South of the Border (2009)

Here we have a completely lopsided documentary starring Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and of course Oliver Stone as the on-camera host. It was nice to see Oliver sitting and talking to the all the major players of South America and Cuba. But so what? Stone implies that because Fox News is a completely transparent propaganda machine that Hugo is not a dictator but a misunderstood hero of the continuing Bolivarian and communist revolutions. At least he is right about Fox news. He seems to get almost every other fact about Chavez and Morales wrong. To make Chavez shine like a new penny, Stone includes interviews with Christina and Lula. Pure farce.I was hoping to learn something about Chavez and Venezuela, something that might change my opinion. I wanted to learn about the irrevocable changes to the political system there. But what I got was a pathetic excuse for Stone to schmooze with various heads of states as he toured South America as the other kind of American.This is a terrible, self-serving documentary that has no place in an intelligent discussion of Chavez. There is no journalism here, no fairness, and nothing to learn. Just a puzzle and perhaps the end of a career for Stone.

Stone is a heavy name in American film. It is used here to help balance the US media's ignorance of recent South American political inclinations. He interviews many elected officials, all of whom seem to be pretty enlightened guys, just like Stone. But they are politicians, each tooting their own horn - one couldn't expect any less. Big meaningful progressive issues are bandied about with revolutionary relish. And Stone could not be less inclined to investigate the ground beneath their feet.If all this great stuff is happening in South America I couldn't be happier. But knowing how the world works I found it difficult to swallow all of the rhetoric as easily as Stone. His ear is surely closer to the ground than Fox, CNN or the NYT. But what does he need to do, as a filmmaker, to convince his audience of his point of view? He needs to show the proof in the pudding. Lets see the beans in the burrito. Not just the guacamole sauce.How are these political changes working for the citizens? Let's hear it from the ground up, Oliver. How is Bolivarianism actually achieved within a 21st century global economy? I want to SEE this. If it is happening, why not show the nuts and bolts? Why not interview the newly empowered taxpaying residents and let them show the world how the new policies are changing their lives? To hear politicians gush about it will only move audiences to skepticism. By faith alone? - that's strictly for gringos.As a fiction and fantasy auteur, it may be that Stone doesn't believe that a documentary approach can speak to the hearts and minds of a society raised on cable junk. He's probably right. But if he's a committed socialist he should work at it a little harder. Many of us are riper for it than even he may realize.

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.

Hugo Chavez is by all means an interesting figure in today's politics. As a matter of fact, I began to like his shameless "in your face" attitude, mostly uncommon in today's decadent global relations, and his quite magnetic charisma. You will notice Chavez whether You like him or not. Anyhow, after seeing "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" which thrilled me, and the previous Stone's documentary dealing with South American issues "Comandante", indeed I expected "South Of The Border" to be an exciting yet profound content. It wasn't really.I did like the documentary, no doubt about that, still, it lacks depth and structural analysis of something that presents much more than a certain politician's biography and the surrounding he's creating. Stone obviously had intended to criticize the American capitalist system of global domination, and show Chavez together with other Latin American leaders as an alternative. Yes, the critic is quite direct, although a feeling remains that the whole concept is made to be superficial, in order to bring the film to a wider public with lower cognitive capacities. I know, it's all about profit, but still, a documentary is supposed to be about the essence, is it not? The whole story line and the narration make the story predictable, it sounds partial, whereas way too much material was taken from "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". Sometimes it seems Stone had made nothing more than a paraphrase of things already shown and told. The biggest disappointment though is the end, with the classic Obama cliché and the "New yadiyadada Hope" story which by now makes me wanna take a bucket and throw it all out.In short, I did like "South Of The Border", yet the expectations were much bigger though. Sorry Oliver, you could have done a far better job.