Inqilob televideniye qilinmaydi (film) - The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film)

Ushbu maqola film haqida. Boshqa maqsadlar uchun qarang Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish etilmaydi (ma'nosiz ma'no).

Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish etilmaydi
The Revolution will not be Televised.gif
Teatrlashtirilgan plakat
RejissorKim Bartli
Donnacha Ó Briayn
Tomonidan ishlab chiqarilganDevid Pauer
Bosh rollardaUgo Chaves
Pedro Karmona
Jessi Xelms
Kolin Pauell
Jorj Tenet
Rivoyat qilganDonnacha Ó Briayn
KinematografiyaKim Bartli
Donnacha Ó Briayn
TahrirlanganAnxel Ernandes Zoido
Ishlab chiqarish
kompaniya
Kuchli rasmlar
TarqatganVitagraf filmlar (BIZ)
Ishlab chiqarilish sanasi
  • 2003 (2003)
Ish vaqti
Chaves: to'ntarish ichida
52 daqiqa
Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish etilmaydi
74 daqiqa
MamlakatIrlandiya
TilIngliz tili
Ispaniya
Byudjet€200,000
Teatr kassasi$200,000 (€171,000)[nb 1]

Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish etilmaydi (Ispaniya: La revolución no será transmitida), shuningdek, nomi bilan tanilgan Chaves: to'ntarish ichida, 2003 yil Irland hujjatli film. Unda voqealarga e'tibor qaratilgan Venesuela ga qadar va paytida olib boradi 2002 yil aprel davlat to'ntarishiga urinish Prezidentni ko'rgan Ugo Chaves ikki kunga lavozimidan chetlashtirildi. Venesuelaning shaxsiy ommaviy axborot vositalarining roliga alohida urg'u berib, filmda bir nechta muhim voqealar ko'rib chiqildi: norozilik namoyishi va Chavesning siqib chiqarilishiga turtki bergan zo'ravonlik; oppozitsiyaning biznes rahbari boshchiligidagi muvaqqat hukumatni tuzishi Pedro Karmona; va Karmona ma'muriyatining qulashi, bu Chavesning qaytishiga yo'l ochdi. Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish etilmaydi Irlandiyalik kinorejissyorlar Kim Bartli va Donnacha Don Briayn tomonidan suratga olingan. Chavesga to'g'ridan-to'g'ri kirish imkoni berilgan holda, kinorejissyorlar devorga uchib ketish prezidentning tarjimai holi Ular etti oy davomida Venesuelada suratga tushishdi, Chaves va uning xodimlarini kuzatib, oddiy fuqarolar bilan suhbatlashishdi. 11 aprelda davlat to'ntarishi sodir bo'lganda, Bartli va Briayn poytaxt ko'chalarida suratga olishdi, Karakas, namoyishchilar va otashin zo'ravonliklarning kadrlarini suratga olish. Keyinchalik ular ichkaridagi ko'plab siyosiy g'alayonlarni videoga olishdi Miraflores, prezident saroyi.

Bartli va Briayn filmni Bartley keyingi voqealarni hujjatlashtirishdan qaytgandan keyin tasavvur qilishgan 1999 yil Vargas toshqini Irlandiyalik xayriya tashkiloti uchun. Film loyihasining maqsadga muvofiqligini aniqlash uchun Venesuelaga tashrif buyurganidan so'ng, juftlik prodyuserlik kompaniyasini tuzdi va Irlandiyaning kino kengashiga murojaat qildi, Bord Scannán na hÉireann (BSÉ), rivojlanish uchun grant. BSÉ-ning iltimosiga binoan kinorejissyorlar tajribali prodyuser bilan hamkorlik qilishdi va potentsial investorlarga ko'rsatish uchun qisqa uchuvchini suratga olishdi. 200 000 evro ishlab chiqarishni moliyalashtirish BSÉ va Evropaning bir nechta telekompaniyalari tomonidan ta'minlandi. Bartli va Ó Briayn 200 soatdan ortiq material otishdi; tahrir qilish filmni ko'ngil ochadigan va syujetni boshqaradigan kadrlarni aniqlashga qaratilgan. Aynan shu bosqichda to'ntarish tashabbusiga ko'proq e'tibor qaratish uchun filmning qamrovi torayib ketdi.

Film asosiy tanqidchilar tomonidan ijobiy qabul qilindi va bir nechta mukofotlarga sazovor bo'ldi. Sharhlovchilar film ijodkorlarining misli ko'rilmagan muhim voqealarga yaqinligini misol qilib keltirdilar va filmni "jonli hikoya" bilan maqtashdi;[1] tanqid uning konteksti yo'qligi va Chaves tarafdorlari tarafdoridir. Birinchi marta 2003 yilda Evropa va Venesuela televideniesida namoyish etilgan, Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish etilmaydi keyinchalik film festivallarida paydo bo'ldi va badiiy uylar doirasidagi teatrlashtirilgan cheklovni ta'minladi. Mustaqil faollar norasmiy namoyishlar o'tkazdilar va Venesuela hukumati rasmiylari Chaves ma'muriyatini qo'llab-quvvatlashni rivojlantirish uchun uning nashrini rag'batlantirdilar. Film muntazam ravishda Venesuela televideniesida namoyish etiladi va poytaxtda ko'pincha "tortishuvli siyosiy kon'yunkturalar" paytida namoyish etiladi.[2] Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish etilmaydi Chavesni qulay nurda bo'yaydi, bu uning betarafligi va aniqligi to'g'risida tortishuvlarga sabab bo'ldi; 11-13 aprel kunlari sodir bo'lgan zo'ravonliklarni tasvirlash, kinorejissyorlarning vaqt jadvalini tahrirlashi va voqealar va xodimlarning taxmin qilinmay qo'yilganligiga alohida e'tibor qaratilmoqda. Film turli xil tarzda 2002 yil aprel voqealarini to'g'ri tasvirlash yoki noto'g'ri talqin qilish sifatida keltirilgan.

Fon

Qo'shimcha ma'lumotlar: Venesuela tarixi va Ugo Chavesning ommaviy axborot vositalarida namoyishi § 2002 yilgi to'ntarishni yoritishi

Yigirmanchi asrning ko'p qismida Venesuela siyosiy, fuqarolik va harbiy tartibsizliklarga duch keldi. Keyin Xuan Visente Gomes 1935 yilda prezident sifatida uzoq hukmronlik qilish tugadi, bir qator harbiy hukmdorlar ta'qib qilishdi Markos Peres Ximenes 1958 yilda umumiy qo'zg'olon bilan ag'darildi. Garchi harbiylar ta'sirchan bo'lib qolgan bo'lsa-da, o'shandan beri Venesuela hukumati demokratik jarayonlar orqali tinch aholi tomonidan tanlandi.[3] 1998 yilgacha hukmron siyosiy partiyalar mavjud edi Acción Democrática va COPEI, ular o'rtasida etti prezidentlikni bo'lishgan. 1989 yilda Acción Democrática vakolatxonasining ikkinchi muddati davomida Karlos Andres Peres, Venesuela og'ir iqtisodiy inqirozga uchradi. Sifatida tanilgan noroziliklar to'lqini Karakazo mamlakatni qamrab oldi va o'nlab odamlar tartibsizliklarda o'ldirildi.[4]

tbc
Ugo Chaves 2003 yilda

Ugo Chaves, keyin a Armiyada podpolkovnik, yashirin inqilobiy guruh tuzgan (MBR-200 ) 1980-yillarning boshlarida va "isyonkor aralashuv" ni rejalashtirgan.[4] Keyinchalik u Karakazo uning harakati uchun boy berilgan imkoniyat edi.[4] Uch yil o'tgach, Chaves yana bir imkoniyatni ko'rdi; 1992 yil fevral oyida u an muvaffaqiyatsiz harbiy to'ntarish va qamoqqa tashlandi. Uning ishtirokisiz ikkinchi davlat to'ntarish tashabbusi ham muvaffaqiyatsiz tugadi. Chaves o'z xatti-harakatlari uchun bir nechta mashhur qo'llab-quvvatlandi. 1994 yilda qamoqdan ozod qilingan u o'zining inqilobiy guruhini qonuniy sifatida qayta tikladi sotsialistik siyosiy partiya Beshinchi respublika harakati.[5] Harakat Venesuelaning sobiq rahbarini qabul qildi Simon Bolivar uning "ramziy qahramoni" va "mos yozuvlar nuqtasi" sifatida; Lotin Amerikasining muvaffaqiyatli bo'lishida Bolivar muhim rol o'ynagan Ispaniyadan mustaqillik uchun kurash 1820-yillarda.[3] In 1998 yil prezident saylovi, Chaves "bir necha o'n yilliklarning korruptsiyasini tugatish" va yangi institutni yaratish va'dasida 56,2% ovoz oldi. Bolivar inqilobi u Lotin Amerikasining tashqi dunyodan haqiqiy mustaqilligini ta'minlashini his qilgan.[5]

