The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film)

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (Spanish: '), also known as Chávez: Inside the Coup, is a 2003 Irish documentary film. It focuses on events in Venezuela leading up to and during the April 2002 coup d'état attempt, which saw President Hugo Chávez removed from office for two days. With particular emphasis on the role played by Venezuela's private media, the film examines several key incidents: the protest march and subsequent violence that provided the impetus for Chávez's ousting; the opposition's formation of an interim government headed by business leader Pedro Carmona; and the Carmona administration's collapse, which paved the way for Chávez's return. The Revolution Will Not Be Televised was directed by Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha ÓBriain. Given direct access to Chávez, the filmmakers intended to make a fly-on-the-wall biography of the president. They spent seven months filming in Venezuela, following Chávez and his staff and interviewing ordinary citizens. As the coup unfolded on 11April, Bartley and ÓBriain filmed on the streets of the capital, Caracas, capturing footage of protesters and the erupting violence. Later, they filmed many of the political upheavals inside Miraflores, the presidential palace.

Bartley and ÓBriain conceived of the film after Bartley returned from documenting the aftermath of the 1999 Vargas mudslides for an Irish charity. Following a visit to Venezuela to determine the feasibility of a film project, the pair formed a production company and applied to Ireland's film board, Bord Scannán na hÉireann (BSÉ), for a development grant. At BSÉ's request, the filmmakers partnered with a more experienced producer and shot a short pilot to show to potential investors. Funding for the €200,000 production was provided by BSÉ and several European broadcasters. Bartley and ÓBriain shot more than 200hours of material; editing focused on identifying footage that would make the film entertaining and drive the plot. It was at this stage that the film's coverage narrowed to concentrate more on the coup attempt.

The film was positively received by mainstream film critics and won several awards. Reviewers cited the filmmakers' unprecedented proximity to key events and praised the film for its "riveting narrative"; criticism focused on its lack of context and pro-Chávez bias. First shown on television in Europe and Venezuela in 2003, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised later appeared at film festivals and secured a limited theatrical release on the art house circuit. Independent activists held unofficial screenings, and Venezuelan government officials encouraged its circulation to build support for Chávez's administration. The film is regularly shown on Venezuelan television, and in the capital it is often broadcast during "contentious political conjunctures". The Revolution Will Not Be Televised paints Chávez in a favorable light, Until 1998, the dominant political parties were Acción Democrática and COPEI, who shared seven presidencies between them. In 1989, during the second term in office for Acción Democrática's Carlos Andrés Pérez, Venezuela was hit by a severe economic crisis. A wave of protests known as the Caracazo engulfed the country and dozens were killed in rioting.

left|thumb|alt=tbc|Hugo Chávez in 2003

Hugo Chávez, then a Lieutenant Colonel in the army, had formed a secret revolutionary group (MBR-200) in the early 1980s and was planning a "rebellious intervention". The movement adopted former Venezuelan leader Simón Bolívar as its "iconic hero" and "reference point"; Bolívar had played a key role in Latin America's successful struggle for independence from Spain in the 1820s. Nevertheless, by early 2002, Venezuela was "embroiled... in a severe political crisis" as Chávez sought to bring more of the country's vast oil wealth under state control. with footage of Chávez as he tours the country. Met with "popular enthusiasm", he speaks at rallies, decrying neoliberalism and the international community's attacks on his character.

Interviews with communities from both sides of the political divide indicate how Chávez is seen by the rich and poor. the former fear totalitarianism and are worried Chávez will institute communism. In February 2002, the media war intensifies after Chavez takes control of PDVSA.

On 11April, opposition protesters begin their march outside PDVSA's headquarters in Caracas; Chávez's supporters gather outside the presidential palace. The protest route is changed to take it to the palace; shots ring out and civilians are killed. The private media blames Chávez's supporters, citing footage that shows them shooting at opposition protesters from a bridge. Later, the state television signal is cut; rumors circulate that the opposition has taken over the studio. At the palace, members of the military high command demand Chávez's resignation, threatening to bomb the building. The president refuses to resign, but submits to their custody. On 13April, they gather to protest outside Miraflores, while palace guards plot to retake the building. The guards take up key positions and, at a prearranged signal, take members of the new government prisoner. The state television channel is relaunched and urges the army to back Chávez. "Full military control" is returned to the Chávez administration and the president arrives at the palace amid celebratory scenes.

