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.

I do not wish to add more praise on my fellow-Australian than has been heaped on him so far, but it was great to see a well made documentary covering the way the US corporate empire tries as desperately to hang on to its satrapies as did the Roman and Ottoman empires.We had the unpleasant experience of having our popularly elected government led by Gough Whitlam destabilised by the CIA while at the same time they were backing Indonesia's illegal invasion of East Timor in which six Australian journalists were murdered. It turns out that the coup by which that Indonesian leader, Suharto, came to power was also orchestrated by the CIA, and thousands of Indonesians, especially ethnic Chinese, were slaughtered in the name of anti-Communism.It is by now well known that the casus belli for the war on the Vietnamese, the so-called Gulf of Tonkin incident, was a total fabrication, used to justify President Johnson's decision to reverse President Kennedy's plan to withdraw all troops from South Vietnam.There is plenty material here for The War on Democracy II if John wants to do a sequel.

John Pilger is a unique journalist with credentials to boot. I find this documentary very helpful in shining a light on otherwise ill reported topics. The only problem is that this title is unavailable in the United States just now. It is funny that all his documentaries aren't shown there. Some aren't shown here in the U.K. The idea that he is Anti-west as is touted by some very narrow minded people is absurd. I recommend watching this Documentary and many others of his like it. You will find he is not anti west, just anti corporate globalisation. That is a very important issue that is never covered by the mainstream media. This is the only reason that the other review here is condemning him. Watch with an open mind. With regards here is a quote of Jeanette winterson about history and information in a media frenzied world. "If you want to keep your own teeth, make your own sandwiches." The world needs more information like this. We are tomorrows people and the fact that the U.s, U.K (my own country) and many other huge corporate meccas ignore the rest of the world, creating this muddled up terror riddled nightmare, can only be settled, even a little, by people opening their minds and hearts to more than just their own comfy lifestyle. I not a conspiracy theorist, they should all be condemned. Freedom of information is essential for great journalism, journalism should publicise human beings (like us) being screwed in our name. This documentary is great. watch more like it. Well done again Mr Pilger. :)

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.