G.- Artículos - Articles (Español-Spanish & Inglés-English)

* Columbia Journalism Review by Phil Gunson (March 2004)
Did an acclaimed documentary about the 2002 coup in Venezuela tell the whole story?
In September 2001, two young Irish filmmakers, Kim Bartley and Donnacha O’Briain, arrived in Venezuela with plans to make a low-budget, fly-on-the-wall documentary about the country’s flamboyant president, Hugo Chávez. A former army officer, Chávez had attempted a coup d’état in 1992, spent a couple of years in jail, and was elected to the presidency in 1998. His followers revere him as a revolutionary, struggling to bring justice to the poor in the face of savage attacks from a local oligarchy backed by Washington. His adversaries call him a dangerous demagogue who has ruined the economy, polarized the nation, and is steadily dismantling a forty-five-year-old democracy. Bartley and O’Briain belong unabashedly in the former camp.

In today’s Venezuela, it is hard, if not impossible, to find an impartial observer. Most of the country’s private news media have openly joined the opposition. State radio and TV are crude cheerleaders for the government. Bartley and O’Briain, however, while rightly criticizing the former, ignore the sins of the latter.

Seven months into their project, persistence and good fortune brought a scoop: they were inside the presidential palace when Chávez was ousted by a military-civilian uprising. The resulting documentary — underwritten by the BBC, Ireland’s RTE, and other European broadcasters — is as thrilling a piece of political drama as you’re likely to see and has won armfuls of prizes, including Britain’s top documentary award, the Grierson. It has aired repeatedly all around the world, has been shown in movie theaters and at film festivals, arguably becoming the prevailing interpretation of the continuing Venezuelan political crisis. The Chávez government, which had 20,000 copies made in Cuba, has been a tireless promoter and distributor of the film.

“It is probably one of the best documentaries I have ever seen on television, and undoubtedly one of the finest pieces of journalism within living memory,” gushed Declan Lynch, a television critic for Ireland’s Sunday Independent, in a fairly typical review of Chávez: Inside the Coup. “The plot was classically simple: Chávez gets democratically elected, to the chagrin of the evil oil-barons and their good buddies in the Bush administration, who express ‘extreme concern’ that Chávez ‘doesn’t have America’s interest at heart.’ Chávez gets ousted by these malign forces, spirited away amid scenes of chaos orchestrated by them. But Santa María! his palace guards remain loyal, and amid scenes of total consternation, Chávez is brought back, the coup is declared null and void by the good guys on state television, and the evil oil-barons flee to Miami, having duly emptied the safe in the palace.”

That engaging narrative is, unfortunately, somewhat at odds with the complex, messy reality of April 2002, when a mass march on the presidential palace in Caracas ended in a massacre and a short-lived change of government. Bartley and O’Briain are entitled to their views, but a close analysis of the film reveals something worse than political naiveté. Constructing a false picture of a classic military coup devised by an allegedly corrupt and racist oligarchy, they omit key facts, invent others, twist the sequence of events to support their case, and replace inconvenient images with others dredged from archives. (A version of the film in Spanish is called La Revolucion No Sera Transmitida: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.)

By the time of the coup, Venezuela had been embroiled for almost six months in a severe political crisis. The lid blew off when Chávez moved to rid the state oil corporation, Petróleos de Venezuela, of its top managers and directors, whom he perceived as inimical to his self-styled “revolution.” Chávez recently admitted that he deliberately provoked the showdown: the result was that oil managers, business leaders, and large segments of organized labor called a work stoppage, backed by millions of Venezuelans, particularly the country’s increasingly impoverished middle class. Disaffected military officers, angry at Chávez’s drive to place the armed forces at the service of his political project, were also involved.

On the morning of April 11, an estimated 500,000 people conducted an opposition march. The government called on its supporters to form a human shield around the presidential palace and attempted to activate a military defense plan. When the marchers, who had deviated from their original route, approached the palace, shooting broke out on all sides. A score of civilians died and more than 150 suffered gunshot wounds. The military high command called for Chávez to resign, and at 3:20 the next morning they announced he had agreed to do so. The presidency was assumed by a business leader, Pedro Carmona, but his government collapsed in less than forty-eight hours and Chávez returned to power.

