Four Documentaries on the Latino World

by Marcelle Cendrars / November 10th, 2007

The Eleventh International Latino Film Festival for the San Francisco Bay Area, running through November 18th, has a few clunkers mixed in with not-to-be-missed beauties. In the latter category, under the cinematic umbrella of Largometrajes Documentales (Feature Documentaries), you’ll find:

1. Hijos de la guerra (Children of the War), graphic and fast-paced, focuses on the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), the largest (100,000+ worldwide) and most violent street gang on earth. Drug smuggling, black market gun sales, human trafficking, assassinations for hire and much more that’ll turn your stomach is their soup du jour. Lessons abound, including what can be gleaned from the fact that the MS-13 continues to grow in spite of the U.S. deporting, incarcerating and killing gang members…spending tons of $$$ in the process. El Salvador’s Alexandre Fuchs documents the horror of the life of refugees from that country who fled in the 80s to Los Angeles. One wonders if Ron Paul would have given glowing tributes to Ronald Reagan if he had seen this film.

2. Spain’s Invisibles enables Academy Award winning Javier Bardem (featured in a new Coen Brothers film, btw) and Doctors Without Borders to assemble the work of five of the world’s top filmmakers, showing the victims of political unrest, poverty, and corporate greed. If you’re a Wim Wenders or (Goya winner) Isabel Coixet fan, don’t miss this. Coixet told me in Barcelona recently that this was his favorite work thus far.

3. Tocar y luchar (To Play and To Fight) gives you something exhilaratingly fresh out of Venezuela. A work of last year by director Alberto Alvero, this film features interviews with some of the world’s most celebrated musicians while focusing on the captivating story of the hundreds of youth orchestras formed within Venezuela’s towns and villages. The program description says it “is an inspirational story of courage, determination, and ambition, showing us that only those who dare to dream can achieve the impossible.” It is more than that. It provides another positive notch in Chavez’ belt.

4. De nina de madre (Girls to Mothers) shows why the maternal mortality rate in Nicaragua is 90 per 100,000 (while the maternal mortality rate is 25 per 100,000 live births in developed countries). Belgian filmmaker Florence Jaugey won some impressive awards with this feature last year, and the interviews with mothers as young as thirteen (and their loved ones) will show you why. They’ll also give you another reason to grimace when someone mentions the Pope’s policies for that immiserated part of the world.

In addition, filmgoers who are interested in the positive side of those who wear masked wrestling costumes in Mexico should see Arturo Perez Torres’ Super Amigos. And those interested in Mexico (and/or animation) should consider viewing Y tu cuanto cuestas? (So, What’s Your Price?).

Marcelle Cendrars, freelancing daughter of Blaise Cendrars, can be reached at: bcendra@yahoo.com. She is the "Provost" of San Jose, California's Free Underground College to Kindergarten Educational Retreat, a home school network of dissenting citizens who encourage parents to have their children drop out of mainstream institutions, and make use of alternative educational options. Read other articles by Marcelle, or visit Marcelle's website.

This article was posted on Saturday, November 10th, 2007 at 3:33pm and is filed under Central Ixachilan (America), South America.

10 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. James Aragon said on November 10th, 2007 at 3:51pm #

    It should be noted that Ron Paul opposed Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy initiatives in South America and quite a few other domestic policies.

  2. Matt said on November 10th, 2007 at 4:42pm #

    I second the statement above.

