4/5

No stranger to cinematic controversy Oliver Stone has chosen a subject for his latest documentary that is not going to make him any friends in the mainstream US media.

South of the Border acts as a revisionist polemic taking a swipe at what the film considers the wild misrepresentations of the changing political landscape in South America by the mainstream media and in particular the portrayal of the regions leaders.

This argument is made quickly, clearly and effortlessly with a series of buffoonish, inaccurate and, at times, surreally bizarre clips from various news networks (mainly Fox News) making wild claims about the region, which anyone with even a basic understanding of the region would know to be almost entirely false.

As a political road movie, South of the Border sees Stone travel the continent meeting along the way the leaders that are moving South America away from US subservience into independent, free, economic self-sufficiency. After the initial darkness of tone in the way the media can essentially control the ‘truth’, South of the Border becomes a story of hope.

The main focus comes with a re-examination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez – who as the democratically elected leader has, as the film states, for the first time intigated goverance for the benefit of the country’s poor.
Looking at his rise to power, and the US government and media’s involvement in a character-assassination and the failed military coup against him – during which the people and army rallied behind their elected leader.

This segment produces the most shocking example of media manipulation. As both anti and pro Chavez protestors aired their views on the streets, both parties were shot at by snippers from near-by roof-tops. Chavez supporters fired back – many protestors were injured and killed (some with shots to the head).

The US media edited footage to make it appear as if the Chavez supporters had fired upon the unarmed anti-President demonstrators.

This alone packs a powerful punch for Stone’s arguments. The interview footage shows Chavez as a leader who is defiant in protecting the needs of his people, and the apparent love for him as the man in charge.

The strength of South of the Border comes in the fact that it is not a fiery, attack piece acting as an offensive against the US, but a highlighting of the social democratic changes in the region that is giving its people the power back. Eschewing the use of that ‘dirty’ word socialism (which is only mentioned a few times in passing in the film) it becomes more about people’s democratic right to determine their own future’s and benefit from their own wealth without outside interference and meddling, than it does revelling in petty left against right political posturing.

This lack of fire is also the films flaw, as a measured and considered look at the situation it is likely to do very little to change the minds of those who have already made up their mind about the region, and it also fails in shedding very little new light on the events surrounding the coup against Chavez which was covered better in John Pilger’s excellent film, War on Democracy.

But despite the rather subdued tone Stone’s voice-over offers much food for thought, being incissive, intelligent and engaging.

After a sizable look at Chavez, Stone embarks on a whirlwind tour visiting the other forces behind this change – Evo Morales (Bolivia), Lula da Silva (Brazil), Cristina Kirchner (Argentina), as well as her husband and ex-President Néstor Kirchner, Fernando Lugo (Paraguay), Rafael Correa (Ecuador), and Raúl Castro (Cuba). With all of them we get to see their human sides, and find them, largely, with a surprising lack of hatred for the US.

What started as a visit to talk to Chavez, soon hastily turned into a trip to capture a ‘movement’ of revolutionary politics, that far from having the exact same goals of destroying America (as the US media would have us believe), is comprised of individual leaders with their own ideas but with an understanding and one shared goal in strengthening their positions on the world stage.

Each leader is entertaining and passionate in their own way, the informal nature of the interviews adding much more weight to the conversations. In every way South of the Border does a great job in humanising the dehumanised – whether you agree with their politics or not becomes a minor point  under the weight of the democratic argument and the stark contrast of the reality to media-led version of the world.

South of the Border is a visually engaging, intellectual and thought-provoking piece of cinema that acts as a vital starting-point in readdressing the misrepresentations of the South American continent and acts as cinematic beacon of hope for the idea of democracy. It has its flaws but to address an issue so huge and complex you have to start somewhere – and here is where you should begin.

by Michael Mather