In Bartley and O’Briain’s film, the chavistas (as the president’s supporters are known) are invariably poor, brown-skinned, and cheerful. The opposition, on the other hand, is rich, white, racist, and violent. Unseen are the armed bands of chavista thugs who for years have made the center of Caracas a no-go area, beating up or shooting opposition marchers or TV crews who dare to approach. Invisible, too, are the massive — and multiracial — peaceful opposition rallies, whose huge numbers belie the government’s claim to represent the masses.

In June, two months after the violence, Bartley and O’Briain filmed a group of condominium residents discussing how to defend themselves against possible chavista attacks. But the film — whose narrative purports to follow a strict chronology — inserted the interviews before the march. When I challenged Bartley on that in an exchange of e-mails, she dismissed the criticism, saying the producers felt that “the views expressed at this meeting illustrated the collective mind of the opposition long before the coup ever took place.”

Important to her argument are images of peaceful chavistas facing a violent opposition march. She inserts a sequence ostensibly filmed outside the presidential palace on the morning of April 11 in which Caracas’s mayor, Freddy Bernal — a leading chavista radical — sings and plays the maracas for a crowd of smiling government supporters. The backdrop to the platform, however, reveals that the sequence does not belong to that day, when a differently dressed Bernal was organizing an armed defense of the palace.

Until coming under fire, the opposition march was entirely peaceful. But in the documentary, images of the march’s violent finale, along with one shot taken two days earlier, are inserted near the start of the demonstration. “The opposition march was fast approaching,” the commentary declares, “and some in the vanguard looked ready for a fight.”

Before the march neared the palace, a number of people were shot, and several killed there. The film suggests that they were shot by “the coup plotters.” The fact is — as Bartley and O’Briain later admitted — we don’t know who was shooting. Nevertheless, a Venevisión reporter named Luis Alfonso Fernández was hustled off a rooftop for filming chavista gunmen apparently firing at the opposition march.

That film, repeated incessantly on the opposition TV channels, became the most contentious image of the entire day. Bartley accepts a government argument that “the opposition march had never taken that route” and that the gunmen were merely returning fire from snipers and the opposition-controlled police. She fails to mention that several people on the opposition march were shot dead, and many more wounded, less than two blocks from the gunmen. An image she uses showing an empty street below the Llaguno Bridge on which the gunmen were standing was filmed much earlier than the Fernández sequence, according to an analysis of the shadows by Wolfgang Schalk, a Venezuelan TV producer.

While the shooting was going on, Chávez commandeered all radio and TV frequencies for a speech that lasted almost two hours. He had used this prerogative up to seventeen times during the previous day. When private TV channels split the screen during his speeches to show the accompanying violence, the president ordered the National Guard to shut them down. None of this is featured in the film, which wrongly claims that state TV (VTV) was “the only channel to which he had access.” Later that evening, VTV went off the air after its staff deserted. The film implies that it was taken over by coup-plotters, and even fabricates a sequence in which the TV screen goes blank during a government legislator’s interview.

As the documentary proceeds, the atmosphere inside the palace is — not unnaturally — becoming pretty tense. “We could see on TV that the palace had been surrounded by tanks,” says the film’s narrator. The “tanks” (actually armored cars) had been ordered there by the president, not the opposition.

More serious is the deliberate blurring of responsibility for the coup. The high command that announced Chávez’s resignation — then quickly dissolved, leaving a total power vacuum — never in reality abandoned the president’s cause. Its senior figure, General-in-chief Lucas Rincón, is currently the interior minister. With one exception — the army commander, General Efraín Vásquez — they took no part in the Carmona government. Vásquez himself withdrew support from Carmona in less than two days, bringing down his short-lived regime. A group of senior officers, who released a videotaped statement withdrawing their support from Chávez, is presented in the film as if they were the high command. Their leader, Vice-Admiral Héctor Ramírez Pérez, is identified as the head of the navy. He was not. With one solitary exception, these generals and admirals had not “fled abroad” after the Carmona government collapsed, as the film claims.

