[R-G] Danny Glover, Haiti, and the Politics of Revolutionary Cinema in Venezuela

Thu Aug 14 16:07:32 MDT 2008

Danny Glover, Haiti, and the Politics of Revolutionary Cinema in  
Venezuela
August 14th 2008, by Nikolas Kozloff - NACLA
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3719

Since the inception of the oil industry in the early twentieth  
century, Venezuela has had strong cultural ties to the United States.  
President Hugo Chávez however has sought to change this by cultivating  
a sense of cultural nationalism in his country. Perhaps the hallmark  
of Chávez’s new cultural policy is Villa del Cine, a spanking new film  
studio. Inaugurated in June 2006 amid much fanfare, the $42 million  
project under the Ministry of Culture aims to produce 19 feature- 
length films a year, in addition to documentaries and television  
series. Through this “Bolivarian Cinecittà,” Chávez seeks to spur  
production of films dealing with social empowerment, South American  
history, and Venezuelan values.

Chávez himself has long favored such movies: two of Chávez’s favorite  
films include El Caracazo, directed by Roman Chalbaud, which depicts  
popular protests and riots against the corrupt government of Carlos  
Andrés Pérez in 1989. The second, Amaneció de Golpe (The Coup  
Awakened) by Carlos Azpúrua, deals with Chávez’s attempted military  
coup against the Pérez regime in 1992.

By spurring local film production, Chávez and the staff at Villa del  
Cine hope to counteract the pervasive influence of Hollywood and to  
promote Venezuelan history and culture. “They [foreign films]  
inoculate us with messages that have nothing to do with our  
traditions,” the Venezuelan leader said during Villa del Cine’s  
inauguration ceremony. Though some foreign films were “enjoyable,”  
Chávez remarked, most Indians and Latin Americans in them were  
portrayed as people that were “savage and dangerous, who have to be  
eliminated.”

“Hollywood sends a message to the world that tries to sustain the so- 
called American way of life and imperialism,” he added. “It is like a  
dictatorship.” Venezuela is hardly the first government to subsidize  
cinematic production. In many European nations as well as Latin  
American countries like Brazil and Mexico, it’s common for authorities  
to provide state funding for movie making. On the other hand, Villa  
del Cine has not been immune from criticism. Ironically, some charge  
that the film studio is promoting Hollywood stars like Danny Glover  
while neglecting the local Venezuelan film industry. The controversy  
has put Villa del Cine on the defensive and led to accusations that  
the facility is playing favorites.

Villa del Cine Seeks To Counteract Hollywood

While researching my latest book, Revolution! South America and the  
Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2008), I traveled to Villa  
del Cine, located outside of the Venezuelan town of Guarenas. The  
government had spent lavishly there, and the facility included two  
film studios, audio and video equipment, warehouses and an  
administrative building with areas for post-production, animation,  
costumes, casting, and food service.

I sat down to speak with Lorena Almarza, Villa del Cine’s idealistic  
director. A former student of social and political psychology, Almarza  
became particularly interested in culture as a means of encouraging  
community organization. Growing up in the western city of  
Barquisimeto, she familiarized herself with the writings of such  
theorists as Antonio Gramsci and Paulo Freyre. Meanwhile, she  
frequented local film clubs and became interested in cinema. “Later I  
went to Caracas to study psychology in the Central University,” she  
remarked. “I started to work as an usher. After that I began to  
organize film festivals.”

Once Chávez came to power, Almarza worked with the state-run  
Bolivarian schools, helping to bring movies to children and provide  
manuals explaining how students might interpret images and  
psychological profiles of different characters.

When I asked Almarza to talk about her work at Villa del Cine, she  
explained enthusiastically that she was proud to be part of an  
“experimental” state project. Historically, the Venezuelan authorities  
had provided minimal resources towards cultural promotion. But the  
Chávez government established a distributor, Amazonia Films, as an  
alternative to commercial networks.

Since opening in 2006, Amazonia has acquired films from Latin America,  
Europe and Asia. Amazonia officials have also started to provide  
support to independent film producers with cost reductions of up to 35  
percent. Instead of merely providing minor funding towards incipient  
film production, the state has now created incentives so as to  
increase film production and to enable moviemakers to acquire their  
own equipment.

The new Minister of Culture, Francisco Sesto, began to encourage the  
creation of audio-visual cooperatives. The idea was that filmmakers  
would bring their proposals to the table and Villa del Cine would  
decide if the government was interested in promoting the project.  
“It’s all about the transformation of the state,” she says, “and how  
people might become participants in the development of film through  
their own art.” So far, Villa del Cine has shot on location in all  
twenty-four Venezuelan states and in 2005-2006 the studio filmed 357  
productions.

Almarza has overseen the production of TV series documenting  
educational developments under Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution. But  
Villa del Cine has also shot films about Indians and music, and in  
2007 the studio planned to commence work on some fictional films. The  
authorities also hope to spur the creation of a network of community  
movie theaters. In 2006, 80 new theaters were created and authorities  
seek to build yet more that could show films produced at Villa del Cine.

Ultimately, Almarza and her staff hope that films made at Villa del  
Cine will be shown at most any Venezuelan shopping mall along with the  
usual Hollywood fare. Venezuela cannot compete economically with  
Hollywood, but Villa del Cine seeks to provide alternatives to  
globalized homogeneity. As Almarza explained to me, film serves as  
useful tool in the “battle of ideas.”

Enter Danny Glover

As I sit with Almarza at Villa del Cine, I turn the discussion towards  
African-American actor Danny Glover, co-star of the Lethal Weapon and  
Dreamgirls movies. A long-time civil rights activist and critic of the  
Bush administration, the actor is chairman of the TransAfrica Forum,  
an advocacy group for African Americans and other members of Africa's  
diaspora.

The Hollywood celebrity, who considers Chávez “remarkable,” has been a  
frequent visitor to Venezuela. In January 2004, TransAfrica Forum sent  
a delegation of influential artists, actors, activists and scholars to  
Caracas to meet with government officials. Glover, who accompanied the  
delegation, expressed his excitement at the social changes taking  
place in Venezuela. The actor remarked that the U.S. media's portrayal  
of Venezuela had “nothing to do with reality."

Glover added that he was in Venezuela "to listen and learn, not only  
from government and opposition politicians, but to share with the  
people, those who are promoting the changes in this country and we  
want to be in contact with those who benefit from those changes."

Glover and others later presided over the inauguration of a new  
"Martin Luther King, Jr." school in the coastal town of Naiguata. The  
area is home to large numbers of Afro-Venezuelans. The school  
inauguration was the first official Venezuelan recognition of the  
importance of the slain civil rights leader. What’s more, the  
government launched a photo exposition to honor Dr. King.

Speaking at the event, Venezuelan Ambassador to the United States  
Bernardo Álvarez declared, "The visit by members of the TransAfrica  
Forum represents a struggle that goes beyond the figure of Martin  
Luther King; his struggle, his ideas and the African-American social  
movements inspired by him. This is a struggle aimed at defending  
people's rights, not only in the United States, but in the hemisphere  
and the world."

Glover, clearly touched by the occasion, commented, "This isn't Danny  
Glover the artist. I'm here as a citizen, not only of the U.S., but a  
citizen of the world. We understand fully the importance of this  
historical moment." Chávez later honored the late Dr. King during his  
radio and TV show Aló, Presidente!. Glover and others were invited on  
air to participate.

Glover’s support for the Bolivarian Revolution continued into 2005. In  
July of that year, the Hollywood entertainer returned to Venezuela,  
this time accompanied by singer Harry Belafonte. Once in Caracas,  
Glover attended the ceremonial launching of a new TV news station  
called Telesur, a network that has received key financial support from  
Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina and Uruguay.

Glover was impressed with the new media initiative but criticized the  
station for not having any people of African or indigenous descent on  
its advisory board. Chávez himself called in to the inauguration  
shortly after and said to Glover, in English, "Danny, I am with you."

A few months later, Chávez traveled to New York to address the United  
Nations. During his visit, the Venezuelan leader made an appearance at  
the Church of St. Paul and St. Andrew in Manhattan’s Upper West Side  
where he praised U.S. icons such as Martin Luther King. The forum for  
Chávez’s speech was called, “Social Forum on Poverty and Justice in a  
Globalized World,” and was attended by Rev. Jesse Jackson and Danny  
Glover.

Glover’s Venezuela Ties

Recently, other progressive Hollywood celebrities have paid visits to  
Venezuela. Just last month, actor and writer Tim Robbins toured Villa  
del Cine; the actor is reportedly contemplating the idea of initiating  
some type of film project in Venezuela. Robbins, who is known for his  
political activism and opposition to the Bush White House, praised  
Chávez’s film installation for its support of novel film directors.  
Robbins has been joined by Kevin Spacey and Sean Penn, two other  
Hollywood stars who have paid recent visits to Villa del Cine.

Glover however has gone farther than the likes of Robbins, Spacey or  
Penn in declaring his support for the political changes occuring in  
Venezuela under Hugo Chávez. Indeed, the veteran civil rights activist  
has even signed on to Telesur as a member of the TV station’s advisory  
board.

In May 2007, Glover attended an International Communication Conference  
in Caracas with noted journalists, media executives, and  
intellectuals. The two-day event, which was open to the public, held  
interesting roundtable debates. Some of the topics included were:  
“Impunity and power of major media outlets,” “The responsibility of  
national governments,” “The use of radio and TV airspace as a public  
asset,” and “Social ownership of the media.”

Glover remarked that in the U.S., the issue of media control and  
citizen participation in the media was off the table. “People (in the  
United States) don't participate in a dialogue that allows them to see  
that they have the power of information,” he said. “We see the  
positions that the media take, and people should take that power back  
and make themselves the architects of the media.”

At the end of the conference, participants agreed to promote the  
creation of independent, community-based alternative media outlets as  
a counterbalance against the corporate media. In a manifesto approved  
by Telesur’s advisory council, participants declared that radio and  
television were an “asset for humanity,” and should be administered by  
national governments, not by corporations. Furthermore, national  
governments should use their authority to revoke, concede, or renew  
licenses in accordance with their various constitutions. The  
participants applauded recent decisions taken by Argentina, Brazil,  
and Uruguay to reclaim public air space.

The Myth of Toussaint

Glover’s relationship with the Chávez government goes deeper than  
Telesur, however. During my interview with Almarza, the Villa del Cine  
Director, she remarked, “We have a very fraternal relationship with  
Glover. He came here to Villa del Cine in 2006. He’s interested in  
developing some film productions.”

Since that interview, Glover’s ties to Villa del Cine have taken off.  
Chávez’s film studio has funded Glover’s new epic film, Toussaint,  
about Francois Dominique Toussaint Louverture (1746-1803), one of the  
fathers of Haiti's independence from France. The film represents  
Glover’s directorial debut; the star will also co-produce the movie.

Together with Jean-Jacques Dessalines, Toussaint L'Ouverture was one  
of the principal leaders of the Haitian rebellion at the end of the  
eighteenth century that struggled against the revolutionary French as  
well as Spanish, British, and Napoleonic forces. Toussaint liberated  
black slaves not only in Haiti but all across the island of Hispaniola  
(today, the island is divided between Haiti and the Dominican Republic).

When Toussaint concluded a ceasefire with Napoleonic forces, which  
were determined to reestablish colonial rule and reimpose slavery, the  
Haitian revolutionary was betrayed, apprehended and deported. He died  
in France in 1803. Toussaint’s lieutenant Dessalines, an ex-slave just  
like Toussaint, continued the rebellion. Haiti finally declared its  
independence from France in January 1804. The impoverished Caribbean  
colony was the first black nation to throw off imperial rule and  
become a republic.

Political Controversy Swirling Around Toussaint

Unfortunately, for Glover, controversy has recently swirled around  
Toussaint, which will be filmed entirely in Venezuela (and not in  
Haiti, for security reasons). Connie Mack, a U.S. Republican  
congressmember from Florida, blasted Glover for cutting "a sweetheart  
movie deal" with Chávez. Such complaints are practically pro forma for  
Mack, who has been a vocal critic of Chávez’s Telesur. However, Mack  
has been joined by various Venezuelan filmmakers, who have raised a  
number of objections to the Glover film.

In 2007 the National Association of Film Makers and the Venezuelan  
Chamber of Film Producers criticized Glover for using political  
contacts to secure the funding package without a bidding process. The  
filmmakers called such methods "demoralising and detrimental to future  
generations of Venezuelan movie-makers." Claudia Nazoa, president of  
the Venezuelan Chamber of Feature Film Producers (known by its Spanish  
acronym Caveprol), said, "What worries us is this trend for neo- 
colonisation by international figures who come to talk of their  
support for Chávez's government—and leave with money for their  
projects."

In 2007, Venezuela provided $18 million to fund Toussaint, and this  
year the authorities kicked in an extra $9 million. Venezuelan  
directors complain that the budget for Glover’s film matches the  
entire state budget for domestic films from 2003 to 2008—a sum they  
say could “finance 36 Venezuelan films.” Culture Minister Sesto called  
it "naive" to think the movie industry would be out $18 million, since  
the money did not come from Villa del Cine's operating funds but were  
part of an "additional credit.” He added, "The funds earmarked for  
this movie will be invested exclusively in Venezuela ... creating jobs  
and providing excellent experience for our national film industry.”

Thaelman Urgelles, a Venezuelan director, remarked to Inter Press  
Service that “we don’t have anything personal against Glover and it  
even seems good to expand our relations with the movie industry, but  
the quantity of money is excessive [and] it fails to consider the  
efforts of Venezuelan moviemakers who can’t even get $450,000 to make  
a film.” Urguelles added that normally filmmakers only obtained  
funding after competing in competitive bids and sometimes had to dig  
into their own pockets.

Even Diego Rísquez, the director of Villa del Cine’s Francisco de  
Miranda (see below), has remarked that funding Glover’s film was “an  
error, a lack of reflection, it puts all the eggs in one basket.” The  
director added that Spanish, French and Italian directors had come to  
Venezuela to film, and even Steven Spielberg had made part of  
Aracnophobia in the Andean nation. Unlike Glover however, those  
directors had brought international capital into Venezuela.

Iván Zambrano, President of Venezuela's National Association of  
Cinematic Authors or ANAC, said he had questions about how government  
money invested in Glover’s film would be spent. "They say that the  
artists will be 30 per cent Venezuelan and 70 per cent foreign," he  
said.
"We want to know how this co-production will work and whether [the  
money that the government is investing] will include paying the  
artists. If you have Hollywood actors charging Hollywood salaries,  
then the budget will go on just two or three actors."

Chávez has said that he would like to break Hollywood’s tight  
stranglehold over the film industry by creating Villa del Cine. Yet  
ironically, though the film shall include African and Haitian actors,  
high profile Hollywood stars have also been billed for Toussaint. The  
film will star Don Cheadle, Angela Bassett, and Wesley Snipes.

"In a country with rampant poverty, a catastrophic health crisis and  
14,000 violent deaths a year, President Hugo Chávez gives away our  
money for his friends to play with," said L.A.-based Venezuelan  
director Jonathan Jakubowicz. The Venezuelan filmmaker’s 2005 kidnap  
drama Secuestro Express was a local hit but also angered Chávez's  
government for its hard-hitting portrayal of sociopolitical malaise in  
Venezuela.

Villa del Cine Defends the Project

Representatives of the government wasted no time in hitting back at  
the Venezuelan filmmakers. Sesto declared that the Ministry of Culture  
would no longer recognize Caveprol and ANAC. According to Sesto, the  
filmmakers at these organizations were not “legitimate representatives  
of universal cinematography. They represent themselves; they are small  
groups with a monetary vision.” Sesto added that by funding Toussaint,  
Venezuela had the opportunity of joining the “major leagues” of cinema.

Some Venezuelan filmmakers complain that Villa del Cine will only  
produce films that fall in line with Chávez's socialist ideals, an  
accusation which Glover denies. The veteran actor has remarked that  
Toussaint won’t be left-wing revisionism but rather a critical movie  
dealing with a part of the hemisphere's past that has been  
"essentially wiped out of our historic memory."

Villa del Cine adminstrators claim that political pressure doesn’t  
figure into their decisions. "We are looking to make good films, no  
matter what the script. We really want writers and directors to come  
to us with their ideas. If they're good, we'll support them," Villa  
del Cine executive director Marco Mondarain told the BBC.

During my interview with Almarza from Villa del Cine, she said that  
Chávez had never intervened in the studio’s affairs. Almarza had never  
spoken personally to the Venezuelan president, though she and her  
colleagues at the Ministry of Culture had met with Chávez as a group.  
In 2007, says Oscar Murat, a project co-ordinator at La Villa del  
Cine, the studio “received various different proposals and of the ones  
which won commissions, none was linked with politics.”

Chávez, Miranda and Haiti

Despite the denials, it’s clear that a movie dealing with Caribbean  
slave revolt dovetails with Chávez’s frankly anti-imperialist  
political outlook. "This film [Toussaint] will form part of our  
ideological canon against Metro Goldwyn Mayer [MGM]," said Venezuelan  
congressman Simón Escalona. Outside of Venezuela, high-profile figures  
are pleased with Glover’s project. Haitian President René Preval told  
the New York Daily News that “we had the first successful anti-slave  
rebellion in this hemisphere. It’s our contribution to humanity. If  
Glover can take this story to the big screen, we will be happy.”

For Chávez, the Haitian independence struggle has key symbolic  
meaning. In March 2007, the Venezuelan leader traveled to the  
Caribbean island nation. Chávez timed his arrival in Haiti for maximum  
political and historic effect. “We know that March 12, 1806 [two years  
after Haiti became a republic] exactly two centuries ago and a year …  
a very great Venezuelan cried out for independence,” he said. “And it  
is here in a revolutionary boat with a revolutionary crew that the  
Venezuelan flag was hoisted for the first time. Francisco de Miranda,  
as you know, was that great Venezuela, and the reason for our visit is  
linked to what he did way back then."

Francisco de Miranda (1750-1816), considered by some to be a  
forerunner of later South American independence figures such as Simón  
Bolívar (1783-1830), was a soldier who fought in the American and  
French revolutions. In addition, he played a key part in events  
leading to Venezuela’s declaration of independence from Spain in 1811.  
The revolutionary was captured by Spanish colonial forces and spent  
the last days of his life as a prisoner. He died in a military  
fortress in Cádiz.

Within the National Pantheon of Caracas, where Bolívar lies in state,  
there’s an empty tomb awaiting Miranda’s body. A group of Spanish  
scientists has tried to determine whether certain remains in the  
fortress indeed belong to Miranda. The scientists have extracted DNA  
from bones in the fortress and will compare the genetic material to  
Miranda’s descendants in order to reach a final determination.

Not surprisingly, Chávez has expressed personal interest in the  
investigation. Though obscure, Miranda is one of Chávez’s favorite  
historical personalities. In the run-up to the December 2006  
presidential election Chávez hailed his followers, nicknamed Miranda’s  
electoral “battalions.”

In 2006, Villa del Cine celebrated the two hundredth anniversary of  
Miranda’s return voyage to Venezuela by producing a film about the  
exploits of the late eighteenth-century hero. The film, Francisco de  
Miranda, glorifies the struggle of the intrepid revolutionary and  
draws attention to his dream of a united South America. After opening  
in 35 of Venezuela’s 400 movie theaters, the film did quite well at  
the box office and surpassed Hollywood blockbuster Superman Returns  
during the summer 2006 season.

Historical Symbolism of Venezuelan-Haitian Solidarity

Chávez has long emphasized historical symbolism in his political  
rhetoric, and his speech in Haiti proved no exception. Addressing the  
Haitian public in 2007, the Venezuelan leader remarked, “We are very  
conscious of what the Haitian people are—a people who were able to  
defeat empires and free their country well before the rest of Latin  
America and the Caribbean—a heroic people and also a ravaged people  
over the past two centuries. You must also know that Bolívar passed  
through here … in 1816 when in Venezuela … all appeared lost in the  
battle against Spain.”

The Venezuelan leader went on to discuss the important political  
connections between the Haitian Revolution and the Venezuelan  
independence struggle. Bolívar arrived in Haiti on Christmas Eve, 1815  
after being expelled from Venezuela. Fortunately Haitian President  
Alexandre Pétion (1770-1818) welcomed Bolívar and his freedom fighters  
and provided them with shelter, guns, ammunition and a printing press.

