The War on Democracy is a bit hard to follow, both because of some intense story and thanks to a somewhat confusing execution. The idea behind the work is that it is an examination of mostly-American backed efforts to undermine popular movements in nations throughout Latin America. It is no secret anywhere that the United States, like any major power in history, has intervened in foreign affairs in the name of its own national interests. In fact, Pilgir interviews a retired CIA agent who argues just that. The retired agent claims the USA did brutal things for what Washington would argue was a greater good. Many other individuals interviewed, especially those that suffered like an American nun who was tortured and raped by 1980's central American government squads, would argue that stability was and is not worth cruelty and death. Had Pilgir based his film on that argument and explored it much further (with more in-depth arguments on both sides), I would have doubled the number of stars despite his rather vocal and frankly preachy opinions and regardless of the the fact he delves no deeper in history than 1948. But he doesn't.Instead, Pilgir devotes the first half of his film to an overly rosy depiction of a modern politician, Hugo Chavez, and modern Caracas. After a while one may wonder of "South America" just means "Venezuela." Whether he is good or bad, Chavez is a modern politician and pushing him so hard so early does not help the film (a shorter explanation of the coup and counter-coup in 2002 would have worked better). Eventually, Pilgir does go into some history on American involvement in Guatemala and Chile, but hardly in any detail save for the tour of Pinochet's stadium turned torture chamber. He has a couple of very short and edited interviews cut against his own, much more explained, opinions. His perspective is inconsistent too. Chilean poor are written off because their government is friendly with the west, but Bolivian and Venezuelan poor are considered heroes because they are fighting the good fight against capitalism. Brazil, Argentina (which fought open war with Britain in the 1980s), Mexico (invaded by the USA in 1846, 1914, and 1916), and Colombia are all ignored save for ominous implications that the US supported non-democratic governments there at one time or another. There is no mention of historically vital points like the Monroe Doctrine and the Cold War is quickly dismissed as American paranoia. Even the still active and divisive issue of the drug wars is forgotten.Instead we get fuzzy camera lenses, a few sound bites from Fox News, quick cuts to what we are supposed to believe is either a brutal fascist scene (armed guys in fatigues) or an uplifting socialist one, heavy pull-on-heartstrings editing, and a frankly self-righteous and paternalistic tone that in some ways undermines the very people its trying to support by placing far more on their shoulders than they want or need. The poor of Latin America have been mistreated for centuries, by indigenous empires, Spain, Creole caudillos and juntas (which are common in Latin American History but never mentioned by Pilgir), Europe, and especially the USA, but I do not believe this film gives a good or even adequate account of that.

Using the recent action in Venezuela and the ongoing tensions with the US as his focal point, journalist John Pilger looks at the role of Washington in the control and manipulation of Governments and politics in Latin America. What he finds is elected Presidents removed with the support and perhaps connivance of the US, resulting in suffering, massacres and poverty for the indigenous populations left to face the consequences of US foreign policy.It helps to be fairly liberal in your views to watch this film because Pilger does not hide his colours for even a second here. And this is a weakness of the film because it is so heavily delivered that it is likely to put off the very sections of the audience that it should be looking to win over. At times it is so clearly leaning that even a liberal, middle-class white person like myself will feel like Pilger is standing 30cm from them, shouting and ranting for two hours. It is a shame because otherwise the material is really well put together, convincing and impacting. If Pilger had delivered this same material with a colder air of fact and journalistic detachment then the film might have done a better job of making non-liberals having their opinions changed or at least challenged.The film uses Chavez to put the topic in the present and make sure the viewer understands that this is not a history film but rather a relevant and topical documentary that draws on the past to back up the present. From here it takes us through Guatemala, Bolivia and so on and the case is built in such a way that it is hard to argue with the basic points made and accusations levelled. It is a very well researched film that I found fascinating throughout. I'm repeating myself here but again this is why it is frustrating to see Pilger take away from his own film by having the presentation subtlety of Michael Moore at his worst. His point is that the US preaches democracy but will go to bloody ends to remove any democratically elected Government that does not suit US interests; so in essence the crux of the film is "democracy" and he does not need to defend the people put in power but merely point to the fact that they were put in power by the people they represent by way of elections and people power. This point could have been made while still also recognising that Chavez, Morales etc are not perfect leaders. Instead of doing this, Pilger feels that having them be elected is not enough and so he presents them as near-perfect leaders who should be the ideal. This may well be his opinion but it is not the truth and by simplifying and spinning it is likely that he will lose viewers who ignore his message and assume that this liberal "nut" cannot be trusted.This is a real weakness in the film but it is still worth seeing if you can cope with it. The liberal "choir" will lap it up regardless, while those very much in the same camp as former CIA man Duane on the right will not even think of watching it. The material is strong enough to win over those in the middle but Pilger's presentation is so heavy and slanted that he risks losing viewers before the material gets to work. Well worth seeing and impacting stuff but while Pilger deserves credit for pulling it together as writer/director, his presentation and style is also a real liability.