In constructing their alternative reality, the directors omit all mention of an announcement by General Rincón that Chávez had resigned, later calling it “supplementary to the main, key fact of the story” (i.e., their contention that he did not). They declined to respond to my argument that scenes in the documentary were fabricated, or placed out of sequence to alter the chain of cause-and-effect, saying they were “tired of having our film subjected to frame-by-frame analysis in an attempt to discredit it for political reasons.”

The opposition media, as the film rightly points out, behaved disgracefully during the April events. They systematically excluded the chavista viewpoint from print, radio, and TV in the period April 11-13. But how ironic that a film purporting to set the record straight should itself turn out to be an exercise in propaganda.
Source: http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/3/gunson-docu.asp


* tvtoday.com (5 de Febrero del 2004)
BBC investigating complaints about Venezuela documentary
Letter: Surprised about the results of the Lord Hutton inquiry? Maybe disappointed because not all the the questions were answered, but for a vast majority of Venezuelan people, an unethical behavior from a BBC journalist is not a surprise at all.

Since 2003 various complaints were submitted at different levels of the BBC because of a co-produced video on the tragic events of April 2002 in Venezuela when the president was overthrown and put back in power by the army in a period of 72 hours. The complaints did not get any further. Of course, those who complained are not Number 10 nor the UK Prime Minister.

Sadly, we do have many suicides committed by people of the opposition who could not cope with the tragedy of having all their rights, their jobs, their entire existence taken away with violence and total disrispect for human conditions. One was a teenager who killed himself in the precint of the university. We also have many people being killed, abused, tortured, including children, by the regime. Nothing of that is mentioned in the video.

It would be too long to explain the colossal ethical violations committed by the producers of the video which is being intensively broadcasted around the world like a well orchestrated marketing campaign. Just a few examples. They omitted the massacre committed by regime supporters at the exact time the president was intervining all the radio and TV networks to “make an announcement”. They never mentioned either all the other massacres commited by Chavez regime supporter in public squares or pacific marches. They also never mentioned that the Chief of the Army announced on the 12th of April that Chavez had resigned. The few thousands of supporters Chavez had, did not put him pback on power, it was again, the Army as in all historical dictatorships.

The producers lied to people of the opposition about the real subject of the video to be able to shot some images which are insulting and totally out of context (actually they lied in the video about the date these images were shot). Some people´s images appear without their authorization posing them at risk of being victims of the violence of the regime supporters.

A series of complaint have now been introduced to the Broadcasting Commission. We hope that “fairness and accuracy” are valued equally in the case of a first world Government than for a bunch of illiterates, as BBC called us in a previous documentary again pro-Chavez.

We also expect that the massive violations of Human Rights in Venezuela will finally be unvelied by BBC and other braodcasting networks around the world. Or should we, the Venezuelans, start to believe that some Human Rights are more valuable than others depending on who is behind the camera?

Cinzia De Santis Melchor.

This letter refers to a documentary about April 2002 coup in Venezuela, which for a short time toppled the leader Hugo Chavez. Broadcast in the UK as Chavez - Inside The Coup and across the world as The Revolution Will Not Be Televised , the documentary was a co-production of the BBC, RTE, ZDF, NPS, YLE and ARTE.

The author is a scientist who lived in Venezuela until August 2003.

We invited the BBC to comment on this letter. A spokewoman said: “We have received complaints concerning this programme and are currently looking into them. We feel it is inappropriate to comment further at this stage.”

Fuente: http://www.tvtoday.co.uk/article.php?p=128&more=1


* Petroleumworld.com (19 de Noviembre)
“The Revolution will not be televised”: truth or fraud? by Gustavo Coronel
I say fraud and here are the reasons: A film on the Venezuelan events of April 2002, called “The Revolution will not be televised”, has been showing all over the world with some success. Impartial observers of the Venezuelan situation, after seeing the film, have been led to think of Chavez as the hero and the Venezuelan opposition as the villains of the story.

The Chavez government certainly shows this film as a testimony of how the brave people of Venezuela defended their legitimate President from the coupsters.

