El Salvador's Oliver Stone film makes headlines en The Guardian, United Kingdom
El Salvador: Oliver Stone, lose the fast and loose approach
By Alex von Tunzelmann
Oliver Stone's 1986 film depicts much of the drama and horror of the events of the civil war, but then he went and blotted his copybook with cartoonish and even made-up characters. (Photo: James Woods, James Belushi and Elpidia Carrillo)
El Salvador descended into a brutal civil war between 1980 and 1992, pitting leftwing guerrillas against a rightwing military administration. Notoriously, the United States involved itself, fearing that a leftwing victory would advance the spread of communism. Washington aided the rightwing army, which carried out a horrific programme of repression, torture, disappearances and massacres. More than 30,000 people disappeared by the regime were still unaccounted for at the end of the war.
People
The film follows the alleged adventures of real-life gonzo photojournalist Richard Boyle (James Woods). It's 1980, and Boyle is desperate to cover the emerging conflict. The problem is, he's not so much a few sandwiches short of a picnic as also lacking the coleslaw, the strawberries, the swiss rolls, the fizz, a hamper and a blanket. With his equally eccentric DJ sidekick, Dr Rock (James Belushi), Boyle decides to drive to central America from San Francisco, the two of them consuming the greatest possible quantities of tequila, pills and prostitution along the way. At this point, it's as if a much less amiable version of Withnail & I had gone on holiday by mistake again, only to El Salvador rather than Penrith. Unfortunately, in this film, things are about to get a lot less funny.
Politics
The up-and-coming warlord is Major Max, a thinly-veiled version of the real Roberto D'Aubuisson. D'Aubuisson was an army major assigned to the Salvadoran Special Services. After the coup in October 1979 he left the army, taking intelligence files and officers with him, to set up a network of death squads. The scene in which Major Max is shown railing against Archbishop Óscar Romero in front of a roomful of henchmen, almost directly quoting Henry II in asking who will rid him of this turbulent priest, looks too theatrical to be true. However, some reports do suggest that D'Aubuisson held a similar meeting, at which his aides drew lots for the "honour" of assassinating Romero.
Violence
The real assassination of Romero was dramatic enough, though Stone embellishes it, having Romero's shooter taking communion from the archbishop rather than hiding behind a pillar. Boyle is shown, entirely inaccurately, sitting a few seats away. The film gets into problematic territory as it places Boyle at the centre of more and more real events in which, at best, he was really on the distant periphery. These include the guerrilla battle at Santa Ana, the rape and murder of four American churchwomen by a death squad, and the tribulations faced by US ambassador Robert E White (again, thinly veiled by a fictional name), who is caught between the malevolent intentions of the CIA and the humanitarian crisis before him. The cartoonish excesses of Stone's characters add to the pervading sense of fiction – heroic yet flawed journalists, spoilt blonde TV broadcasters, corrupt and greasy Salvadoran thugs, noble guerrillas, and strong-jawed American Reaganites with such manifestly evil intentions you could be forgiven for expecting them to operate from a volcanic lair with a fluffy white cat on their laps. Quite a lot of the things Stone shows are accurate, but you wouldn't know it to watch this film.
Controversy
The film reaches a peak of untruth with the fates of photojournalist John Cassady, and Boyle's girlfriend Maria. As the film ends, title cards tell you what happened afterwards to Boyle and to the murderers of Romero. They also tell you that Cassady's photos were published, and that Maria ended up in a refugee camp. The difference is that Boyle and Romero really did exist, but Cassady did not; and that the scene wherein Boyle tries to sneak Maria into the United States is fictional. It's actually irresponsible to mislead the audience in this way. If Stone is prepared to muddle up fact and fiction so blatantly, why should you believe any of this?
Verdict
Events in El Salvador were as bad as, and worse than, this film shows, but playing fast and loose with reality doesn't make the case.
Source: The Guardian, UK 9/4/2009
Wow men,
ReplyDeleteEsta película la debemos ver todos y todas. Porque esta mmisma gente de Dabuisson está tratando de domesticar al gobierno de transicion. El Frente debe ponerse las pilas y luchar por dignificar sus raíces históricas. Ahora, la derecha usa la palabra "comandantes" como mala palabra, cuando fueron los proceres del siglo XX.
yo acabo de verla y lo que me provoco es risa de como alguien pudo crear semejante filme propagandistico, es facil engañar a alguien que no vivio esa epoca ni conoce el salvador, desde los guerrilleros a caballo, las decenas de muertos en el playon que nadie llegaba a levantar, los soldados sicopatas que mataban a todo lo que se movia, el joven universitario asesinado en la plaza publica solo por no cargar cedula (vaya una vez me paso en esa epoca que me registraron cuando me transportaba en un bus y no llevaba esa cedula y lo unico que me gane fue un empujon del soldado que me registro que luego me dejo ir sin ningun problema) el asesinato de romero totalmente alejado de como ocurrio (y que yo sepa el arzobispo romero jamas anduvo llamando a realizar levantamientos armados en sus homilias), la mencion del partido ARENA cuando para la epoca en que se situa la narracion de la pelicula (pareciera ser entre noviembre del 80 y enero del 81 ya que se situa entre la epoca de las elecciones de los EEUU y los dias previos a la toma de posesion de ronald reagan) aun no habia sido fundado, yo como salvadoreño que vivi esa epoca y me movia en colonias de clase media y baja puedo testificar que el 75% de esta pelicula es burda propaganda pro guerrilla de parte de Stone tratando de influir en la opinion publica norteamericana de ese entonces con el proposito de que se le cortara la ayuda al gobierno salvadoreño y ayudar asi a una victoria militar de la entonces guerrilla del fmln a los cuales stone presento como heroes a los que acompañaba con canciones alegoricas de fondo. no quiero decir que los militares eran unos santos pero las guerrillas tampoco lo eran. Pero hoy dia may muchos jovenes que no vivieron ese conflicto y con peliculas como esta les lavan la cabeza facilmente con una realidad torcida de lo que fue la guerra en este pais.
ReplyDelete