Production

Development

In December 1999, independent Irish filmmaker Kim Bartley visited Venezuela as part of Concern Worldwide's emergency response team, to document the aftermath of the 1999 Vargas mudslides that had devastated much of Vargas State in the north of the country. Bartley become fascinated with how those affected by the tragedy perceived Chávez, and in late 2000, she and Donnacha ÓBriain—a filmmaker and former colleague who shared her interest in "Latin American politics and issues around globalization"—spent two weeks in Caracas to determine the feasibility of a film project. Bartley and ÓBriain proposed a fly-on-the-wall documentary, that would be "broadly supportive" of him. During their 2000 visit, the filmmakers had sensed that "something genuinely was happening" in Caracas, BSÉ set about exploring avenues of funding; the organization persuaded Bartley and ÓBriain to make a short pilot to show to potential investors, but refused the filmmakers' application for a €60,000 grant towards their €131,000 production budget. BSÉ felt the pair needed to partner with a production company that had experience in the field, and which could help raise the remaining funds. Bartley and ÓBriain approached Power Pictures and, with the addition of David Power as a producer, reapplied for the grant. In late 2001, BSÉ finally approved a production grant of €63,000.

Filming

240px|thumb|alt=tbc|Bartley and ÓBriain captured much of their footage outside and inside the Palacio de Miraflores in Caracas. Bartley explained, "We had... this notion of investigating Chávez—was he a demagogue? Was the media persona just that? What makes him tick? My sense had changed as we got closer; what we're seeing here is a guy who is motivated, driven, not the demagogue with another side, drinking, carousing. I began to see him as more transparent—what you see is what you get." Inside, they had written a quote from the Irish socialist playwright [[Seán O'Casey. not quite profitable, but still considered "a significant sum for a documentary". BSÉ waived Venezuelan licensing fees for the film; on 13April, it was screened simultaneously with the television broadcast at a cinema in Caracas, before which Chávez made a speech saying, "Watch this film and you will see the face of the coup." Pro-Chávez activists also distributed the film unofficially. The Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador screened the film in New York City, where Bolivarian Circle members "accepted donations" for bootleg copies. El Universal said the Venezuelan government had 10,000 copies made, Government representatives aided the film's distribution officially and unofficially. Venezuelan filmmaker Wolfgang Schalk said the film counted on the worldwide support of Venezuelan embassies and a public relations effort to show the film free at universities and theaters in cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York. As of 2006, groups such as Global Exchange were arranging tours to Venezuela that included a screening of the film.

Analysis

Disputed accuracy

In Venezuela, debate about The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is "often acrimonious". The film has become key to framing people's understanding of the events of April 2002. The previously accepted international view was that Chávez's ousting came from a "spontaneous popular response" to the repression of his regime; the film "directly contradicts" this position, The film's critics charge that it omits or misrepresents important events. Much of the criticism is centered on the filmmakers' "use of stock [documentary] devices", such as compositing clips from several events to present them as one incident. Caracas-based journalist Phil Gunson, writing in Columbia Journalism Review, says that most of the film critics who embraced the film ignored "the complex, messy reality" of the situation. Author Brian A. Nelson says that Bartley and ÓBriain—in their initial meeting with Chávez—did more than merely invoke the Irish general Daniel O'Leary to gain the president's support for filming; Nelson alleges that they offered to portray the president positively in return for open access, with a "you scratch my back if I scratch yours" understanding that he says was ultimately reflected in the film's "unabashed pro-Chavismo."