10,000 VHS copies of this film have been made in Cuba (paid for by Chavez) to give away to anyone who might be interested to see it.
The main witness in the film against the private TV stations, Mr. Andres Izarra, is a paid employee of the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington D.C. and a son of Commander William Izarra ... one of the leaders of the failed February 1992 coup, together with Chavez.

When the Chavez TV station “Venezolana de Television” aired this film on April 13, 2003, thousands of viewers who had played a direct role in the events depicted, felt that the film did not reflect accurately the events that had taken place. Since that was a one-time shot, viewers did not have a real chance to comment on the contents of the film.

It is now, after more than one year that an expert, independent analysis of this film has been made. Former BBC employee, engineer Wolfgang Schalk, and Venezuelan film producer Thaelman Urgelles came together and presented the film on October 3 and October 10 on local television and ... once more ... on October 21 at an open forum held in Caracas, in what they called “A rendezvous with the Truth.”

The hundreds of Venezuelans who attended this forum included audiovisual specialists, sociologists, direct witnesses of the events contained in the film and general public, both in favor and against the government of Chavez.

As a result, those who were there could appreciate, in full, the numerous distortions of the truth, the biased interpretations of the events, the lack of ethics of the producers of the film and the faulty research made by those producers, leading to totally dishonest conclusions.

The analysts mention the following examples of such distortion and dishonesty:
1. Showing a pretended popular concentration in front of the Presidential Palace on the morning of April 11, 2002, the film utilizes material from another concentration held, not only at a different date but in another city of Venezuela, with children singing and everyone in a festive mood.
2. The film producers did not mention the TV and Radio Hookups imposed by Chavez on April 11, between 3:45 p.m. and 5:27 p.m., speaking for nearly 2 hours while no less than 21 Venezuelans died and more than 120 were wounded in the vicinity of his headquarters.
Readers from northern countries do not know about compulsory hookups ... they have never been subjected to them in their democratic countries. They force private media to show only what the government is saying. When people started dying, the private TV stations started to show the events in a one-split screen. Immediately the government took them off the air, something that cannot be done unless you make preparations in advance.
3. The film insists that President Chavez never resigned from his post. But we all saw the current Minister of the Interior, General Lucas Rincon, say on national TV, at 3.20 a.m. on April 12: “We asked the President for his resignation and he accepted it…”
Was he telling the truth? Apparently so, because at that moment a tearful President Chavez was in custody in Caracas, asking to be put in a plane to Cuba.
Was he lying? If so, he was part of the “coup” and, as such, could not be today the Minister of the Interior in Chavez’ cabinet. This remarkable event was totally ignored by the producers of the film ... the film did not show the arrival of the fallen President to Fuerte Tiuna, the military fort in Caracas, where he was received by two bishops who tried to put him at ease.
4. The case of the Puente Llaguno Killers is quite complex. For those who are not audiovisual experts it would be difficult to see that these killers were shooting at a real target. According to the film they were shooting at no one. The analyst, Mr. Schalk, proved that the events depicted in the film had been taken at 1:00-1:30 p.m., when the opposition march was nowhere in sight. The real images of the killers shooting innocent people were taken between 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. when, in fact, the tragic events were taking place. The producers of the film did not have access to, or did not use these takes from the journalists who have been given the Spanish prize.
5. Another lie had to do with the claim by the film that the government TV channel was taken off the air on April 11. We all saw this TV station on air during the evening of the 11, a military officer acting as an announcer, claiming that the station was surrounded by hostile persons and under threat from hostile “military forces.” The truth is that no military forces were in the streets of Caracas at that time ... the government channel was left abandoned, but unmolested, for the rest of the evening.
6. Some images shown in the film appear as having been taken before April 11 when, in fact, they were taken 3 months later. I refer to a meeting of citizens getting ready to protect themselves from a possible attack by Chavistas. The persons, almost all women, were receiving instructions on how to defend themselves (in June 2002) from a possible Chavista attack. The film shows this take as having occurred in January 2002, to illustrate the preparations of the “rich” people against the poor. The editing is particularly dishonest, as it shows elegant surroundings, suggesting the war of the rich against the poor.
7. The version aired by BBC in October 2003 already shows this correction, the result of a letter by Mr. Schalk to the BBC in July 2003. This means that BBC is already rectifying some of the errors of the original film but this, in no way, eliminates the responsibility and lack of ethics of the producers.
8. Images, dates and times have been grossly manipulated. The takes on Chavez’ support audiences date back to 2000, when this support was real. This fraud is greater since the film makers have stressed the fact that their “narration is exact in time.” This time distortion is especially evident in the sequences of April 11, 12 and 13. In those sequences, the film changes times with total irresponsibility in order to build a story that suits their interests. For example the film shows the group of Generals and Admirals giving their joint declaration at 3:00 p.m. when, in fact, this took place at 6:21 p.m. via CNN.
9. The film depicts the crisis as a clash between the white and the colored, the rich and the poor, the corrupt and the honest. This is the greatest fraud of all. Venezuela is a mestizo country where racial hatred and class warfare had been non-existent until Chavez came into power. His complex of inferiority, his lack of ability to inspire our society to build a better country has led the country into turmoil. Kim Bartley and Donnacha O’Brien have constructed a film, which presents a false image of our society.
10. The tanks shown in the film as belonging to the opposition on April 11 do, in fact, belong to Mr. Chavez ... Chavez' order of to repress the April 11 march was disobeyed by his Generals ... this was the starting point of the so-called “coup.” These Generals are still in the country ... they did not flee as the film suggests ... they are the real heroes of these events, as they refused to shoot on unarmed Venezuelan citizens.