  3. Marcelle Cendra said on November 10th, 2007 at 8:07pm #

    I read a glowing endorsement of Reagan by Ron Paul. Apparently, he took a stand against RR on a few counts, BUT…he certainly was able to overlook RR’s abominations sufficiently to praise him. It might be the “respect” for private property that they both shared. I don’t know. However, the John Birch Society has given Ron Paul the same rating that it gave RR; that’d be 100% backing. And that has a lot to do with having a heavy handed attitude vis-a-vis immigrants too. Jeff Greenspan, a John Bircher, heads RP’s California campaign right now…which says negative loads. And another thing that RR and RP share is reflected in the fact that RP doesn’t have any position statement regarding the environment. He does post an article on his site, however, which paints citizens concerned w Climate Change as victims of A SCAM! Wow. — MC

  4. Deadbeat said on November 11th, 2007 at 11:20pm #

    Climate change is not universally accepted even on the left. See Alexander’s Cockburn critique on global warming. For me, I am not convince there is “peak oil”. Chavez himself has stated that Venezuela has more reserves than Saudi Arabia and recently Brazil has found new oil reserves yet many “environmentalist” were going around saying that there was no more oil are “peak oil”. So I wouldn’t judge Ron Paul solely regarding his skepticism of global warming.

    Paul embrace of RR is cause for concern however Paul Craig Roberts was a big RR supporter and member of his administration has been a major critic of the neoconservatives and the War in Iraq.

    Right now I do believe that Ron Paul has been an advocate of cutting the military budget as well as ending U.S intervention. Cutting the military budget will go a long way towards reducing oil consumption and thereby global warming if you believe they are correlated. So indirectly you can say that Ron Paul’s environmental policy is achieved via reducing U.S. militarism and U.S. intervention.

  5. Deadbeat said on November 11th, 2007 at 11:30pm #

    Climate change is not universally accepted even on the left
    This should read as follows…

    Human induced global warming is not universally accepted on the left.

    ****

    Alexander Cockburn does accepted the fact that the earth temperature are warming based on his research. However his research inform him that the cause is NOT from human activity meaning that the cause is not from the consumption and burning of hydrocarbons.

    Sorry for the confusion.

  6. Marcelle Cendra said on November 12th, 2007 at 8:34am #

    First of all, George Monbiot has answered Cockburn’s “reservations” about global warming defnitively. See his site. Secondly, it doesn’t matter that Ron Paul’s plan to reduce the military leads to a reduction in the use of oil in terms of criticizing him for not having a position on global warming. If he doesn’t see the issue as important enough to single out…that speaks for itself; though the reduction of the military and its enormous use of oil would be great…Ron Paul is not acknowledging our big challenge. Nothing, btw, is accepted universally among what you’re labeling The Left. Finally, one doesn’t have to invoke the name of Paul Craig Roberts to take a stand against Ron Paul speaking glowingly of Reagan. It sounds as if you’re not aware of Reagan’s record. –MC

  7. Deadbeat said on November 13th, 2007 at 9:52am #

    First of all, George Monbiot has answered Cockburn’s “reservations” about global warming defnitively.

    Well Alexander Cockburn has “definitively” responded to Monbiot. You can find the exchange on ZNET. The point I made is that there is a debate among the left therefore agreement is not “definitive” by any means.

    Secondly, it doesn’t matter that Ron Paul’s plan to reduce the military leads to a reduction in the use of oil in terms of criticizing him for not having a position on global warming. If he doesn’t see the issue as important enough to single out…that speaks for itself; … Ron Paul is not acknowledging our big challenge.

    With all due respect global warming as “our big challenge” is how you see the world. Perhaps you posses the wealth and leisure to contemplate global warming however with most workers living on less than $2.00/day perhaps their “big challenge” is clearly a little different than yours.

    Also I am fully aware of Ronald Reagan record and if you read my responses to Hannah B you’ll see my remarks regarding Reagan use of racism to win over the vote and support of the so-called Reagan Democrats. And while you make a point to make readers aware that the John Birch society support Ron Paul. However Paul, unlike many of his Republican front runners, recently participated in the Tavis Smiley sponsored debate/discussion of issue of concerns in the African American community.

    However you offer no scrutiny of the most visible politician associated with “Global Warming” — Al Gore. Let’s take a look at the Al Gore record shall we?

