felicity-11 I thought the scenes looked too set up for the camera. For example, the ladies learning to read and write. It seemed that thousands were missing out and only a few are getting any lessons 10 years into the Chavez regime. The shots of Pilger in the interview with the CIA guy - which are usually done when the interviewee has left the scene were really bad. Pilger used the shot of Chavez justifying why millions people live in barrios in such a rich country as "well they don't want to be millionaires - like Americans" and I was left thinking, Well if they educated them they might want more than what they have now" I couldn't see any advantages in sight for these people rely on populist dictators. It is no wonder they escape to Australia and America whenever they can. The film was basically a lot of anti-American slanging off with no hope of change, i.e. sharing the wealth, in store for the people. The countries in the film all go from one dictator to another much like Africa does these days since the end of colonialism and the people just survive. I would prefer to see a film on the subject made by a film maker from one of the countries mentioned. Pilger was very condescending, agreeing with anything the current dictator said. As it didn't include any comedy it only rates a 1 out of 10 from me.

Chris_Docker John Pilger has won high accolades for journalism (Journalist of the Year, twice) and award-winning television documentaries. But some people will still ignore him because he is too 'New Statesman'. He utters unpopular views. He backs them up with evidence. But that can leave you feeling uncomfortable. His new film does that in spades. Over South America.This new documentary is his first major film for the cinema.When I personally have travelled in South America, I marvelled at how basic facts about Western foreign policy's role in destabilising 'unfriendly' governments is normal knowledge. From shop workers to academics. Far more than in Britain. Here, most people are now probably aware that the CIA toppled the democratically elected President Allende of Chile. That they were responsible for the succession of the tyrant Pinochet. Those with slightly longer memories probably recall the scandal over Nicaragua when the USA backed the wrong side. Again, against a democratically elected government. To live with ourselves (and our governments) we tend to think these were just mistakes of the past. The reality is that the truth, in those cases, couldn't be suppressed easily. The reality is that similar events are continuing. As policy.Suppressing truth is always a sensitive issue. Many years ago, when I came out of the Singapore War Museum, there were Japanese visitors with tears in their eyes. It was the first time they had been confronted with the horrors that their government had committed during WWII. Other countries frequently feel angry that Japan does not retell more of its war crimes in standard school books. It is simply easier, in most cases, not to. Pilger's film is about crimes against democracy that it is 'easier' to ignore. The culprit being a country that almost invented the word. The United States of America.Interviews are conducted with renegade CIA agents like Philip Agee, but also with Duane Clarridge, former head of CIA operations in South America. Clarridge openly defends America's right to do what they want anywhere in the world and to anyone, regardless of their innocence - as long as it's in America's national interest. 'Like it or lump it,' he says. A harrowing interview features an American nun, Dianna Ortiz. Ortiz reveals how she was tortured and gang raped in the late 80s by a group led by a fellow American clearly in league with a US-backed regime. Ortiz asks whether the American people are aware of the role their country plays in subverting innocent nations under the guise of a 'war on terror'. CIA man and Watergate conspirator Howard Hunt describes how he and others overthrew a previously democratically elected government. Hunt even mentions how he organised "a little harmless bombing".More controversially, Pilger features extensive footage with Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez. This is a man demonised by President Bush, but one about whom the facts are harder to determine. That he has used much of his country's vast oil wealth to benefit the poor is largely accepted, give or take some details. But that he has taken steps to concentrate power in himself arouses sterner debate. War on Democracy, uniquely, shows us the country from the inside. Many of the conditions are reminiscent of Allende's Chile. The power of the media seems unabated and is fiercely anti-government. But we see how it is owned by the rich half of the class divide. When the military try to unseat Chavez, thousands of people come out of the slums to protest until he is returned to power. These are people who had no voice before Chavez and they are devoted to him as passionately. Just as the wealthy classes are opposed to him. Given the forces he is up against, the assumption of power (and from a democratically elected base) seems more understandable. We recall how Allende, even with popular support, was brought down. Chavez looks like a tougher nut.Pilger's attitude towards Chavez is friendly, although he does ask him about the poverty that remains, in spite of the vast oil wealth. Could his interview have been more balanced without playing into the hands of those fabricating the lies he is trying to expose? Pilger also travels to America and uses undercover filming. The 'School of Americas' in Georgia is where Pinochet's torture squads were trained, together with death squads in other Latin American countries. The wide-ranging testimony is unsettling.Pilger's extensive travels in Latin America, in depth interviews, documentation and film archives obtained under US freedom of information, evidence corroborated by people in opposing camps, his own calm sincerity - they all paint a cohesive portrait of USA attacks on democracy.The main fault I found with the War on Democracy was not any lack of balance. Pilger argues his case quite methodically and convincingly and gives critics ample right of reply. He is not a soundbite merchant, parading flashy quotes in Michael Moore fashion. But the difficulty - and one Moore did overcome - is that Pilger's years of experience on the small screen has not translated effectively to cinema. The timing is probably right - what with the re-examinations of 9/11 and criticisms of US policy now being acceptable topics of discussion. Horrors of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib quickly come to mind. But it still feels like a television programme, even if it is many notches above Panorama or Dispatches.Overall, The War on Democracy is an excellent primer on US destabilisation and anti-democracy measures in Latin America. To civil rights enthusiasts and Amnesty International supporters, much of it will be nothing new. But it is told with piercing insight and no sense of personal axes-to-grind. Previous films by John Pilger have done much good. $40 million was raised unsolicited by his film on Cambodia (Cambodia Year Zero) which to help the thousands of orphaned children there. The aim of this film is simply to increase awareness.