Chavez kambag'allar orasida qo'llab-quvvatlashni bir qator ijtimoiy tashabbuslar bilan kuchaytirdi Bolivariyalik missiyalar va o't-o'lan ishchilar kengashlari tarmog'ini yaratdi Bolivar davralari.[6] Shunga qaramay, 2002 yil boshida Venesuela "og'ir siyosiy inqirozga duch keldi", chunki Chaves mamlakatning katta neft boyliklarini ko'proq davlat nazorati ostiga olishga intildi.[7] Garchi davlatga qarashli radio va telekanallar Chavesning siyosatini - millat boyligini kambag'allarga taqsimlash siyosatining ishonchli tarafdorlari bo'lib qolishsa-da, xususiy ommaviy axborot vositalari ko'proq dushmanlik qildi.[nb 2] Chaves davlat neft kompaniyasi boshqaruvini olib tashlamoqchi bo'lganida inqiroz avjiga chiqdi, Petróleos de Venesuela (PDVSA), shov-shuvni keltirib chiqaradi. "Yoqilg'i menejerlari, korxona rahbarlari va uyushgan mehnatning katta qatlamlari" umumiy ish tashlashni chaqirishdi.[7] Bu ish tashlashni aholining katta qismi, ayniqsa "tobora qashshoqlashib borayotgan mamlakatning o'rta toifasi" va armiya ofitserlari armiyaning tobora siyosiylashib borayotganidan xafa bo'lganlar qo'llab-quvvatladilar.[7]

2002 yil 11 aprelda yuz minglab odamlar hukumatga qarshi norozilik namoyishi o'tkazdilar. Yurish qatnashchilari rejalashtirilgan marshrutdan voz kechib saroy tomon yo'l oldilar, bu yo'l ularni namoyishlarga qarshi chiqqan hukumat tarafdorlariga yaqinlashtirdi. Jurnalist Fil Gunson shunday deb yozgan edi: "Otishma har tomondan boshlandi. Oddiy fuqarolar o'ldi va 150 dan ortiq odam o'qdan jarohat oldi. Harbiy oliy qo'mondonlik Chavesni iste'foga chiqishga chaqirdi va ertasi kuni ertalab soat 3: 20da ular rozi bo'lganlarini e'lon qilishdi. Prezidentlik ishbilarmon rahbar tomonidan qabul qilingan, Pedro Karmona Estanga, ammo uning hukumati qirq sakkiz soat ichida qulab tushdi va Chaves hokimiyatga qaytdi. "[7]

Sinopsis

Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish etilmaydi 2001 yilda ochilgan[nb 3][8] Chavesning mamlakat bo'ylab gastrol safarlarida bo'lganligi haqidagi kadrlar bilan. "Ommaviy ishtiyoq" bilan uchrashdi, u mitinglarda, so'zlarni gapirishda gapiradi neoliberalizm va uning xarakteriga xalqaro hamjamiyat tomonidan qilingan hujumlar.[9] Filmda Chavezning kundalik hayoti va televizion ko'rsatuvlaridagi chiqishlarini yoritmasdan oldin hokimiyat tepasiga kelishi, Aló Presidente fuqarolar prezident bilan gaplashishi uchun telefonni o'z ichiga oladi.[9] Chaves o'zining zamonaviy Bolivar sifatida ko'rishga intilishini bayon qildi.[8] Venesuela va Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlaridagi yangiliklar haqidagi lavhalar prezidentga qarshi "tinimsiz kampaniya" ni namoyish etadi.[10]

Siyosiy bo'linishning har ikki tomonidagi jamoalar bilan suhbatlar Chavesni boylar va kambag'allar qanday ko'rishini ko'rsatadi.[10] Ikkinchisi uning mamlakatdagi neft boyliklarini qayta taqsimlash maqsadini qo'llab-quvvatlaydi;[11] sobiqlar totalitarizmdan qo'rqishadi va Chaves kommunizmni o'rnatishidan xavotirda. 2002 yil fevral oyida Chavez PDVSA boshqaruvini o'z qo'liga olganidan keyin media urushi kuchaymoqda.[10] Filmda ta'kidlanishicha, kompaniya ilgari davlatga qarashli bo'lishiga qaramay, ozchilikning manfaati uchun shaxsiy manfaat sifatida faoliyat yuritgan. Biznes rahbari Pedro Karmona va kasaba uyushma boshlig'i Karlos Ortega muxolifatning asosiy ovozlari. Juftlik Vashingtonga tashrif buyurganidan so'ng, Markaziy razvedka boshqarmasi va Davlat departamenti Chaves boshqaruvi haqida xavotir bildiring va Venesuela neftining ahamiyatini ta'kidlang. Venesuela generali xuddi shunday bezovtalikni bildirish uchun xususiy televideniye orqali chiqadi. Karmona PDVSA ofislarida ommaviy norozilik namoyishiga murojaat qiladi.[12]

11 aprelda oppozitsiya namoyishchilari PDVSA ning Karakasdagi bosh qarorgohi oldida yurishni boshlashdi; Chavesning tarafdorlari prezident saroyi oldida to'planishdi. Uni saroyga olib borish uchun norozilik yo'li o'zgartirildi; o'q ovozi eshitilib, tinch aholi o'ldirilmoqda. Shaxsiy ommaviy axborot vositalari muxolifat namoyishchilariga ko'prikdan o'q uzayotgani tasvirlangan kadrlarga asoslanib, Chaves tarafdorlarini ayblamoqda.[10] Rivoyatlarda: "Televizionlar efirga uzatmagan narsa [bu kameraning burchagi] edi, bu pastdagi ko'chalar bo'sh ekanligini aniq ko'rsatib turibdi. Muxolifat yurishi hech qachon bu yo'lni bosib o'tmagan edi."[13] Keyinchalik, davlat televizion signallari kesiladi; Muxolifat studiyani egallab olgani haqida mish-mishlar tarqalmoqda.[14] Saroyda harbiy yuqori qo'mondonlik a'zolari binoni bombardimon qilish bilan tahdid qilib, Chavesning iste'fosini talab qilmoqda. Prezident iste'foga chiqishni rad etadi, ammo ularning hibsxonasiga topshiradi.[10] Uni olib ketishadi va Karmona o'tish davri hukumati o'rnatilishini televizor orqali e'lon qiladi.[14]

12 aprelda muxolifat liderlari xususiy televideniye orqali chiqishadi va u erda Chavesni yutish rejasini oshkor qiladilar.[10] Karmona prezident sifatida qasamyod keltirmoqda, tasvirlar ko'chalarda tartibsizliklarni namoyish qilmoqda. OAV senzurasini rad etib, Chavesning tarafdorlari prezident iste'foga chiqmaganligi haqidagi xabarni tarqatmoqda.[15] 13 aprel kuni ular Miraflores oldida norozilik namoyishi uchun yig'ilishdi,[16] saroy soqchilari esa binoni qaytarib olishni rejalashtirmoqda. Qo'riqchilar muhim lavozimlarni egallab olishadi va oldindan belgilangan signal bilan yangi hukumat mahbuslari a'zolarini olib ketishadi.[17] Davlat telekanali qayta ishga tushiriladi va armiyani Chavesni qo'llab-quvvatlashga undaydi.[18] "To'liq harbiy nazorat" Chaves ma'muriyatiga qaytariladi va prezident saroyga tantanali sahnada keladi.[10] Chaves unga qarshi chiqish yaxshi, ammo unday emas deb murojaat qilgan Venesuela Konstitutsiyasi. Yakunlovchi sarlavhalarda aytilishicha, Karmona uy qamog'ida bo'lganida Mayamiga qochib ketgan va Ortega yashiringan, faqat Chavesning hech qanday oqibatlari bo'lmaydi deganidan keyin oppozitsiyani boshqarishda yordam berish uchun yana paydo bo'lgan. Aksariyat dissident generallar armiyadan chiqarib yuborilgandan so'ng AQShga qochib ketishdi. Boshqalar esa oppozitsiyaning bir qismi bo'lib qolishdi.[19]

