance.