Film Director Interview
1. Can you tell us how you came
about wanting to shoot this documentary? What made you want to do this,
and what was going through you mind the first day you picked up the
camera?
Upon graduating with a Masters degree
in Latin American history and having spent almost a year living in Cuba I
was hungry to continue studying the region and adding to my experience and
knowledge. I had also decided that I would live in the region and so I
moved to Argentina in 1998. The camera, for me, was the tool I would use
to tell the story. It was always more about the story.
2. What is your own educational background and how does this tie into
the subject of your film?
As I said, I have an MA in Latin
American history but perhaps if I tell how I became interested in studying
Latin America in the first place. After a few months living and working as
a journalist in the Dominican Republic in the late 80’s, I fell in love
with the culture. But what drew me more than anything to study the region
was the incredible and naked injustice that has been rampant throughout
virtually every country south of the Rio Grande. And it was learning and
writing about the US military invasion of 1965 in the Dominican Republic
that really inspired me to pursue Latin American studies. Some day I hope
to do a film on that invasion and the events which led up to it. It’s an
amazing story.
3. You shot Ahora o Nunca (Now or Never) in 2000 and 2001 (2002… please
correct me if I’m wrong). However, more than ever before this documentary
has a relevance to today’s economic problems. Can you talk about some of
those similarities and why this film is important today?
Actually most of the shooting was done
in late 2001 and early 2002 although I had done a fair amount of shooting
prior to that including the election in 1999 and a trip throughout the
country in 2000.
I would argue that subject matter –
economic, social and political crisis in a developing economy – is
exceedingly relevant in today’s world. It really goes hand in hand with
Naomi Klein’s thesis in The Shock Doctrine, that is in times of crisis
neo-liberal economic policies from abroad, advocated by those with
precious little on the ground experience and no comprehension of the
struggles and realities of the poorest in the society, are rammed down the
country’s throat, usually with a great deal of complicity of the local
ruling class.
But this story goes one step farther. It is about the people finally
saying Basta (Enough)! And that is what is relevant today and forever
forward. It’s about people taking control of their destiny, and trying to
prevent those who dragged the country down from maintaining power.
And yes, that is a lesson that must be understood as the United States and
other areas today face profound economic problems. It makes little sense
to trust the people and the policies that caused the crisis in the attempt
to resolve the crisis.
4. In what ways are the banking problems similar?
While I’m not an economist and can not
go into great detail regarding the similarities between the two banking
crises I can say that there certainly are common threads, including
deregulation schemes that left the citizenry unprotected, copious amounts
of greed and corruption by those who already had enriched themselves at
the expense of the population, a citizenry entirely fed up with paying the
price for the crimes of the super elite, and a deep distrust of the
financial industry.
Of course the United States, being much much bigger and holding a vital
role in the functioning of the world economy in general has many more
options than a country like Argentina had.
But it is fun to imagine what the reaction of the people here would be if
the government implemented a “corralito,” and put a limit on what people
could withdraw from their saving in order to prevent a run on the banks.
Then we might see the people hit the streets.
5. What is it about Latin America that holds so much of your interest?
On a personal level I’ve always loved
the enthusiasm and passion of the Latin culture. Combined with – as I’ve
said – the level of injustice in the region and the proximity to where I’m
from and it just became the area that interested me the most and I felt I
could do the most good.
6. You never expected the events which unfolded to take place. In one
sense you were lucky because you were in the streets with your camera
before other journalists. Can you tell us more about this coincidence? Or
was it a coincidence? Did you see the likelihood of the events which
unfolded?
Now I was going to put together a
project on Argentina regardless of what was to happen. There certainly was
a lot of animosity toward Carlos Menem as he left office and the election
of De La Rua in 99 seemed to bring about positive change.
But within a year of assuming office it was obvious that the country’s
economic problems were not going away. In all honestly I can not say that
when I started filming full time in late November, 2001 that I knew the
situation would explode as it did, but I was aware that things were
heating up. The announcement of the banking restriction on December 1st
made this even more obvious.
What was interesting for me was the transition in terms of media. In about
three weeks it went from me wandering the streets, seeing no other media
at all, getting whatever images I could of the protests and economic and
social consequences of the IMF and De La Rua’s policies to standing beside
CNN and BBC reporters as the world’s attention briefly turned toward
Argentina.
So was it a coincidence? Yes and no, I suppose.
7. The theme of participatory democracy was a big them in the
documentary. Was this something that you intended and tried to find (i.e.
public assemblies), or was this occurrence something that took you by
surprise?
In the period of filming, events came
so fast that I wasn’t really able to have expectations of anything really.
It was much more a case of just reacting to the day’s events.
In terms of numerous examples of participatory democracy that I saw and
filmed, it was really an important, if somewhat less impacting than the
street protests, occurrence. I didn’t have to look for it and I guess that
was what was most significant feature of the assemblies. It was a natural,
spontaneous and thoroughly democratic outflow of the crisis, and ,in my
mind, was the most amazing aspect of the people’s reaction.
8. You mentioned that the 19th and 20th, as devastating as they were,
held something magical under the violence of those two days. Can you
expand on this point?
When I talk to Argentines, especially
ones who were not there at the time of the crisis, or to others familiar
with what happened in Argentina in 2001 – 2002, there often is a comment
along the lines of, oh isn’t that terrible what happened.