    [1] When Al Gore was Senator in the late 1970, he was a MAJOR HAWK and voted for the MX Missile system when Jimmy Carter wanted to mothball the program. The program was a boondoggle for military contractors and a waste of money and resources and perhaps exacerbated global warming if not global WARRING.

    [2] Al Gore was a founding member of the Democratic Leadership Council. This was the group of white southern Democrats who corporatized the Democratic Party and moved the Party away from its Liberal base.

    [3] In his 1988 Presidential Campaign, it was Al Gore, who introduce the infamous racist symbolism of Willie Horton against Michael Dukasis during the Presidental Primaries. Many on the left blame Lee Atwater however Atwater only used the same tactic introduced by Gore. Perhaps a Dukaksis win would have avoided Gulf War I.

    [4] Gore voted for Gulf War I as senator that lead to the destruction of the oil fields and became an environmental disaster.

    [5] As Vice-President, Al Gore, supported the notorious Waste Management company. This company has lead to the decline of municipal sanitation workers throughout the country.

    [6] As Veep, Al Gore, was a major supporter of NAFTA and even debated Ross Perot (who was against NAFTA) on Larry King. As we’ve seen over the past 10 years NAFTA has degraded the environments as well as human beings (workers).

    [7] As veep, Gore supported the belligerent policies towards Iraq and especially the sanction that lead to the death of 500,000 children.

    [8] As veep, Al Gore was a major proponent of “mend it don’t end it” rollback of Affirmative Action.

    [9] As veep, Al Gore, was a major proponent of “ending welfare as we know it”.

    [10] The significance of [8]and [9] is that it weakens workers ability to be concern of issues such as global warning if they own ability to put food on the table is put into jeopardy.

    [11] Al Gore chose an ardent Zionist as his running mate — Joe Lieberman. Many on the left assume that there would have been no Iraq invasion has Gore been President however with Lieberman as veep, he would have supported escalation against Iraq as such a policy extend Israeli hegemony.

    Thus as I stated the issue of “global warming” is an open topic on the left. Especially since “global warming” advocates have embraced Al Gore.

  8. Marcelle Cendra said on November 13th, 2007 at 7:26pm #

    Dear Deadbeat:
    It doesn’t matter that some people on “the left” don’t take global warming as a highly significant issue. It also is not necessary for you and I or anyone to go back and forth on the merits of Monbiot’s vs. Cockburn’s responses to one another. I see Monbiot’s arguments/questions and Cockburn’s stance/documentation in a different light than you do. But, again, that’s neither here nor there. Anyone who doesn’t see the need to address what comes under the umbrella of “global warming” in a different way than what we’ve adopted to date –regardless of differences among “the left”– simply doesn’t. I do feel immense urgency about the issue. And speaking of “the issue,” if you read my words again carefully you’ll see, I believe, that I didn’t say that it was our ONLY challenge, but, rather, OUR challenge, one of many (was the intended point). Certainly other issues, including what you bring up, must be addressed also…as I have personally done here in my own DVoice articles…and on Cockburn’s Counterpunch. Again, I was trying to establish that it WAS a challenge, a challenge that Ron Paul, like Cockburn, does not deem worthy of separate, intense attention. The fact that Ron Paul has appeared on a Smiley show, whatever the topic, doesn’t balance anything out. It certainly says nothing to “balance” a glowing testimonial of Reagan, who, btw, was guilty of much more than “use of racism.” Knowing Reagan’s record, as you do, I’m sure you acknowledge that Ron Paul gave that testimonial to a murderer, not just a racist. Gore? I don’t care for Gore. And I have no idea why you spent so many words poking at a guy who I find very self-serving…and who also contributed to the murder of many people while in office. In terms of the economic issue you brought up…Ron Paul and Gore fall into the same category. –MC

  9. Deadbeat said on November 14th, 2007 at 12:14am #

    I do feel immense urgency about the issue. And speaking of “the issue,” if you read my words again carefully you’ll see, I believe, that I didn’t say that it was our ONLY challenge, but, rather, OUR challenge, one of many (was the intended point).