Ishlab chiqarish

Rivojlanish

1999 yil dekabrda mustaqil irlandiyalik kinorejissyor Kim Bartli Venesuelaga tashrif buyurdi Dunyo bo'ylab tashvish oqibatlarini hujjatlashtirish uchun favqulodda vaziyatlar guruhi 1999 yil Vargas toshqini bu ko'pini vayron qilgan Vargas shtati mamlakat shimolida. Bartli fojeadan ta'sirlanganlarning Chavesni qanday qabul qilganiga hayron bo'ldi va 2000 yil oxirida,[20] u va Donnacha Briayn - kinorejissyor va sobiq hamkasbi, "Lotin Amerikasi siyosati va globallashuv atrofidagi masalalar" ga qiziqishi bilan o'rtoqlashdi.[21]- film loyihasining maqsadga muvofiqligini aniqlash uchun Karakasda ikki hafta o'tkazdi.[20] Juftlik Runway Films prodyuserlik kompaniyasini tuzdi va 2001 yil yanvar oyida Irlandiyaning kino kengashiga murojaat qildi, Bord Scannán na hÉireann (BSÉ), rivojlanish uchun grant.[22] Bartli va Briayn devorga uchib ketadigan hujjatli filmni taklif qilishdi,[21] Chavesning "shaxsiy profili va samimiy portreti"[23] bu uni "keng qo'llab-quvvatlaydi".[24] 2000 yilgi tashrif davomida kinorejissyorlar Karakasda "chinakam bir narsa yuz berayotganini" sezishgan,[20] va loyihani amalga oshirish uchun dolzarbligini sezdi; shunga qaramay, 2001 yilning apreligacha BSÉ 6000 funt sterling (9500 evro) miqdoridagi grantni tasdiqladi.[22]

Loyiha shu nuqtada nomlangan Aló Presidente, ishchi nom Chavesning haftalik televizion va radio dasturidan olingan.[25] BSÉ moliyalashtirish yo'llarini o'rganishga kirishdi;[26] tashkilot Bartley va Briaynni potentsial investorlarga namoyish etish uchun qisqa uchuvchini tayyorlashga ishontirdi,[27] ammo rejissyorlarning 131 ming evrolik ishlab chiqarish byudjeti uchun 60 ming evro miqdorida grant olish to'g'risidagi arizasini rad etdi. BSÉ juftlik ushbu sohada tajribaga ega bo'lgan va qolgan mablag'larni jalb qilishga yordam beradigan ishlab chiqarish kompaniyasi bilan hamkorlik qilish zarurligini sezdi. Bartley va ri Briayn Power Pictures kompaniyasiga murojaat qilishdi va prodyuser sifatida Devid Pauer qo'shilishi bilan yana grantga murojaat qilishdi.[27] Hatto filmni suratga olish ishlari boshlanganda ham to'liq byudjet - hozirda 200 000 evro[27]- ta'minlanmagan. Devid Pauer loyihani bir nechta hujjatli festivallarda va bozorlarda namoyish etdi. 2001 yil sentyabr oyida Dublindagi "Fantastikadan Stranger" festivalida BBC, S4C va 4-kanal sarmoya kiritishdan bosh tortdi. Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ) rivojlanish fondlarini taqdim etishga qiziqishini bildirdi; bunday kelishuv amalga oshirilmadi, ammo RTÉ Irlandiyaning translyatsiya huquqi uchun 10 000 evro (keyinchalik 20 000 evro) taklif qildi. Oktyabr oyida Gollandiyaning translyatori Nederlandse Programma Stichting shuningdek, 10 000 evro miqdorida pul to'lagan. Noyabr oyida Amsterdamdagi bozorda Pauer yana Bi-bi-siga murojaat qildi va rad etildi, chunki tashkilot film mavzusi "[uning tomoshabinlari] hayoti bilan bog'liq bo'lishi uchun juda uzoq" deb hisoblaydi.[28] Biroq, RTÉ-dan Kevin Douson filmni a-ga surib qo'ydi Evropa radioeshittirishlar ittifoqi Germaniya telekanalining qiziqishini ta'minlash uchun sessiya o'tkazilishi ZDF, keyinchalik bu mablag 'bilan ta'minlangan.[28] 2001 yil oxirida BSÉ nihoyat 63000 evrolik ishlab chiqarish grantini tasdiqladi.[29]

Suratga olish

tbc
Bartli va Briayn o'zlarining ko'pgina kadrlarini tashqi va ichki qismlarida suratga olishgan Palacio de Miraflores Karakasda.[13][21]

2000 yilda Bartley va Briayn hukumatning aloqa vaziri tomonidan Chavesga "eksklyuziv kirish" va'da qilingan edi.[29] Ular Venesuelaga 2001 yil sentyabr oyida kelishgan.[7] Uchuvchini suratga olish paytida ular prezident bilan uchrashishdi,[29] shundan so'ng ular o'zlarining yondashuvlarini qayta ko'rib chiqdilar.[30] Bartli shunday tushuntirdi: "Bizda ... Chavesni tergov qilish tushunchasi bor edi - u demagogmidi? Axborot vositasi shunchaki shunday bo'lganmi? Uni nima belgilab qo'ydi? Yaqinlashganimiz sayin hissiyotlarim o'zgardi; biz bu erda ko'rgan narsamiz - yigit demagagani emas, boshqa tomonni ichkilikbozlik, g'amxo'rlik bilan qo'zg'atadigan, haydab chiqaradigan odam. Men uni yanada shaffofroq ko'rishni boshladim - nima ko'rsangiz, shuncha olasiz. "[24] Bartli va Ó Briayn Chaves bilan kerakli bo'lgan kirish imkoniyatini beradigan munosabatlarni o'rnatishga urinishdan boshladilar. Dastlab prezidentning shtabi film ijodkorlariga shubha bilan qaragan va filmni suratga olishni qiyinlashtirgan. Ko'plab kechikishlar natijasida Bartli va Briaynlar Chavesga etib kelishdi. Ular uni qo'llab-quvvatlash uchun "to'g'ri tugmachalarni bosish" kerakligini hisoblashdi, shuning uchun unga generalning esdaliklarining eski nashrini sovg'a qilishdi Daniel Florens O'Leary bilan birga jang qilgan Simon Bolivar.[31] Ichkarida ular Irlandiyalik sotsialistik dramaturgdan iqtibos yozishgan Shon O'Keysi.[nb 4] Sekin-asta Bartley va Ó Briayn "o'zlarining kameralari natijasida har qanday o'z-o'zini anglashni eritib yuborib" sub'ektlarining ishonchini qozondilar.[32]