Four months later, as he was about to depart from Haiti en route to  
Venezuela, Bolívar asked his benefactor how he might repay Haiti's  
generosity. Pétion replied that the best thanks Haiti could receive  
would be the liberation of all slaves residing in the Spanish  
colonies. Bolívar later honored his debt to Pétion by freeing the  
1,500 slaves his family owned in Caracas. He also printed a  
proclamation, on Pétion's very own printing press, abolishing slavery  
in Venezuela. The proclamation, however, only applied to black slaves  
who enlisted in Bolívar’s army. It wasn’t until 1854 that slavery was  
finally abolished in the country.

“All of this [history] has to do with why I am here today,” Chávez  
said while addressing the Haitian people. “Today I feel I am paying  
part of our historic debt to Haiti. And I say this, after more than 8  
years in government, this is the first time I visit Haiti. I should  
have come here earlier.” Chávez’s choice of words couldn’t have been  
more symbolic: to this day, Venezuelan children are taught in school  
that their country owes a “historic debt” to Haiti for helping Bolívar.

Bolívar’s Political Significance

It’s no accident that Chávez would go out of his way to bring up  
Bolívar while visiting Haiti. In Venezuela, it is almost mandatory for  
political leaders to make historic allusions to Bolívar, the “Great  
Liberator” against Spanish rule. Bolívar, Chávez has said, was a  
socialist like himself, was stridently opposed to the United States,  
and was also determined to build a classless society. What’s more, the  
Venezuelan leader has argued, Bolívar’s dream of uniting Latin America  
represented a threat to oligarchs and imperialists, thus awakening the  
ire of the United States.

Chávez has no doubt taken some historical liberties and embellished  
his causal intellectual ties to Bolívar. The Liberator never talked  
about class struggle per se, though he did pursue progressive social  
legislation by issuing decrees for the establishment of schools for  
boys as well as girls. Bolívar also deplored the misery of indigenous  
peoples and ordered the conservation of forest resources.

But Bolívar was perhaps most forward looking when he spoke of the  
necessity of integrating Latin America. It was Bolívar, early on, who  
understood that the region had no future unless it confronted both  
Europe and the United States as a unified bloc. The United States,  
Bolívar once famously declared, seemed “destined by providence to  
plague America with misery on behalf of freedom.”

Chávez has said that he will not rest until Venezuela is liberated  
from the “imperialist and anti-Boliviaran threat.” He frequently draws  
comparisons between Bolívar’s struggle against the Spanish Empire and  
his own political confrontation with the United States, which Chávez  
habitually refers to as “The Empire.”

In Venezuela, Bolívar is revered as a God-like figure and his  
popularity continues to soar. Indeed, a popular religion based on the  
fertility goddess of María Lionza has appropriated Bolívar as one of  
its central ritual figures. The faith is based on indigenous, black,  
African, and Catholic roots, and priests hold ceremonies in which the  
spirit of the Liberator is channeled through a medium who coughs when  
Bolívar is present since Venezuela’s most distinguished native son had  
a debilitating case of tuberculosis. Meanwhile, religious altars of  
the faithful generally feature a portrait of Bolívar.

In addition, Venezuela’s currency, main squares, and universities bear  
the Liberator’s name. His sayings are taught in schools, broadcast on  
the radio and emblazoned on government buildings. Chávez almost  
reverentially has referred to his political movement as a “Bolivarian  
Revolution.” Chávez has renamed his country the Bolivarian Republic of  
Venezuela and has reportedly left a chair empty at meetings to honor  
the Liberator. Chávez supporters, or chavistas, have dubbed the areas  
they politically control as “liberated zones of the Bolivarian  
Republic” and adorn offices and homes with portraits of the Liberator.  
Chávez has promoted so-called Bolivarian Circles, local grassroots  
groups at the local or barrio level, which lobby the government for  
important grassroots resources.