We have not yet seen the end of this so-called documentary film.

Somebody is being dishonest, somebody has committed fraud, and somebody got paid for this.

The moment of truth is getting nearer.


* El Universal (16 de Noviembre)
Cineastas venezolanos objetan video "La Revolución no será transmitida"
Desarman una farsa mediática
Para Wolfgang Schalk y Thaelman Urgelles es un video que manipula la información.

"El documental irlandés construye una historia según la que el presidente, por favorecer a los sectores pobres, se ha echado encima a la oligarquía" _THAELMAN URGELLES

MANUEL LEBON

EL UNIVERSAL
El 11 de abril del 2002, la cineasta irlandesa Kim Bartley se encontraba documentando la llamada revolución bolivariana cuando se le presentó la oportunidad de su vida al registrarse la masacre de la marcha opositora y la salida temporaria del primer mandatario nacional. A partir de esos terribles sucesos, Bartley creó a dos manos con su compatriota Donnacha O'Brien el documental, La Revolución no será transmitida, segmento que contó con el soporte de las poderosas cadenas europeas BBC, ZDF, RTE, Arte y NPS y que fue mostrado por primera vez por VTV el 13 de abril de 2003. Posteriormente, el Gobierno hizo 10 mil copias en Cuba de esta producción para mostrarla en diversas partes del mundo.

Esta producción claramente sesgada hacia el proyecto revolucionario del gobierno actual ha sido objeto de un cuidadoso análisis por parte del ingeniero y productor cinematográfico Wolfgang Schalk, quien pasó cuatro meses analizando la cinta toma por toma para descubrir gran cantidad de inconsistencias, omisiones y manipulaciones en la edición. Apoyado por el conocido cineasta Thaelman Urgelles, Schalk ha desmontado publicamente la inmensa patraña mediática que representa este documental y se han movilizado con detalladas cartas y peticiones en línea para frenar el avance de un trabajo de propaganda política disfrazado de producción objetiva.

Ambos cineastas se hallan finiquitando un documental de dos horas de duración. "El video ya estará listo la semana entrante y desmonta toda la película y se pasan imágenes alternativas que son interpretadas por Thaelman y por mí", explicó Wolfgang Schalk. Este documental de la dupla irlandesa "construye una historia que parece un discurso de Chávez en la ONU", en palabras de Thaelman Urgelles, ya "que vende esta idea: como que tenemos un presidente, que por favorecer a los sectores mestizos y pobres se ha echado encima a una oligarquía blanca que está perdiendo sus privilegios. Esa oligarquía blanca le dio un golpe de estado el 11 de abril con apoyo de los EEUU. La cinta no tiene desperdicio: negros contra blancos, pobres contra ricos y un final emblemático en que el gobernante es rescatado por el pueblo".