Usually I respond that of course the violence and death (35 were killed on
the 20th) were beyond horrible but that wasn’t whole story nor was the
feeling of tragedy or sadness in the air that day (20th). It was
incredibly inspiring. People of all sorts – as the film clearly
demonstrates – came out that today. I had never been – and probably never
will be again – in such a spontaneous, genuine outburst of frustration of
a population that had been taken for granted and abused for so long.
Yeah you could say it was “magical.”
9. Once you completed your filming, what was the issue or issues that
caused you to feel most cynical or pessimistic?
That’s an easy one. During the filming
many, especially from the traditional Argentine media outlets would tell
me how the reaction of the vast majority was because they had “touched
their pocketbooks.) ie the banking restrictions. When the criminal Duhalde
came to power in January and solidified his grip on the government by
April, I felt that perhaps the drive behind the people’s movements would
severely drop, especially once the majority got access back to their
(diminished) funds. To some degree that occurred, but on the other hand,
by ousting a government through popular yet non-violent protest in many
respects the genie is out of the bottle. Maybe many have lost their
enthusiasm, but far more will never forget those days in December 2001,
and will be willing to do the same if the situation requires it.
10. Once you completed your filming, what was the issue or issues which
caused you to feel most optimistic?
With Duhalde in power in the short run
I was not overly optimistic (this is mid 2002 I’m talking about). Maybe
the one thing at that time was the fact that 60-70% of the population
would not vote for Menem again under any circumstances. It seemed that he
and his IMF neo-liberal policies for the most part had been thoroughly and
permanently rejected.
11. You were on the front lines during the violent protests. Were you
ever afraid for your own safety?
A question I’ve been asked many times.
As an obvious foreign journalist the police basically had a ‘hands-off’
approach to me.
But really during the craziest moments, everything happens so fast, and
you’re just trying to capture the moment without gagging on the clouds of
tear gas everywhere that there is really no time to be afraid.
Only once did my heart skip a beat. Early in the day – in the film it is
the part where another person filming is taken away by the police – I felt
someone grab my arm. I turned around and it was a cop. Thankfully though
he was just pushing me out of the way as he was hauling some other guy in.
So I guess that was my fear; getting arrested and missing out on the day’s
action.
12. What do you want people to take away from your film?
El pueblo unido jamás será vencido
("The people united will never be defeated")
Also, that one should never take democracy for granted. It requires
participation by the citizen.
13. Some would argue that political dissent on this scale is
unpatriotic (based on the inaccurate definition of many). However, during
the citizens’ fight they proudly raise their flag and chant “Argentina”
while they are being shot at. These are incredibly patriotic scenes. The
people are fighting for the dignity of their country, not only their own
personal needs. Do you think something like this would be considered
patriotic if it happened in North America? Or do you think protesting and
revolution is generally considered un-patriotic?
In general I don’t find the term
‘patriotic’ to be particularly useful or important as it rarely means the
same thing to two different people. Further it is usually used in a North
American context as something approaching ‘my country, right or wrong.’
Argentines in general are very ‘patriotic’ if you take that word to mean
very proud of their country (often this pride is severely misplaced but
that’s another story). What really interests me and I actually find
problematic (and this relates to the idea of revolution) is how
‘democratic’ the whole situation was. Listen, De la Rua was elected
legitimately and was only halfway through his first term.
One can argue that calling the state of siege on the 19th ended his claims
to be a democrat, but one could just as easily argue that the looting that
was going on throughout the country called for just such a decision. I
wouldn’t but I certainly understand the argument.
Watching the film it is very clear where my sympathies lie, but that
doesn’t mean I don’t have some problems intellectually justifying the (for
lack of a better word) overthrow of a democratically elected government,
moreover in a country with a horrific history of coups and military
dictatorships.
I don’t find this a particularly easy issue to deal with. In fact I hope
very much to pursue ideas of democracy and revolution (and their at times
conflicting nature) in future projects.
Do I think in North America there is a community aspect lacking than
existed in Argentina? Not really. I feel it is more a problem of
superficial culture and consumerism in North America inhibiting genuine
democratic inquiry, participation and development.
Could you see the same chain events happening in North American cities or
Countries? Would you dare to predict that we have such a deteriorated
sense of community and what it means to live together that we couldn’t
find common ground and fight a government we didn’t believe in?
14. You mentioned that some Latin American countries are used as test
beds for untested economic policies. Can you expand on this?
Greg Grandin’s book Empire’s Workshop
goes into considerable detail on how Latin America is a test case for many
of the United States’ foreign policy plans, economically, politically and
militarily.
Certainly in the 90’s the Washington Consensus and IMF policies which
called for deep cuts in social services, massive privatization, low
inflation at whatever cost to employment and society, deregulation and an
outward oriented economic approach dominated the region. But perhaps
calling it a test case is not accurate unless the testing was really
involved how to do it, not what to do. These policies had long been
decided upon by the neo-cons in the U.S. government (and yes I am
including Clinton if we are talking about U.S. foreign economic and trade
policy, though the term neo-con is easily confused. In this case it is
simply the neo-liberal economic agenda as promoted by the IMF and the US
government throughout the last twenty years or so).
One important point is that the United States feels that they have the
right to export to Latin America whatever economic policy they believe
best for themselves and it is in Latin America where we can most clearly
witness what objectives the US government really has in terms of economic
policy abroad. So there is indeed very much to learn by studying and
attempting to understand the reality of the societies to the south of us.
Feel free to use the still photographs
below in your blogs, newspapers and magazines.
|