The bottom line for John Pilger's WAR ON DEMOCRACY documentary = Go See It! Then you can talk about it.I am addressing these remarks in the first place to law-abiding people, as most sharply distinguished from war criminals. The definition of a crisis = a period in which, in order to abide by that law which serves justice only, one must be prepared to enforce it. This extraordinary duty occurs because the official agencies with their names in the upper case --DoJ, DoD & CIA, for example-- have been captured by a bloody tyranny which utterly perverts such basic political concepts as those of justice, defense and intelligence. (Spook HQ is now officially named the George Bush Center for Intelligence, which is located two doors down from the Wilt Chamberlain Home for Short People.) These general reflections very much pertain to the subject of Mr.Pilger's masterpiece.I speak Spanish and briefly represented the U.S. State Department in Chile in 1964 & '65. In its hour & a half, WOD covers Latin America from El Salvador to Chile with a focus on Venezuela led by Hugo Chavez and a stop in Bolivia. For those new to this continent, WOD's an absolutely essential introduction. For those who already know it (among the group whom I'm addressing, please remember), they will be overjoyed to see an intelligent and artistically coherent story of their homelands on the Big Screen. We're talking about a place more than twice the area of the USA with more than half a billion people, hundreds of millions of whom are dirt poor and many of whom have had relatives murdered by thugs trained by the US Army at the "School of the Americas", which has recently changed its name out of embarrassment.When Pilger says that the CIA puppet regime in Guatemala slew "thousands", he is grossly understating the case, since the best estimate's ~250,000. Naturally he spent more time in countries where it's safer to film. Once we understand that we should all bring everybody we know to see this movie, then we can acknowledge that it's an opening of the door to a vast realm. Many more such features need to be made even to begin to do justice to the material.A criticism: In discussion with a Chilean physician who was a torture victim, Pilger uses a phrase about being "ensnared in fascism". IMHO he should simply forget the F word. As a matter of historical fact, Benito Mussolini, who created the concept of Fascism and led that Party in national power for a quarter of a century, had a lot more going for him than did the traitor Generals Rios Montt of Guatemala or Augusto Pinochet of Chile, to name only two of the dozens of US puppets in the region. The CIA's Guatemalan Genociderals in particular in their atrocities by far exceeded any acts of repression which Il Duce ever carried out in Italy. In other words, from Ronald Reagan until now the U.S. Government gives Fascism a bad name. Anyone who wants to have a head's up 'tude toward such a big part of our human race will definitely want to check out John Pilger's well-informed portrait of the irresistibly rising forces of the Western Hemisphere. Alert supporters of Barack Obama, Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney will want to give thought to tying in WOD to their candidates' campaigns.OTOH white supremacists & jingoes who think that slaughtering the families of foreigners is still cool, especially if they themselves can get a piece of the financial action, well, such "Chicago boys" as SonnaBush calls them in WOD, they will pan Pilger's product as skillfully as they can manage.

John Pilger's first documentary for the cinema is also his most optimistic. When I sat down to watch it with an audience, I was wondering why Pilger had chosen this time to release a documentary for cinema when he's been doing this for television for so long. I think the optimism is the reason, the need to get that optimism across to a much broader audience than the one that views his television work. Recent work like "The Corporation", "The Yes Men", as well as the work of Micheal Moore, has shown a demand for this kind of non-fiction in the cinema and Pilger is following this trend. What this work has in common is need to critique US power, the different ways in which this manifests itself, and the effect it has on people all over the world.Here, Pilger focuses on Latin America, the source of much popular uprising in recent years with the arrival in Venezuala of President Hugo Chavez and the failed US-backed bid to overthrow him after he acknowledged and championed the poor at the expense of the rich minority whom (because of this) he had begun to make uncomfortable.Interestingly there is a lack of censorship shown in the Venezualan media which means attacks on the President and his policies are not only constant but almost violently vociferous. Perhaps the only failing in Pilger's examination of Venezuala (including a face-to-face interview with Chavez himself) is specifying where this opposition comes from, asides from the privileged minority in the country and US media and government officials.Pilger further examines other cases in Latin America, including El Salvatore, Guatemala and Chile, where US or US-backed suppression of social or political movements (often elected democracies) that oppose their involvement in these countries has led to poverty, torture and murder. Former CIA agents willingly admit on screen that if a government, democratic or not, was not co-operative with US power they were often under orders from the highest level to destroy or undermine such governments using any methods necessary. One such official, a former CIA chief called Duane Clarridge responsible for torture and murder of civilians in Chile, is so blatantly ignorant and unapologetic in his answers to Pilger's questions that his responses induced laughter in the audience I watched it with.Throughout all of this, Pilger features his usual interviewing of civilians caught up in, and often victims of, these various conflicts. Some of this is insightful but, like his use of music in some moments, can border on the emotionally manipulative. Also his early extensive emphasis on Venezuala means his coverage of the other countries feels abbreviated as a result. That said, most of the time Pilger gets it right and his interviews along with his readings of each country's history effectively communicate his message.Rather than despairing of the reality of what he depicts, Pilger instead offers hope for change in the will of the people never to be victimised and to continue to resist and challenge oppressive power - a change is a-coming and Latin America, like the rest of us, is right in the middle of it.