La pieza audovisual "tiene un lobby millonario que cuenta con apoyo de las embajadas venezolanas y hasta agencias de relaciones públicas que manejan presupuestos enormes para exhibir la cinta gratuitamente en las universidades o en cines comerciales de urbes como San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago o Nueva York. El Gobierno está logrando crear un fenómeno comunicacional con esa película así como lo fue El Mariachi: una película muy chiquita a la que le meten un dineral en promoción para llevarla al mundo".

La movilización de la oposición se anotó una victoria al evitar que el documental se exhibiera el mes pasado en un festival de cine de Vancouver (Canadá), gracias a la intervención del capítulo Pacífico de Amnistía Internacional de Canadá. Posteriormente, el viernes 7 de noviembre, el periodista Clodovaldo Hernández (El Universal) escribió un artículo titulado La "mordaza del gusano", donde afirmaba que esta acción era la primera aplicación de la tan mentada Ley Mordaza pero por parte de "la sección cultural de la Coordinadora Democrática, llamada El gusano de luz". Ante esta crítica Thaelman Urguelles considera que "El Gusano de luz no fue el que solicitó a Anmistía que la película no se exhibiese en Canadá sino que fue una petición en línea que reunió como 8 mil firmas y que fue iniciativa de la organización Resistencia Civil de Venezolanos en el Exterior. La justificación que dio Anmistía, organización que suele mantener una posición neutral, fue que la cinta estaba demasiado parcializada hacia un sector político. A esta organización le estaban metiendo gato por liebre pero ante la alerta de los venezolanos, que les previnieron que ese film no encajaba dentro de lo que ellos apoyan, tomaron acciones".

En este momento hay otra petición similar ante los cinco canales que patrocinaron la película y donde se desmontan con gran detalle todas las irregularidades que los cineastas hallaron en la cinta y se piden tres pronunciamientos: que se investigue la película de marras; si la investigación arroja resultados correctos, ajustados a la realidad, que pidan excusas; y finalmente que se materialice un derecho a réplica. La petición, una de las más visitadas por venezolanos en el exilio y extranjeros, lleva más de 9 mil solicitudes consignadas en la dirección www.petitiononline.com/gusano03.

* El Universal (16 de Noviembre)
Observaciones Específicas
‚ Pueblo revolucionario.
Al mostrar la presencia de un supuesto pueblo frente al Palacio Presidencial de Miraflores la mañana del 11 de abril de 2002, la película utiliza imágenes de una concentración ocurrida en un día diferente y en otra ciudad de Venezuela cuando en realidad ese día estaban los partidarios del Gobierno convocando agresivamente a la gente a "defender la Revolución". También se muestra más tarde la tarima colocada el 11 de abril frente a Miraflores, que es otra.
‚ Pantalla partida. Las cineastas responsables del film ignoraron la cadena de Chávez el 11 de abril, entre las 3:45 y las 5:27 pm, en la cual el presidente habló por más de dos horas mientras en los alrededores de su palacio morían 21 venezolanos y más de 150 quedaban heridos. En la mitad de esta cadena, los canales privados decidieron dividir la pantalla en dos para poder mostrar los sucesos trágicos y entonces el Gobierno tumbó la señal de los canales.
‚ La renuncia. En la película se insiste en la tesis de que el presidente nunca renunció al cargo. Sin embargo, el alto mando militar, encabezado por el General en Jefe Lucas Rincón, emitió una declaración por radio y TV a las 3:20 de la madrugada del 12 de Abril, donde anunció a viva voz que "... se le pidió al Señor Presidente la renuncia a su cargo, la cual aceptó". Esta declaración no aparece en la película.
‚ Tanques de guerra. Los tanques que desplazaron el 12 de Abril hacia Miraflores no eran para atacar a Chávez, sino que él mismo les movilizó para atacar la marcha. El film hace presumir que con esos vehículos se consumó un golpe de estado tradicional.
‚ Guerra racial. La composición racial en Venezuela es multiétnica pero el film deja el sabor que el chavismo es oscuro de piel y la oposición blanca y acomodada.
‚ Tiempo alterado. La manipulación de imágenes, fechas y horas erradas está presente a lo largo de toda la película. Por ejemplo, las cineastas tuvieron muy buen cuidado al escoger las imágenes de apoyo popular a Chávez, para lo cual utilizaron tomas de febrero de 2000, cuando el apoyo era innegable.
‚ Proyecto comunicacional. La distorsión de los tiempos es particularmente atroz en las secuencias correspondientes al 11, 12 y 13 de abril. Allí, la película cambia con total irresponsabilidad las horas de los sucesos, con el objeto de construir un relato subordinado a su proyecto comunicacional, cual no es otro que vender la tesis del "golpe de estado oligarca, apoyado por los Estados Unidos".