Chavez va uning atrofidagilar bilan ilova qilingan bo'lsada, Bartli va Briayn tashqi dunyo voqealaridan uzilib qolganini sezdilar. Chaves bilan "xaotik" yo'l safari davomida ular "nimadir kelayotganini bilishdi" va Chavesning safari uning qo'llab-quvvatlashini kuchaytirish va "odamlarni ko'chada bo'lishga odatlantirish" uchun qilingan deb taxmin qilishdi.[32] Yaqinda Chaves "Yer to'g'risidagi qonun" ning kiritilishi bilan "ante" ni ko'targan edi.[nb 5][32] Ziddiyatlarni yanada kuchaytirib, 2002 yil fevral oyida Chaves PDVSA boshqaruvini o'z qo'liga oldi;[10] xususiy OAV Bartli va Briayn uchun "hayajonli bosqichning boshlanishi" bo'lgan Chavesni tanqid qilishni kuchaytirdi.[33] 2002 yil aprelga kelib, Bartli va Briayn Karakasda bo'lishdi va ko'p vaqtlarini suratga olish bilan o'tkazishdi prezident saroyi, Chaves va uning xodimlarini kuzatib.[21] 11 aprel inqirozi rivojlanib borar ekan, Bartli va Briayn saroy tashqarisida film suratga olishdi, avval namoyish va keyingi zo'ravonliklarni tasvirga olishdi,[13] keyin saroy ichidagi voqealar, 12 aprel kuni tushdan keyin, kechqurun va erta tongda. Saroyda avvalgi aloqalari orqali Bartli va Briayn filmlarni aralashuvisiz davom ettira olishdi: "hech kim bizga e'tibor bermadi - biz shunchaki aralashdik".[21] O'sha kuni kechroq Bartli va Briayn o'zlarining xavfsizligi uchun qo'rquv tufayli saroydan uzoqlashdilar. Mamlakatni tark eta olmayapman xalqaro aeroport yopiq edi - buning o'rniga film ijodkorlari "ular [ular] guvohi bo'lgan repressiyani hujjatlashtirish uchun" ko'chalarga chiqishdi.[21] Shu bilan birga, matbuot idorasi operatori "hukumat o'zgarishiga qaramay ishidan ayrilishni istamay" saroyda edi.[21] U vaqtinchalik hukumat tuzilishini videoga oldi. Bartli va Briayn 13-aprel kuni saroyga qaytib kelishganida, operator ularga o'z kadrlarini olishga ruxsat berdi.[21] Ular 2002 yil iyulgacha Venesuelada suratga olishda qolishdi, aholi bilan suhbatlashishdi[34] davlat to'ntarishi paytida bo'lganlar - vazirlar, qo'riqchilar va jurnalistlarning "guvohlari" hisobotlarini yozib olish.[35]

Tahrirlash

"Men filmni tahrir qilayotganimda, bu ko'ngil ochish ekanligini hech qachon unutmayman ... Odamlar tomosha qilish uchun pul to'laydigan va shu bilan ularni ilgari bilmagan narsalarini o'ylashga, kulishga yoki o'rganishga majbur qiladigan narsa. Shuning uchun siz hech qachon ularni zerikishiga yo'l qo'ymang. ... Materiallar ichida doimo yuzlab hikoyalar uxlab yotadi va siz ularni topishingiz va uyg'otishingiz kerak, ammo ularni ko'ngil ochadigan qilib tashkil qilishingiz kerak. "
—Tahrir Anxel Ernandes Zoido[36]

Ikkitadan foydalanish raqamli video (DV) kameralar,[37] Bartli va Ó Briayn 200 soatdan ortiq materialni otishdi[38] 300 DV lentalarida.[34] Ular tahrirlash o'n hafta davom etishi kerak edi;[39] buning o'rniga olti oy davom etdi.[40] O'sha paytda BSÉ-ning bosh direktori Rod Stoneman filmning so'nggi uzunligi bilan taqqoslaganda kadrlar hajmini "ajoyib" deb ta'riflagan.[36] 200: 1 nisbati aksariyat hujjatli filmlar uchun odatdagidan ancha yuqori bo'lgan, odatda 10: 1 yoki 15: 1 nisbatga ega. Film ijodkorlari Irlandiyaga qaytib kelgach, ular ispan tilini biladigan muharrirga ehtiyoj sezdilar. Bartli Kubada beysbol haqida ko'rgan hujjatli filmini esladi, El juego de Kuba, shuning uchun ular uning muharriri Anxel Ernandes Zoidoni yolladilar. Zoido filmga go'yo o'yin-kulgidek yaqinlashdi, chunki asosiy e'tibor tomoshabinlarni zeriktirmaslikdir.[36] U har bir voqeani xuddi shu tarzda hal qildi. Tomosha qilgandan keyin shoshilib Bartley va Briayn bilan Zoido ulardan: "Biz bu sahnada nima demoqchimiz?"[41] U ikkita omilga e'tibor qaratdi: syujetni boshqarish va hissiyotni ta'minlash uchun qancha ma'lumot kerak bo'ladi. Yolg'iz ishlashni afzal ko'rgan Zoido, keyinchalik film ijodkorlarini tahrirlash to'plamidan yuboradi. Zoido sahnani tugatgandan so'ng, trio ushbu maqsadlarning amalga oshirilganligini muhokama qildi.[41]

Katta miqdordagi kadrlar va film ijodkorlarining "qaysidir ma'noda ... unga birinchi marta qarashlari" filmning kontseptsiyasi faqat montaj paytida aniq bo'lganligini anglatadi.[36] 11-13 aprel voqealari unga "yangi dramatik markaz" berdi,[41] Bartley va and Briayn filmning to'ntarishga to'liq e'tibor qaratmasligini istashgan bo'lsa ham. Ular ko'proq tarixiy va siyosiy kontekstni o'z ichiga olishni maqsad qilishgan;[41] post-prodaktsiyaning oxirigacha e'tibor toraygan[40] ommaviy axborot vositalarining Venesuela siyosatidagi roliga ko'proq e'tibor berish.[35] 2002 yil oktyabr oyida Stoneman va BSÉ ishlab chiqarish va ishlab chiqarish rahbari Brendan Makkartiga ikki soatlik "qo'pol kesish" ko'rsatildi.[40] Ushbu versiyada Bartli va Briayn 2002 yil aprelidan keyin qo'lga kiritgan "guvohlar" yozuvlari kiritilgan. Stouneman bu ketma-ketliklar filmning da'volarini kuchaytirgan, ammo "o'ziga xosligini susaytirgan" deb hisoblagan.[35] U ularni qisqartirishlarini va buning o'rnini qoplash uchun Bartley va Briayn ovoz chiqarib yozib olishlari va o'zlarini ko'proq guvoh-qahramon sifatida joylashtirishlari kerakligini ta'kidladilar.[35]

Tahrirlash davom etar ekan, byudjet taqchilligi BSÉ bilan shartnomalarni yakunlashiga to'sqinlik qildi. Tashkilot, shuningdek, loyiha tugamagan taqdirda, ishlab chiqarishdan keyingi mablag'larni "ta'sir qilishni cheklash" uchun cheklab qo'ydi.[35] Stouneman Bi-bi-sining sobiq hamkasbi Nik Freyzer bilan bog'landi.[42] 2001 yilda filmni moliyalashtirishda yordam berishdan bosh tortgan.[28] Freyzer edi ishga tushirish muharriri BBC uchun Storyville hujjatli filmlar seriyasi. Stonemanning so'zlariga ko'ra, Freyzer "hali ham bir qarorga kelmagan", deb aytgan rahbari BBC Ikki bu "biz Chavesni qildik".[42] Shunga qaramay, Bi-bi-si filmni oldindan sotib oldi va 2002 yil dekabrida qo'pol ravishda qisqartirildi.[42] Bi-bi-si buyrug'i bilan televizion versiyaning ochilishi yanada dramatik tarzda amalga oshirildi. Freyzer ovozni eshitishga ishonchsiz edi; u Bartlining so'zlariga ko'ra, "yukni" qabul qilishi haqida ko'proq "fikrlangan" rivoyatni so'radi.[42] Bi-bi-si to'g'ridan-to'g'ri so'ramagan bo'lsa-da, Bartlining taassurotlari shundaki, tashkilot filmni "Chavesga qarshi" bo'lishini xohlaydi.[42] Keyinchalik Fraser, u rejissyorlardan "Chavez tarafdori bo'lmagan odam bilan [intervyu] olishni" so'raganini aytdi.[8] Shuningdek, u filmni tahrirlashda yordam berish uchun ko'proq tajribali rejissyorni jalb qilishni taklif qildi. Kinorejissyorlar "ozgina ozgina murosaga kelishdi", ammo katta tahrirlarga qarshilik ko'rsatdilar.[42] Ó Yakuniy tanlovda Briaynning ovozi "jilolangan, ammo sezilarli darajada o'zgarmagan".[42]

Film ijodkorlari filmning ikkita versiyasini yaratdilar. Chaves: to'ntarish ichida, televizion eshittirish uchun mo'ljallangan, 52 daqiqa davom etadi.[9] Xususiyat uzunligi Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish etilmaydi- uning nomini Gil Skott-Heron Qo'shiq shu nom bilan[43]- 74 daqiqa.[9]