Furthermore, Chávez champions Bolívar’s idea of a unified South  
America and echoes the Liberator’s words during his televised  
speeches. Chávez also likes to appear on television with a portrait of  
Bolívar near at hand. Riding along Caracas highways, one may see  
repeated instances of murals juxtaposing portraits of Chávez and  
Bolívar. In Caracas, a key historic landmark is Bolívar’s native  
house. Located along downtown streets crowded with informal vendors,  
the house is often full of visiting school children.

Taking his picturesque concept of history to yet greater political  
heights, Chávez is now intent on proving that Bolívar was poisoned by  
corrupt oligarchs and did not succumb to tuberculosis. The Venezuelan  
leader asserts that in Bolívar’s day, tuberculosis was not lethal  
enough to cause death in a few scant weeks. As evidence to support his  
claim, Chávez points to one of Bolívar’s letters in which the  
Liberator discusses his future plans. Bolívar wrote the letter shortly  
before his own death in the coastal Colombian town of Santa Marta.

“Some say he [Bolívar] was very ill and knew he was going to die, and  
he wanted to die by the side of the sea and he died happy, and  
Colombia was happy and Venezuela was happy,” Chávez said in a long  
speech. “How the oligarchs fooled us, the ones here, the ones there.  
How the historians who falsified history fooled us.”

The Venezuelan leader recently convened a high commission, led by his  
Vice President and composed of nine cabinet ministers and the Attorney  
General. Their mission: exhume Bolívar’s remains, which lie in a  
sarcophagus at the National Pantheon in downtown Caracas, and conduct  
scientific tests to confirm Chávez’s contention—that diabolical  
assassins murdered Bolívar. “This commission has been created because  
the executive considers it to be of great historical and cultural  
value to clarify important doubts regarding the death of the  
Liberator,” Venezuela’s Official Gazette said.

But even Chávez’s most stalwart supporters say their leader may have  
gone too far this time. “This doesn’t make any sense,” said Alberto  
Mueller Rojas, a retired general who works as a presidential adviser  
on international affairs and military matters. “Why should I care?  
Bolívar died. If they killed him, they killed him. If he died of  
tuberculosis, he died of tuberculosis. In this day and age, this  
doesn’t have any significance.”

Perhaps not surprisingly given the political importance that Chávez  
has attached to Bolívar, Villa del Cine is reportedly planning to  
produce a film about the Great Liberator. The movie will be adapted  
from the Colombian writer Gabriel García Márquez's historical novel  
about Bolívar entitled The General in His Labyrinth.

The book, which was originally released in 1989, tells the story of  
the last days of the Great Liberator as he departs the Colombian city  
of Bogotá for Santa Marta on the coast. Venezuelan authorities have  
paid out a handsome $2 million for the rights to the Márquez book,  
which is reportedly Hugo Chávez’s favorite novel. Almarza, as director  
of Villa del Cine, is clearly enthusiastic about taking on the  
project. “Bolívar is a world figure and belongs to all Venezuela,” she  
remarked.

In addition to The General in His Labryinth, Villa del Cine has also  
produced Libertador Morales. The film centers on a Simón Bolívar- 
quoting motorcycle-taxi driver seeking social justice.

Honoring Venezuela’s “Historic Debt’ to Haiti

Chávez’s recent trip to Haiti and his emphasis on vital historic  
symbols is taking place against a volatile political backdrop. In  
2004, observers say that Haiti’s democratically elected President Jean  
Bertrand Aristide was kidnapped with the connivance of Washington.  
When a new government took power in Port-au-Prince under Gérard  
Latortue, Chávez snubbed the Bush administration by refusing to  
recognize the regime, which the United States, Canada, France and the  
European Union all recognized as the new government.

In Venezuela, Chávez decried the participation of Latin American  
troops in the United Nations’ “stabilization mission” sent to Haiti  
and even offered refuge in Venezuela to exiled President Aristide. The  
former Haitian President, who blames the U.S. government for his  
downfall, likens his own story to that of Toussaint who was betrayed  
and brought to France. Aristide currently resides in South Africa.

In 2006 Haiti elected René Préval, who had served as Prime Minister in  
Aristide’s first administration and as President from 1996 to 2001.  
Though Préval hinted that Aristide might return to Haiti, he has not  
provided a time frame for the exiled leader to come back. Speaking in  
South Africa Aristide criticized the 2006 election, calling it a  
"selection" in which "the knife of treason was planted" in the back of  
the Haitian people.