BBC and Ofcom investigations

{|class="toccolours" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; color:black; width:40em; max-width: 35%;" cellspacing="5"

|style="text-align: left;"|"Controversy and contention began to build around [the film], with a high level of complaints and responses reaching organisers, distributors and curators, culminating in the publication of articles, a petition and formal complaints.... From the point of view of those who opposed Chávez, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised 'constitutes the main weapon of the Venezuelan government to disseminate internationally a biased, manipulated and lying version of what happens [in the country].

|style="text-align: left;"|—Rod Stoneman, former CEO of BSÉ that attracted 11,000 signatories, 85% of whom self-identified as Venezuelan. Directed at the European broadcasters that financed and aired the film,

Much of the anger about the film stemmed from its high profile internationally; John Burns, writing in The Sunday Times, restated many of Gunson's arguments, and the BBC received 4,000 e-mails demanding that Storyvilles commissioning editor, Nick Fraser, be sacked. A subsequent appeal by the residents was unsuccessful. Private television repeatedly showed Chávez's supporters on Puente Llaguno as they shot at Baralt Avenue below, an area purportedly full of opposition marchers. Bartley and ÓBriain reaffirmed their claim that the opposition did not pass below the Puente Llaguno bridge, citing eyewitness statements—including one from Le Monde Diplomatiques deputy editor—and an Australian documentary, Anatomy of a Coup, that "came to conclusions similar to our own".

Timeline and media depictions

Other issues of contention include the lack of historical context; the film does not cover some of the events leading up to Chávez's ousting, including the long-running political crisis and the general strike. Gunson also criticizes the filmmakers for showing events out of order. In June 2002, they filmed an opposition community group as its members considered "how to defend themselves against possible... attacks" from Chávez's supporters. Gunson also cites footage of Caracas mayor Freddy Bernal as he sings to a happy group of Chávez supporters in front of the palace. Later images of a "differently dressed Bernal" reveal that the footage was from another day. to build context "before the core narrative of the coup [took] off" as they "could not be everywhere filming at all times". The film's assertion that VTV was taken over by opposition "plotters" is also disputed; according to X-Ray of a Lie and Gunson, staff left willingly. Only one of the high command joined Carmona's interim administration before contributing to its downfall by withdrawing his support. The military leaders shown withdrawing their support for Chávez were not the high command, and Vice-Admiral Hector Ramirez Perez was not the head of the navy, as the film claims. Gunson says, "With one solitary exception, these generals and admirals had not 'fled abroad' after the Carmona government collapsed." and in 2004 they created the documentary X-Ray of a Lie, which set out to expose its "manipulation". Schalk said the film "presented a distorted version of events... to fit a story that appeals to audiences". Schalk is associated with the Venezuelan opposition;

Frank Scheck, writing in The Hollywood Reporter, said the film presented an enthralling story that "resembles a taut... political thriller", and Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times called it a "remarkable documentary" full of "astonishing shots". Both critics said the film was made so through the filmmakers' unique inside access to the events at the palace with Ebert calling that aspect "unique in film history".

J. Hoberman of The Village Voice said the film was a "gripping" account that did "an excellent job in deconstructing the Venezuelan TV news footage of blood, chaos, and rival crowds", and said it was "nearly a textbook on media manipulation". Writing for The New York Times, Stephen Holden said the film was "a riveting documentary" that delivered "the suspense of a smaller-scale Seven Days in May", citing the way in which it examined how television can be used to "deceive and manipulate the public". Ty Burr in The Boston Globe called the film "our best chance" to find out what really happened on 11–13April, but cautioned that the filmmakers' "pro-Chávez stance" meant that for wider context audiences should look elsewhere, as it left out too much of Chávez's record.

Desson Thomson of The Washington Post stated that the film successfully reproduced the "panic and fear" at the palace as events unfolded, saying it came across like a "raw, Costa-Gavras-style thriller" that was "worth watching down to the last thrilling minute". In the Miami New Times, Brett Sokol agreed that the film was "never less than thrilling", but said that as history, it was "strictly agitprop". Similarly, Mark Jenkins wrote in the Washington City Paper that the film was "unapologetically polemical", but "notable foremost as a gripping you-are-there account".

Accolades

The film won several awards in 2003–04. It was also nominated for Best Documentary and Best Irish Film at the Irish Film and Television Awards. The annual International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam gives an acclaimed filmmaker the chance to screen his or her Top 10 films. In 2007, Iranian filmmaker Maziar Bahari selected The Revolution will not be Televised for his top ten classics from the history of films.

{| align="center" width=94% style="text-align:center; font-size:87%; clear:both"

! style="background-color: #DBDABA; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;" | Film organization

! style="background-color: #F5F5EC; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;" | Award won

!style="background-color: #DBDABA; font-size: small;"|Banff World Television Festival