    My point is that Ron Paulis addressing the “our big[gest] challenge” which is ending the war in Iraq and reducing militarism. This “big challenge” will have an enormous effect on every aspect of the U.S. society, economics, and environment.

    Again, I was trying to establish that it WAS a challenge, a challenge that Ron Paul, like Cockburn, does not deem worthy of separate, intense attention.

    And my point is that the “global warming” issue is being debated and there are disagreements on all sides of the political spectrum. This issue is not “definitive” as you’ve been asserting.

    The fact that Ron Paul has appeared on a Smiley show, whatever the topic, doesn’t balance anything out.

    Then why did you bring up that Ron Paul was endorsed by the John Birch Society if not to infer that Paul may be racist. Also the “Smiley show” was not a show but an organized DEBATE of Republican candidates coordinated by Tavis Smiley that aired on PBS.

    It certainly says nothing to “balance” a glowing testimonial of Reagan, who, BTW, was guilty of much more than “use of racism.”

    Clearly Reagan was guilty of much more than using racism. The point is that Reagan use racism to acquire power. The point is to highlight how little solidarity there is among working people in the U.S. that Reagan could acquire power in such a vile manner using such vile tactics.

    Knowing Reagan’s record, as you do, I’m sure you acknowledge that Ron Paul gave that testimonial to a murderer, not just a racist.

    The National Organization of Women supported the murderer, Bill Clinton, as did environmental groups like the Sierra Club. Now you have these same “Liberals” supporting the murderer Hillary Clinton, gave all of her options that were on the table to the murderer George Bush to murder innocent Iraqis. The last I looks Ron Paul didn’t give authorization to the murderer George Bush.

    And I have no idea why you spent so many words poking at a guy who I find very self-serving…and who also contributed to the murder of many people while in office.

    Simple. The so-called “global warming” advocates have thrown their support behind the “murderous” Al Gore and many of them are now trying to encourage this murder to run for President.

    Look, you aptly expose the contradiction of Ron Paul (his support for RR) however you have a much much bigger problem with Al Gore co-opting an issue that you deem extremely importance.

    With all due respect your remarks have been quite contradictory and lacking a sufficient level of analysis.

  10. Marcelle Cendra said on November 14th, 2007 at 8:07am #

    Confronting U.S. militarism and its current manifestation in Iraq, though absolutely crucial (and a feather in Paul’s cap), is no more THE Big Challenge than confronting Vietnam was. Yes, being successful on that front would have an enormous positive impact. But…the environmental issues (along with other issues) must be confronted directly too, simultaneously. A candidate must do that. One reason it’s unlikely that Paul will be successful in that regard is that the class issue –which you brought up earlier– is not being addressed. He clearly has no intention of changing the status quo on that count. That’s why, partly, Birchers support him, and why its disingenuous for a man so concerned with “private property” to be calling for a reduction in the military. One can’t have it both ways. Appearing on Tavis’ show means nothing with regard to Paul’s views on racism. Supporting Reagan does. Is that sufficient “analysis” for you? I don’t know why you invoke the names of Hillary, Al Gore, et. al. I don’t see your point. With regard to Gore and the environmental situation we all face, he does NOT define what’s appropriate action for dealing with the issue. In fact, if one follows his prescription…we’re doomed. That on top of the fact, like I’ve pointed out already, he’s as disingenuous as Ron Paul. All of the people you’ve cited, including Paul, have distasteful personal agendas vis-a-vis the electoral dynamic. None of them acknowledges the necessity of the public radically changing lifestyles and values (whether or not global warming is accepted as a destructive fact). Without that being addressed (inherent problems related to rampant consumerism, for example, without even invoking the ecocide), nothing will be accomplished. Ron Paul knows very well that one cannot reduce militarism –essential to protecting our hold on the world’s resources and U.S. property overseas– without changing our point of view re our lifestyle. –MC