Chiqarish

Televizor

Chaves: to'ntarish ichida efirga uzatildi RTÉ One 2003 yil 18 fevralda, kanalning to'lovi sifatida Haqiqiy hayot hujjatli serial. Eshittirish qizg'in jamoatchilik va tanqidiy munosabatlarga, radio va gazetalarda "qizg'in munozaralarga" sabab bo'ldi; Tez orada RTÉ takroriy translyatsiyani uyushtirdi.[16] Birlashgan Qirollikda, bu kanalning bir qismi sifatida 2003 yil 16 oktyabrda BBC Two-da namoyish etildi Storyville hujjatli film,[44] va boshqalar BBC to'rtligi 2003 yil 18-noyabrda.[45] Chaves: to'ntarish ichida shuningdek, Kanada, Yaponiya, Germaniya, Frantsiya, Gollandiya, Finlyandiya va Daniyada namoyish etildi.[46] Televizion ko'rsatuvlarning tezligi to'liq teatr tomoshasini ehtimoldan yiroq qildi - keyinchalik film ijodkorlari afsuslanishdi.[nb 6] Filmni AQShdagi televizion kompaniya ham qabul qilib olmadi, ammo HBO bir nuqtada qiziqib qoldi.[48] Venesuelada, La revolución no será transmitida premyerasi 2003 yil 13 aprelda,[49] davlat telekanalida Venezolana de Televisión (VTV).[50] O'shandan beri u Venesuela televizion kanallarida muntazam ravishda namoyish etib kelinmoqda; davlat tomonidan moliyalashtiriladigan jamoat stantsiyasi Catia TVe filmni ko'pincha "tortishuvli siyosiy kon'yunkturalar" paytida namoyish etadi, masalan 2004 yilgi referendumni qayta chaqirish, 2006 yilgi prezident saylovi va 2007 yilda hukumatning shaxsiy televidenie tarmog'ining litsenziyasini uzaytirmaslik haqidagi tortishuvli urinishini "qo'llab-quvvatlashga yordam berish" uchun RCTV.[51]

Festivallar va teatr tomoshalari

tbc
Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish etilmaydi tijorat premyerasi Nyu-York shahrida bo'lib o'tdi Film forumi 2003 yil noyabrda.[1]

Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish etilmaydi 2003 yilda bir nechta film festivallarida namoyish etilgan va ko'plab mukofotlarga sazovor bo'lgan.[48] Bilan boshlanadi Janubi-g'arbiy tomonidan festival 7 mart kuni,[21] uning festival namoyishlari kiritilgan Banff Butunjahon televizion festivali, Sietl xalqaro kinofestivali, Marsel hujjatli filmlar festivali, Uch qit'a kinofestivali,[52] The Chikago xalqaro kinofestivali,[53] The Monako xalqaro kinofestivali, Galway Film Fleadh va Los-Anjelesdagi Wine & Country festivali.[54] 2003 yil mart oyida filmning VHS nusxasi 100 kishigacha namoyish qilindi Amerika kinematikasi Los-Anjelesdagi Irlandiya kinofestivali. Tomoshabinlar orasida Vitagraph Films prezidenti Devid Shultz ham bor edi, u teatrda tarqatish huquqini sotib oldi va filmni videodan o'tkazish uchun pul to'ladi. Shultz dastlab ko'rgazma ishtirokchilarini qo'llab-quvvatlash uchun kurash olib bordi; ular filmning tijorat istiqbollariga shubha bilan qarashgan va AQSh boshchiligidagi tanqidiy film uchun "atrof-muhit mehmondo'st emas" deb hisoblashgan. 2003 yil Iroqqa bostirib kirish.[55] Ular faqat bir necha oydan so'ng, siyosiy tushunchalar o'zgarganda va jamoat Venesuelani neftga boyligi sababli ko'proq bilganida qabul qilishdi.[55] Shunday eksponentlardan biri Film forumi Nyu-York shahrida. Teatr dasturchisi Mayk Magjiore filmni bozorga chiqarish va kino tanqidchilari bilan o'z obro'sini ko'tarish uchun ishlagan. U yaratdi press to'plamlari va "ma'lum bir auditoriyaga" murojaat qilish uchun ma'lumot tarqatdi.[56]

Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish etilmaydi 2003 yil noyabr oyida bo'lib o'tgan Film Forumida namoyish etildi. Namoyish teatr tashqarisida filmni qo'llab-quvvatlovchilar va tanqidchilarning norozilik namoyishlari bilan birga bo'lib, ikkalasi ham "tomoshabinlarning qabuliga ta'sir o'tkazishga urinishdi".[57] Bir necha hafta oldin film an Xalqaro Amnistiya Vankuverdagi kinofestivali; tashkilotning Karakas qo'li xodimlari "agar ular ko'rsatilsa, o'zlarining xavfsizligidan qo'rqishgan".[58] Filmning 2003 yildagi muvaffaqiyati Grierson mukofotlari Londonda joylashgan venesuelalik kinorejissyorlarning Grierson hakamlar hay'atiga yozgan maktubi bilan ham soyada qoldi, ular voqealar versiyasini bahslashdilar.[52] Kinoforum premyerasida muxolifat namoyishchilari filmning "xolisligi, aniqligi, haqiqati, tahririyat yaxlitligi va g'oyaviy mustaqilligi" ga shubha bilan qarashga urinishdi, tarafdorlari esa "teatr muxlislarini tsenzurani qoralashga undashdi" va petisiya imzolashdi.[57] Muxolifatning norozilik namoyishlari Kanada, Avstraliya va Frantsiyadagi namoyishlarni ham kutib oldi.[57] Kinoforumda qatnashish 26 495 dollar (22 600 evro) ishlab topdi - bu Maggiore kutganidan bir necha ming dollar ko'proq.[59] Olti shahardagi teatrlarda cheklangan tomoshadan so'ng,[46] film $ 200,000 (171,000 €) dan ko'proq pul ishlagan,[nb 7][62] unchalik foydali emas, ammo baribir "hujjatli film uchun muhim summa" deb hisoblanadi.[59]

Norasmiy tarqatish

Bartli va Briayn 2003 yil fevral oyida Chavesga filmni namoyish etishdi. Ular uning javobini "juda hissiy" deb esladilar.[63] BSÉ film uchun Venesuelaning litsenziyalash to'lovlaridan voz kechdi; 13 aprel kuni u Karakasdagi kinoteatrda televizion eshittirish bilan bir vaqtda namoyish etildi, undan oldin Chaves "Ushbu filmni tomosha qiling va to'ntarish yuzini ko'rasiz" degan ma'ruza qildi.[64] Chavez tarafdorlari ham filmni norasmiy ravishda tarqatishdi. The Salvador xalqi bilan birdamlik qo'mitasi filmni Nyu-York shahrida namoyish qildi, u erda Bolivar davri a'zolari bootleg nusxalari uchun "xayriya mablag'larini qabul qilishdi".[65] El Universal Venesuela hukumati 10000 nusxada tayyorlanganligini aytdi,[49] va ko'ra Milliy sharh, Venesuela Axborot byurosi (VIO) "art-House teatrlarini filmni namoyish etishga da'vat etdi".[66] Hukumat vakillari filmning rasmiy va norasmiy ravishda tarqatilishiga yordam berishdi.[67] Venesuela kinorejissyori Volfgang Shalkning aytishicha, film Venesuela elchixonalarining dunyo miqyosidagi ko'magi va San-Frantsisko, Los-Anjeles, Chikago va Nyu-York kabi shaharlardagi universitetlar va teatrlarda filmni bepul namoyish etish uchun qilingan jamoatchilik bilan aloqalar sa'y-harakatiga ishonadi.[49] Peace Action Nyu-Yorkka mablag 'yig'ish paytida skrining uchun ruxsat berildi Linkoln markazi, bu erda 250 kishi filmni ko'rish va Venesuelaning bosh konsuli Leonor Granado kabi mehmonlar bilan "savol-javoblar" da qatnashish uchun har biriga 35 dollar (30 evro) to'lagan.[67] Konsullik idorasi filmning DVD-disklarini "nusxasini istagan har bir kishiga" taqdim etdi, chunki Granadoning ta'kidlashicha, film "AQShda Venesuela hukumati uchun qo'llab-quvvatlash" uchun juda muhimdir.[67]