Jeffrey Blackler Students of Uncle Sam's doings in Latin America from the overthrow of Allende or earlier will find little new in Pilger's first big screen documentary. But its message needs to repeated again and again and as widely as possible: that "freedom" and "democracy" loving US regimes have stolen or overridden the rights of the poor in every part of the world, perhaps most of all in the "back yard". I saw the movie in a white liberal middle class district of London where the normally reticent audience gave it a round of applause. Preaching to the converted maybe. It needs to be shown as widely as possible. Viva Pilger!

Alain English John Pilger's first documentary for the cinema is also his most optimistic. When I sat down to watch it with an audience, I was wondering why Pilger had chosen this time to release a documentary for cinema when he's been doing this for television for so long. I think the optimism is the reason, the need to get that optimism across to a much broader audience than the one that views his television work. Recent work like "The Corporation", "The Yes Men", as well as the work of Micheal Moore, has shown a demand for this kind of non-fiction in the cinema and Pilger is following this trend. What this work has in common is need to critique US power, the different ways in which this manifests itself, and the effect it has on people all over the world.Here, Pilger focuses on Latin America, the source of much popular uprising in recent years with the arrival in Venezuala of President Hugo Chavez and the failed US-backed bid to overthrow him after he acknowledged and championed the poor at the expense of the rich minority whom (because of this) he had begun to make uncomfortable.Interestingly there is a lack of censorship shown in the Venezualan media which means attacks on the President and his policies are not only constant but almost violently vociferous. Perhaps the only failing in Pilger's examination of Venezuala (including a face-to-face interview with Chavez himself) is specifying where this opposition comes from, asides from the privileged minority in the country and US media and government officials.Pilger further examines other cases in Latin America, including El Salvatore, Guatemala and Chile, where US or US-backed suppression of social or political movements (often elected democracies) that oppose their involvement in these countries has led to poverty, torture and murder. Former CIA agents willingly admit on screen that if a government, democratic or not, was not co-operative with US power they were often under orders from the highest level to destroy or undermine such governments using any methods necessary. One such official, a former CIA chief called Duane Clarridge responsible for torture and murder of civilians in Chile, is so blatantly ignorant and unapologetic in his answers to Pilger's questions that his responses induced laughter in the audience I watched it with.Throughout all of this, Pilger features his usual interviewing of civilians caught up in, and often victims of, these various conflicts. Some of this is insightful but, like his use of music in some moments, can border on the emotionally manipulative. Also his early extensive emphasis on Venezuala means his coverage of the other countries feels abbreviated as a result. That said, most of the time Pilger gets it right and his interviews along with his readings of each country's history effectively communicate his message.Rather than despairing of the reality of what he depicts, Pilger instead offers hope for change in the will of the people never to be victimised and to continue to resist and challenge oppressive power - a change is a-coming and Latin America, like the rest of us, is right in the middle of it.