Some Haitians hope that Chávez might help to ease the way for Aristide  
to return some day. When the Venezuelan leader visited Haiti in 2007,  
cries of “Chávez” could be heard throughout the streets of the  
capital. At the Port-au-Prince airport, Haitians arrived minute after  
minute and chanted "Chávez, Chávez, it is you whom we seek ...  
President Préval needs your help to return Aristide." Meanwhile, the  
demonstrators denounced UN peacekeepers for using overwhelming  
military force to suppress violent gangs.

In an effort to strengthen the historic bond between Haiti and  
Venezuela, Chávez has created a $20 million fund for Haiti to provide  
humanitarian aid and to develop joint cooperation projects. The money  
will pay for health care, education, housing and other basic  
necessities sorely lacking in the Caribbean nation of 8 million. Haiti  
will also benefit from Chávez's Petrocaribe initiative, which provides  
petroleum products and other aid to needy Caribbean countries to help  
them counter rising energy prices. Recipients are offered deferred  
payment and long-term financing for fuel shipments.

Never one to neglect rich historic symbolism, Chávez remarked during  
his visit that it was time to encourage the “union of our republics.  
It is an old project of Miranda's and Bolívar's … of Pétion's and of  
Louverture's—all those who dreamed of a great nation, of a free nation… 
The President of the United States is the representative of the  
cruelest empire,” Chávez added, “the most cynical, criminal and  
murderous which has ever existed. He represents the project of  
colonial domination. Whereas we, I say this humbly but with dignity,  
represent the Bolivarian project to liberate our nations.”

Following their historic meeting, Chávez and Préval commemorated the  
occasion by placing flowers at Port-au-Prince's monuments to Pétion  
and Bolívar.

Nikolas Kozloff, a NACLA senior research associate, is the author of  
Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave- 
Macmillan, 2008).

August 14th 2008, by Nikolas Kozloff - NACLA
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3719

Since the inception of the oil industry in the early twentieth  
century, Venezuela has had strong cultural ties to the United States.  
President Hugo Chávez however has sought to change this by cultivating  
a sense of cultural nationalism in his country. Perhaps the hallmark  
of Chávez’s new cultural policy is Villa del Cine, a spanking new film  
studio. Inaugurated in June 2006 amid much fanfare, the $42 million  
project under the Ministry of Culture aims to produce 19 feature- 
length films a year, in addition to documentaries and television  
series. Through this “Bolivarian Cinecittà,” Chávez seeks to spur  
production of films dealing with social empowerment, South American  
history, and Venezuelan values.

Chávez himself has long favored such movies: two of Chávez’s favorite  
films include El Caracazo, directed by Roman Chalbaud, which depicts  
popular protests and riots against the corrupt government of Carlos  
Andrés Pérez in 1989. The second, Amaneció de Golpe (The Coup  
Awakened) by Carlos Azpúrua, deals with Chávez’s attempted military  
coup against the Pérez regime in 1992.

By spurring local film production, Chávez and the staff at Villa del  
Cine hope to counteract the pervasive influence of Hollywood and to  
promote Venezuelan history and culture. “They [foreign films]  
inoculate us with messages that have nothing to do with our  
traditions,” the Venezuelan leader said during Villa del Cine’s  
inauguration ceremony. Though some foreign films were “enjoyable,”  
Chávez remarked, most Indians and Latin Americans in them were  
portrayed as people that were “savage and dangerous, who have to be  
eliminated.”

“Hollywood sends a message to the world that tries to sustain the so- 
called American way of life and imperialism,” he added. “It is like a  
dictatorship.” Venezuela is hardly the first government to subsidize  
cinematic production. In many European nations as well as Latin  
American countries like Brazil and Mexico, it’s common for authorities  
to provide state funding for movie making. On the other hand, Villa  
del Cine has not been immune from criticism. Ironically, some charge  
that the film studio is promoting Hollywood stars like Danny Glover  
while neglecting the local Venezuelan film industry. The controversy  
has put Villa del Cine on the defensive and led to accusations that  
the facility is playing favorites.

Villa del Cine Seeks To Counteract Hollywood