Jurnalist Maykl Makkoven Chavesga qarshi fikrlarni bildirgan bir guruh odamlarni film namoyishiga taklif qildi. Uning so'zlariga ko'ra, tomoshabinlarning ba'zilari Chavesni ko'rgandan keyin o'z fikrlarini o'zgartirgan, garchi ko'pchilik dushman bo'lib qolishgan. Makkanning ta'kidlashicha, konsensus asosida film bo'lgan ""ajoyib" va oqilona ob'ektiv ", ammo" Chaves mamlakatni totalitar qabrga olib boruvchi diktator bo'lib qoldi ".[68] 2006 yildan boshlab, kabi guruhlar Global Exchange filmni namoyish qilishni o'z ichiga olgan Venesuelaga ekskursiyalar uyushtirgan.[69]

Tahlil

To'g'ri aniqlik

Venesuelada munozara Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish etilmaydi "ko'pincha kelishmovchilik".[70] Film odamlarning 2002 yil aprel voqealari haqidagi tushunchalarini shakllantirish uchun kalit bo'ldi.[71] Ilgari qabul qilingan xalqaro nuqtai nazar shundan iboratki, Chavesni hokimiyatdan chetlatilishi uning rejimining repressiyalariga qarshi "o'z-o'zidan paydo bo'lgan xalq javobi" dan kelib chiqqan; film ushbu pozitsiyaga "to'g'ridan-to'g'ri zid keladi",[21] va chiqarilganidan beri u tezda "[inqiroz] ning asosiy talqini" ga aylandi.[7] Film tanqidchilari muhim voqealarni qoldirgan yoki noto'g'ri ko'rsatganlikda ayblamoqda. Tanqidning aksariyati kinorejissyorlarning "stok [hujjatli] qurilmalardan foydalanishi", masalan, bir voqea sifatida taqdim etish uchun bir nechta voqealardan olingan kliplarni kompozitsiyalashga qaratilgan.[72] Parallel tahrirlash, shuningdek, ketma-ketliklarni bir vaqtning o'zida sodir bo'lgandek tasvirlaydi, ba'zi kadrlar turli kunlarda olingan. Bartli va Ó Briayn ushbu usullarni hujjatli realistik filmlar qurilishida odatiy amaliyot sifatida asoslashadi.[72] Yozayotgan Karakaslik jurnalist Fil Gunson Columbia Journalism Review, filmni qabul qilgan kino tanqidchilarining aksariyati vaziyatning "murakkab, chalkash haqiqati" ga beparvo qarashganini aytmoqda.[7] U kinorejissyorlar "asosiy faktlarni e'tiborsiz qoldiradi, boshqalarni ixtiro qiladi, voqealar ketma-ketligini o'z ishini qo'llab-quvvatlaydi va noqulay tasvirlarni arxivdan olib tashlangan boshqalarga almashtiradi", deb ayblaydi.[7] Bartli va Briayn Gyunsonning fikrlari Venesuelada "fikrlarni bo'lishishda davom etadigan" bahsli masalalar "deb ta'kidlaydilar.[73] Muallif Brayan A. Nelsonning ta'kidlashicha, Bartli va Briayn - Chaves bilan dastlabki uchrashuvlarida faqat irlandiyalik generalga murojaat qilishgan. Daniel O'Leary filmni suratga olishda prezidentning qo'llab-quvvatlashiga erishish; Nelsonning ta'kidlashicha, ular ochiq kirish evaziga prezidentni ijobiy tasvirlashni taklif qilishgan, "agar men siznikini qirib tashlasam, mening orqamni qirib tashlaysizlar" degan tushunchani qo'lga kiritgan holda, u film oxir-oqibat "bevafo chavismo" da aks etganini aytmoqda.[74]

BBC va Ofcom tekshiruvlari

"[Film] atrofida tortishuvlar va tortishuvlar boshlandi, yuqori darajadagi shikoyatlar va javoblar tashkilotchilarga, distribyutorlarga va kuratorlarga etib bordi, natijada maqolalar, iltimosnoma va rasmiy shikoyatlarning nashr etilishi bilan yakunlandi. ... Chavesga qarshi bo'lganlar, Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish etilmaydi 'Venesuela hukumatining [mamlakatda] sodir bo'layotgan voqealarning xolis, manipulyatsiya qilingan va yolg'on versiyasini xalqaro miqyosda tarqatish uchun asosiy qurolidir.'"
- Rod Stoneman, BSÉ kompaniyasining sobiq bosh direktori[75]

Filmning 2003 yil oktyabr oyida BBC Ikki kanalida namoyish etilganidan ko'p o'tmay, venesuelalik muhandis va rejissyor Volfgang Shalk qarshi kampaniya boshladi Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish etilmaydi, vakili El Gusano de Luz ("Nur qurti"), Venesuela muxolifati bilan bog'liq tashkilot. Iyul oyida Shalk filmni efirga uzatishi to'g'risida RTÉ kompaniyasiga shikoyat qilgan edi.[68] 21 oktyabr kuni El Gusano de Luz internet-murojaatnomasi doirasida "batafsil tanqid" nashr qildi[76] 11000 imzo chekuvchilarni jalb qildi, ularning 85% o'zlarini venesuelalik deb atashdi.[77] Filmni moliyalashtirgan va efirga uzatgan Evropa telekanallariga yo'naltirilgan,[49] murojaatnomada qisman "Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish etilmaydi mualliflik filmi sifatida, ob'ektiv jurnalistik tadqiqot filmi sifatida namoyish etilmoqda, ammo bu haqiqatan ham Venesuela hukumati tomonidan moddiy-texnik jihatdan qo'llab-quvvatlangan juda yaxshi rejalashtirilgan va amalga oshirilgan targ'ibot operatsiyasi bo'lib, bularning barchasini bilmagan mamlakatlarning tayyor bo'lmagan tomoshabinlarini yo'ldan ozdirish maqsadida. voqealar to'g'risida. "[77] Murojaatnomada filmga oid 18 ta aniq tortishuvlar taqdim etildi.[77] Tez orada Venesuela xususiy televideniyesi filmni "disektsiya qilgan va qoralagan" ikkita dasturni namoyish etdi va shu kabi gazeta maqolalari chiqdi.[78]

Filmga bo'lgan g'azabning aksariyati uning xalqaro miqyosdagi mashhur obro'sidan kelib chiqqan;[78] unga "Bi-bi-sining imprimaturasi ... adolatli va obro'li xabarlarning mazmuni bilan baraka" berilgani vaziyatni yanada yomonlashtirdi.[75] Jon Berns, yozish paytida Sunday Times, Gunsonning ko'plab dalillarini takrorladi,[79] va Bi-bi-si 4000 ga elektron pochta orqali xabar yuborishni talab qildi Storyville'ishga tushirilgan muharriri Nik Freyzer ishdan bo'shatilsin.[8] 2003 yil oxirlarida tanqidning og'irligi Bi-bi-sini harakat qilishga majbur qildi.[79] Korporatsiya shikoyatlar bo'limi tekshiruv boshlagan va Frayzerning aytishicha, Bi-bi-si film tugaguniga qadar uni boshqa namoyish etmaydi. U Devid Pauerga so'nggi sarlavhalardagi xatolik va xronologiyadan tashqari kadrlar ishlatilishidan alohida xavotirda ekanligi haqida maktub yozib, "bu haqiqiy muammo, xususan ... chunki bu fosh etishga bag'ishlangan filmda ishlatilganligi sababli. Venesuela televideniesining firibgarliklari ".[79] The furor came at a difficult time for the corporation, which was under the spotlight of the Hutton so'rovi, the official investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of Devid Kelli; the BBC had been criticized for reporting that intelligence dossiers had been "sexed up" by the UK government to justify the 2003 yil Iroqqa bostirib kirish.[8]

The petition's claims were also taken up by the UK's independent telecommunications regulator, Ofcom.[76] The body investigated official protests made by several Caracas residents. The concerns largely focused on footage of the residents' attending a neighborhood meeting in June 2002, which was positioned in the film as a prelude to the April coup attempt. The residents said that the filmmakers had used footage of them without consent and that the film had misrepresented their views.[44] In September 2005, Ofcom provisionally ruled that it had not upheld the complaints, citing the BBC's internal review and rebuttal as grounds.[80] A subsequent appeal by the residents was unsuccessful.[44] Two weeks after Ofcom's initial ruling, the BBC announced it had closed the complaint and that no further investigations would take place.[80] Stoneman believed the BBC had overreacted, saying its guardedness was merely a product of being a frequent victim of press attacks on its ethos. Fraser said, "The film was very good in many respects, but also misleading."[8] He believed the filmmakers considered Chávez honorable, but having written a book on Peronizm was more skeptical himself. Fraser concluded, "I still think it's a good film, because of the coup sequence. It should be seen as a Venezuelan West Wing —biased, of course, but highly entertaining."[8]