* El efecto BOLA DE NIEVE Amenaza a la Revolución
La única manera de evitar que la película denominada La Revolución no será televisada, sea arrasada por el efecto bola de nieve, es que el gobierno de Hugo Chávez, recoja todos los videos que andan circulando por el mundo; pague para que la misma no se exhiba en ninguna sala de cine y demande por estafa a sus productoras Kim Bartley ,Donnacha O´Briain y en consecuencia a sus patrocinadores.

Esta acción es lo único que podría reivindicar a este gobierno que a escala mundial, ha sometido a la burla y descalificación al pueblo venezolano, al hacerlo partícipe de este montaje sesgado sobre los sucesos del 11 de abril de 2002, que dejó 21 muertos y más de 150 heridos.

Quizás si el trabajo se hubiese hecho con un mínimo de ética el resultado hubiese sido un documento histórico de extraordinaria enseñanza, pero lamentablemente no fue así. La omisión intencional de acontecimientos determinantes ocurridos ese 11 de abril, le quita validez y su carácter de documental para ubicarlo en la categoría de propaganda política con un mensaje tan confuso, que en lugar de presentar a Chávez como un líder acorde con el Siglo XXI, lo muestra como el típico dictador de cualquier país bananero.

La revisión en frío de este compendio de imágenes, revela todas las costuras de su producción. No explican por ejemplo como ellas y sus cámaras montadas en trípodes, pudieron permanecer en el Palacio de Miraflores entre el 11 y el 13 de abril. Pareciera entonces que lo ocurrido esos días, fue lo que muchos calificaron como un “auto golpe”. De otra manera cuesta entender este desafío al peligro y conduce a especular que el cacareado golpe contra Chávez fue de laboratorio.

En el montaje y la edición está el “éxito” que hasta este momento ha tenido esta película. Imágenes avasalladoras de soldados, armas, gente, música, mucho color rojo y por supuesto Chávez en papel protagónico dejan ver también que las escenas fueron escogidas calculadamente y editadas de tal
manera que provocaran distintas emociones en los espectadores. Además hay varias versiones de la misma producción. De allí la polémica que ha generado su puesta en pantalla y el análisis que investigadores de la comunicación y expertos en lenguaje cinematográfico están haciendo de su contenido.

Aún cuando muchos pretenden ubicar las posiciones en torno a este montaje, como un ejemplo más de la polarización política que viven los venezolanos, es importante destacar que hay una mano peluda estimulando esta posición para que no se vea el verdadero contenido de La Revolución no será televisada, donde ni siquiera el muchacho de la película queda bien parado y que decir de los actores de relleno –el pueblo venezolano- que es ridiculizado y descalificado en cada una de sus apariciones. Parte de ese pueblo es presentado como una masa pobre, analfabeta, desvalida y fácil de manipular a través del mensaje populista del que creen su redentor. La otra es oligarca, arrogante, corrupta, frívola y vacía que sólo quiere conservar sus privilegios. Pero el venezolano que sobrevive al desempleo trabajando como buhonero. El venezolano que muere a manos de la delincuencia, o por falta de asistencia médica. El venezolano que se rebusca para alimentar a su familia. El venezolano que se siente indefenso por la falta de un poder