View Full Version : It won't be screened, either

01-31-2004, 02:49 PM
I would love to comment on this film but I was denied the chance.

I was volunteering at the PC the night this film was to be shown at the AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL, where they issued a typed letter to all fest-goers that they were pulling the film due to political pressure.

Can you fucking believe that? AMNESTY of all organizations, giving in to political pressure!

Here's the most annoying part: They wouldn't say who the pressure was from. This really irritated me and scores of people who like to know what's going on around them. No explanation was given, and the director of the festival refused to give any straight answers about why it was pulled.
Needless to say, the cinematheque had protesters outside the doors for almost a week. The whole episode soured me on supporting Amnesty International-this went against everything they stand for.

The protesters, however, rallied forces to show the film in one of their members GARAGES (I couldn't attend) and went on all of Vancouver's media outlets to express their anger.

So if anyone has seen this heavy-duty film let me know what I missed.

01-31-2004, 04:38 PM
Haven't seen it and don't expect to. Would be surprised if it gains a wider release than it's had to date.

The coup against Chavez was certainly viewed as a positive by the American oil industry (and thus in turn by the Bush Administration). However, I would doubt that the film is suggesting or documenting that the United States plotted this coup. Maybe it was a covert CIA thing, but nothing's been proven. So, I don't know see why the screening of this film would be cancelled, unless Amnesty International is underwritten by Exxon-Mobil. What's the big conspiracy here that the film is exposing?

I work in the same building as the Venezualan consulate in Houston. On the day of the coup, there was a good-sized rally out front of the office. A couple of days later, when Chavez was restored to power, there was no such rally, probably because the people who would have been there were actually working. Viva La Revolucion...

02-04-2004, 06:12 PM
A month or so ago, a nice young woman came to my door soliciting donations for Amnesty International. She told me about what they were involved in and about their mission and goals. I told her that it sounded like a worthy cause, reached in to my pocket and extracted twenty hard earned dollars.
Unfortunately, she said, Amnesty soliciters were not allowed to accept cash. Something of a security issue. That's all well and good, I can appreciate that she doesn't want to be walking around with wads of cash, ready for the mugging, but my problem lies in the fact that she would have gladly taken my credit card info for a donation: Argueably far more valueable than a twenty and more volatile to my personal finances should it fall into the wrong hands.
There is something that makes me twitch when i hear about organizations that don't take cash. Cash is money. I try my best to not give the bank more than they deserve, and the unfortunate integration of a 'cashless' society into Canada is nothing more than a way for the banks to get rich off of service fees. If Amnesty doesn't want my money, they can't have it. They are an organization built to assist people who have been accused (wrongly or otherwise) of criminal acitivity and mistreated in the process. The Underground doesn't run on credit cards and expense accounts, they use cold hard cash. Those idiots are cutting out untold wealth in donations by being pigheaded and stupid. Can't they just provide their door to door people with firearms for protection?


02-05-2004, 03:53 PM
I used to think Amnesty was the most important group on earth.

If I was on vacation in Botswana and I got arrested unjustly for some reason and tortured or held against my will I would be glad Amnesty was out there and held the power to get me free.

But when they wig out on film screenings, won't take cash, or directly address complaints (which come from SUPPORTERS), then Amnesty has lost stock. "Politically Correct" is not a phrase I associate with Amnesty.

02-06-2004, 06:14 PM
Well, just when I was beginning the believe the conspiracy theories about "the man" keeping us from seeing this film, I see that it's coming here to Houston, starting next Friday. I will definately make a point to see it.

Of course, this is at the same theater that was advertising The Fog of War to start today. And now it's not showing; they're re-releasing City of God instead, probably based on the multiple Oscar nominations. Too bad, I wanted to see Errol Morris on the big screen.

02-09-2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Johann
I used to think Amnesty was the most important group on earth.

If I was on vacation in Botswana and I got arrested unjustly for some reason and tortured or held against my will I would be glad Amnesty was out there and held the power to get me free.

I used to feel the same way, J. But after I gave that girl that came to my door my phone number so she could have someone call me and fill me in on their 'no cash donation' policy, I got to thinkin'. When they called back, I asked a little more about their organization and opperation. I found out that Amnesty is a lobby group and nothing more. They can put pressure on political leaders and governments through publicity, but not much more. Your white ass would probably rot in a Botswanan jail cell before Amnesty could do anything about it. Likely, they'd print something about it in their newsletter that goes to all kinds of people who also understand that you've been wrongfully imprisioned, but can't do much about it.
On the flip side, at least they're trying. It's worthless to throw our hands up and say: Ah, fuck it. Ain't no justice and there never will be. It's noble of them to take on what seems to be an impossible task.
One key to the dominance of the Global Oligarchy is their ability to imprison anyone at any time. This phenomenan is manefesting itself in America right now through the PATRIOT ACT. I hope that one day Amnesty gets their shit together, realizes where their supporters are and starts to affect positive change.

02-09-2004, 03:12 PM
Actually, there is quite a bit in the film to suggest that the US was behind the coup, along with alot of tv clips of Powell and various other political figures deriding Chavez. So that may be the answer. Of course I dont know why it wouldnt show in Canada. Too bad to hear that Amnesty pulled it.

Chris Knipp has some interesting insights here. I know that the filmmakers have come under a lot of criticism for perhaps showing a very one-sided story. Nevertheless, from what they do show, it would be hard to sympathize with the ruling class in any way.


02-13-2004, 04:59 PM
Saw this on imdb:

<I learned on the filmmakers' website that Amnesty International pulled this film from a Human Rights Film Festival in Vancouver B.C. recently because of reports from its Venezuelan affiliate that screening the film could cause harm to some people, presumably associated with AI, in that country. Harm by whom? Certainly unlikely from pro-Chavez people. They couldn't hope for better propaganda than this film offers.>

02-14-2004, 04:22 AM
Right on, JustaFied

Many thanks for passing this info on to me, dude!
The fog isn't so thick anymore....

Why couldn't Amnesty just say in a public statement that they felt people could possibly be harmed because of threats to people's lives AND THEN SHOW THE FILM DESPITE?
People would have cheered! People would have said Amnesty stood for it's own beliefs. But no, they had to cower and be PC.

02-14-2004, 09:04 AM
I don't understand their response, but at least it's better than what they gave you.

You really should see this movie. Everyone should. The pro-Chavez slant is debatable, but manipulation of the media and the alleged involvement in (or at least support of) the coup by the United States is eye-opening. In many cases, the U.S. governmental officials were repeating almost verbatim the news as reported by the private Venezuelan television stations, and those stations were clearly involved in plan to oust Chavez. They had no semblance of objectivity. They ADMITTED it afterwards. A guy was on a Venezuelan talk show the day after Chavez was removed, and he said it was most important to thank the television stations for their involvement.

I'm not sure what the news coverage is like in Canada, but here in the US it seems to be becoming eerily similar to what we saw in Venezuela. For example, we started a war in the Middle East and we heard virtually no criticism of it... Do you have Fox News?