Responsibility for violence

One of the film's key contentions is that the private media aired footage selectively to make it look like the violence of 11 April was caused by Chávez's supporters, portraying them as an "irrational and uncivilized mob".[59] Private television repeatedly showed Chávez's supporters on Puente Llaguno as they shot at Baralt Avenue below, an area purportedly full of opposition marchers.[7] The film says this footage was edited to show the gunmen but not the people near them who were ducking to avoid being shot. It follows with images taken from above the bridge showing an empty Baralt Avenue, claiming that "the opposition march had never taken that route" and that Chávez's supporters were only returning fire.[13] Gunson charges that this edit is itself a misrepresentation, stating that the film does not mention that both sets of marchers were fired upon, and taking issue with the implication that "coup plotters" were the shooters.[7] In response, the filmmakers say, "Nowhere in the film did we say that only [Chávez's supporters] were shot ... Nobody can say with certainty who orchestrated the shootings."[73] Gunson also asserts that the footage of the empty street was taken earlier that day, citing an "analysis of the shadows" by Schalk,[7] who created a counter-documentary, Yolg'onning rentgenogrammasi, to examine The Revolution Will Not Be Televised "scene by scene to uncover [its] narrative strategies and use of artifice".[38] Brian A. Nelson agreed with the analysis, claiming that Baralt Avenue was not as empty as the film portrays and that the filmmakers "put a black bar at the top of the frame to hide the Metropolitan Police trucks that were still there".[81] Bartley and Ó Briain reaffirmed their claim that the opposition did not pass below the Puente Llaguno bridge, citing eyewitness statements—including one from Le Monde Diplomatique's deputy editor—and an Australian documentary, Anatomy of a Coup, that "came to conclusions similar to our own".[73] A Venezuelan documentary, Puente Llaguno: Claves de una Masacre, also supported Bartley and Ó Briain's view.[82]

Timeline and media depictions

Other issues of contention include the lack of historical context; the film does not cover some of the events leading up to Chávez's ousting, including the long-running political crisis and the general strike. Gunson also criticizes the filmmakers for showing events out of order. In June 2002, they filmed an opposition community group as its members considered "how to defend themselves against possible ... attacks" from Chávez's supporters.[7] In the film, this sequence is placed before the march. Bartley justified the action, saying that the residents' opinions were representative of those held "long before" the events of April 2002.[73] Responding to the critique, the BBC added a date stamp to the sequence for the film's repeat broadcast.[83] Gunson also cites footage of Caracas mayor Freddi Bernal as he sings to a happy group of Chávez supporters in front of the palace. Later images of a "differently dressed Bernal" reveal that the footage was from another day.[7] Similarly, Gunson says that until shot at, "The opposition march was entirely peaceful."[7] The film presents footage of its "violent finale"—including an image from another day—as if it occurred during the protest's approach to the palace, accompanied by the narrated claim that "some in the vanguard looked ready for a fight".[7] Bartley and Ó Briain admit that they included a "limited" amount of archive footage,[73] but say it was a "legitimate reconstruction"[84] to build context "before the core narrative of the coup [took] off" as they "could not be everywhere filming at all times".[73]

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised claims that state television was "the only channel to which [Chávez] had access", but does not mention that during the violence he requisitioned "all radio and TV frequencies" to broadcast his two-hour address.[7] Private television circumvented the rules allowing this action by splitting the screen, showing Chávez's address on one side and footage of the violence on the other.[7] Chávez subsequently took television stations RCTV va Venevisión off the air.[85] The film's assertion that VTV was taken over by opposition "plotters" is also disputed; ga binoan Yolg'onning rentgenogrammasi and Gunson, staff left willingly.[7][85] Gunson further alleges that footage of VTV's signal being cut—mid-interview with a government legislator—was fabricated.[7] Bartley and Ó Briain say they witnessed ministers' being unable to broadcast and that the International Federation of Journalists corroborated their claim that opposition forces took over VTV.[73] The film also presents footage of armored vehicles around the palace, which Gunson says were there at the request of the president, not the opposition. He also challenges the film for presenting Chávez's supporters as "invariably poor, brown-skinned, and cheerful" and the opposition as "rich, white, racist, and violent".[7] He says that the opposition protests were multiracial and that armed government supporters "made the center of Caracas a no-go area".[7] Bartley and Ó Briain cite several commentators who uphold the claim that Chávez's supporters "were broadly poor and dark-skinned and the opposition broadly white and middle class", including Gunson himself in an April 2002 article in Christian Science Monitor.[73] Gunson does agree that the film was right to point out that the private media "behaved disgracefully" by "systematically [excluding the pro-Chávez] viewpoint from print, radio, and TV" during the period of the coup.[7]

Harbiy ishtirok

Of greater concern, Gunson says, is the "deliberate blurring of responsibility for the coup".[7] The film presents the idea that the military commanders dispersed, "leaving a total power vacuum".[7] However, the high command's senior figure, General Lucas Rincón (who announced Chávez's resignation on television), was not part of the coup and remained in the government after April 2002.[7] The petition draws the conclusion, "(1) either General Rincón stated a truth that was accepted throughout the whole country ... or (2) General Rincón lied, because he was an accomplice ... that seems not to be the truth because he [remained in Chávez's administration]."[86] Only one of the high command joined Carmona's interim administration before contributing to its downfall by withdrawing his support. The military leaders shown withdrawing their support for Chávez were not the high command, and Vice-Admiral Hector Ramirez Perez was not the head of the navy, as the film claims. Gunson says, "With one solitary exception, these generals and admirals had not 'fled abroad' after the Carmona government collapsed."[7] Although Bartley and Ó Briain accept that Rincón said Chávez "had agreed to resign",[86] they reiterate that "elements in the military [threatened] force in the effort to make Chávez resign"; the filmmakers say it is "irrelevant" that the whole military did not join the coup, as this "is the case with most coups".[73] General Rincón's announcement was omitted because they felt it was "supplementary to the main, key fact of the story",[7] that no documentary evidence of the resignation exists.[86]

Yolg'onning rentgenogrammasi

Schalk investigated The Revolution Will Not Be Televised besh oy davomida.[58] In 2004, he and producer Thaelman Urguelles responded to the film with their own documentary, Yolg'onning rentgenogrammasi, which set out to expose its "manipulation".[87] Schalk said the film "presented a distorted version of events ... to fit a story that appeals to audiences". Schalk is associated with the Venezuelan opposition;[58] Bartley and Ó Briain say that it is "not insignificant that Schalk has led the well-resourced campaign, linked to [the opposition], to discredit and suppress [the film]".[73]

Chavez: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

In 2008, Stoneman published Chavez: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised – A Case Study of Politics and the Media. A book "of film studies rather than politics", it nevertheless looks in detail at the petition's arguments.[8] Stoneman "broadly absolves" the filmmakers; he concludes, "There were some relatively small examples of slippage in the grammar of the piece, but overall the film was made with honesty and integrity. Of the 18 objections made, 15, if not 17, were wrong. The filmmakers spent a long time assembling evidence to show why they'd done what they'd done in the film and mostly it's true."[8] Stoneman conceded that the filmmakers' cinéma vérité approach meant that for wider historical and political context, viewers should look elsewhere. Stoneman received an "Executive Producer" credit on the film, which he explains as an unasked-for gratuity that came by virtue of his position as head of BSÉ.[8]

Qabul qilish

Tanqidiy javob

Among mainstream critics in the US and UK, the film received almost exclusively positive reviews.[88] Rotten Tomatoes reported that 98% of 48 sampled critics gave the film a positive review, with an average score of 7.9 out of 10.[89] Da Metakritik, belgilaydigan a o'rtacha vazn out of 100 to critics' reviews, the film received a score of 82 based on 24 reviews.[88] Almost all local and national film critics in the United States said the film presented a "riveting narrative", but conceded that it was a biased account of the events.[1]

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised gets viewers inside these tense, emotional and occasionally terrifying events with immediacy and, given the confusion of the time, remarkable clarity. Bartley and O'Briain are clearly Chavez supporters—their glowing portrait of this controversial leader is never punctuated by critical questions about his policies or methods. But the filmmakers' biases don't stop The Revolution Will Not Be Televised from being riveting drama."
—Ann Hornaday, writing in Washington Post[90]

Frank Scheck, writing in Hollywood Reporter, said the film presented an enthralling story that "resembles a taut ... political thriller",[91] va Rojer Ebert ichida Chikago Sun-Times called it a "remarkable documentary" full of "astonishing shots".[92] Both critics said the film was made so through the filmmakers' unique inside access to the events at the palace with Ebert calling that aspect "unique in film history".[91][92] Although Ebert was generally very praising of the film, he criticised the way in which Chávez's opponents were portrayed,[92] while Shenk faulted the lack of historical context; however, he said this was balanced by the film's "brevity and succinctness".[91] Yilda Turli xillik, Scott Foundas wrote that the film was a "superior example of fearless filmmakers in exactly the right place at the right time", and likely the best of a string of documentaries that have shone the light on US involvement in South America.[93] He had praise for the camera work and editing, and said the film was a "startling record" that reached "another level" when events shifted to the presidential palace.[93] He cited these scenes—along with those of the protesters' clashing—as ones that "spark with a vibrant tension and uncertainty".[93]

J. Hoberman ning Qishloq ovozi said the film was a "gripping" account that did "an excellent job in deconstructing the Venezuelan TV news footage of blood, chaos, and rival crowds", and said it was "nearly a textbook on ommaviy axborot vositalarining manipulyatsiyasi ".[94] Yozish The New York Times, Stiven Xolden said the film was "a riveting documentary" that delivered "the suspense of a smaller-scale Seven Days in May ", citing the way in which it examined how television can be used to "deceive and manipulate the public".[95] He reproached the film's uncritical depiction of Chávez, and how it hinted at CIA involvement without presenting any proof.[95] Ty Burr yilda Boston Globe called the film "our best chance" to find out what really happened on 11–13 April, but cautioned that the filmmakers' "pro-Chávez stance" meant that for wider context audiences should look elsewhere, as it left out too much of Chávez's record.[43] Burr also said the film's attempt to make the US into a villain was ineffective. He said, "because [the filmmakers] view the chasm that divides Venezuela purely in the context of the Cold War and Latin American political instability, they downplay the class warfare that's exploding right in front of them."[43] Nevertheless, Burr concluded that the film's narrow focus remained engrossing.[43]

Desson Thomson of Washington Post stated that the film successfully reproduced the "panic and fear" at the palace as events unfolded, saying it came across like a "raw, Kosta-Gavras -style thriller" that was "worth watching down to the last thrilling minute".[96] He said that knowing how uncertain Venezuela's future was made the film even more powerful. Thomson believed the handheld video was put to good use, calling its "news-breaking immediacy ... intoxicating".[96] U xulosa qildi "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is an extraordinary piece of electronic history. And a riveting movie."[96] In Mayami New Times, Brett Sokol agreed that the film was "never less than thrilling", but said that as history, it was "strictly agitprop".[97] Similarly, Mark Jenkins wrote in the Washington City Paper that the film was "unapologetically polemical", but "notable foremost as a gripping you-are-there account".[98]

Taqdirlar

The film won several awards in 2003–04. It was also nominated for Best Documentary and Best Irish Film at the Irish Film and Television Awards.[99] Yillik International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam gives an acclaimed filmmaker the chance to screen his or her Top 10 films. In 2007, Iranian filmmaker Maziar Bahari tanlangan The Revolution will not be Televised for his top ten classics from the history of films.[100]

Film organization
Award won
Banff World Television Festival

Best Information and Current Affairs Program
Bosh mukofot[101]

Chikago xalqaro kinofestivali

Kumush Ugo[53]

ESB Media Awards

Eng yaxshi hujjatli film
Yilning eng yaxshi jurnalisti[54]

Evropa radioeshittirishlar ittifoqi

Golden Link Award (Best Co-Production)[102]

Galway Film Fleadh

Eng yaxshi hujjatli film[54]

Grierson mukofotlari

Best International Feature Documentary[54]

Xalqaro hujjatli uyushma

Best Feature Documentary (shared with Balseros )[103]

Lids xalqaro kinofestivali

Tomoshabinlar mukofoti[104]

Los Angeles Wine & Country Festival

Eng yaxshi hujjatli film[54]

Marsel hujjatli filmlar festivali

Best International Feature Documentary[54]

Monako xalqaro kinofestivali

Golden Nymph Award (Best European Current Affairs Documentary)[54]

Peabody mukofoti

Excellence in Television Broadcasting[105]

Italiya chempionati

Television Documentary[102]

Seattle International Film Festival

Eng yaxshi hujjatli film[53]

Adabiyotlar

Izohlar

  1. ^ Exchange rates are based on the Oanda korporatsiyasi 's historical records of average interbank lending rates davrdan boshlab.
  2. ^ According to Phil Gunson in Columbia Journalism Review, in Venezuela, "It is hard, if not impossible, to find an impartial observer. Most of the country's private news media have openly joined the opposition. State radio and TV are crude cheerleaders for the government."[7]
  3. ^ This synopsis describes the 74-minute cut of the film,The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The 52-minute television version, Chávez: Inside the Coup, begins differently but covers the same major incidents.
  4. ^ "You cannot put a rope around the neck of an idea; you cannot put an idea up against the barrack-square wall and riddle it with bullets; you cannot confine it in the strongest prison cell your slaves could ever build."[32]
  5. ^ Introduced in November 2001 as one of 49 presidential decrees, the Land Law aimed to increase the country's food production by breaking up and redistributing unused or underused land.
  6. ^ Stoneman speculates that the television broadcasts may have prevented the film from being nominated for the Eng yaxshi hujjatli film uchun Oskar mukofoti (the Academy's rules disqualify broadcast features).[47]
  7. ^ The $200,000 figure is supported by Stoneman,[46] but box office tracking websites The Numbers and Box Office Mojo both say the film earned $153,859 (€131,300) from eight theaters over 59 days.[60][61]

Izohlar

  1. ^ a b v Schiller (2009), p. 488.
  2. ^ Schiller (2009), p. 494.
  3. ^ a b Stoneman (2008), p. 5.
  4. ^ a b v Stoneman (2008), p. 6.
  5. ^ a b Stoneman (2008), p. 7.
  6. ^ Stoneman (2008), p. 8.
  7. ^ a b v d e f g h men j k l m n o p q r s t siz v w x y z aa ab Gunson, Phil (May–June 2004). "Director's cut: did an acclaimed documentary about the 2002 coup in Venezuela tell the whole story?". Columbia Journalism Review 43 (1): 59–61.
  8. ^ a b v d e f g h men j McKay, Alastair (Qish 2008). "Inqilob televidenie orqali namoyish qilinmaydi, ammo to'ntarishga urinish jinsiy aloqada bo'lishi mumkin". Mahsulot jurnali (Red Herring Arts and Media): 10. ISSN 1468-9901.
  9. ^ a b v d Stoneman (2008), p. 29.
  10. ^ a b v d e f g h Stoneman (2008), p. 30.
  11. ^ Bartley & Ó Briain (2003), chapter 6.
  12. ^ Bartley & Ó Briain (2003), chapter 7.
  13. ^ a b v d Bartley & Ó Briain (2003), chapter 8.
  14. ^ a b Bartley & Ó Briain (2003), chapter 10.
  15. ^ Bartley & Ó Briain (2003), chapter 11.
  16. ^ a b Stoneman (2008), p. 31.
  17. ^ Bartley & Ó Briain (2003), chapter 12.
  18. ^ Bartley & Ó Briain (2003), chapter 13.
  19. ^ Bartley & Ó Briain (2003), chapter 15.
  20. ^ a b v Stoneman (2008), p. 11.
  21. ^ a b v d e f g h men j King, Michael (7 March 2003). "The Camera Is Mightier Than the... Trapped inside a Venezuelan coup: Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain's 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised'". Ostin xronikasi.
  22. ^ a b Stoneman (2008), p. 12.
  23. ^ Stoneman (2008), p. 1.
  24. ^ a b Stoneman (2008), p. 13.
  25. ^ Stoneman (2008), p. 4.
  26. ^ Stoneman (2008), p. 14.
  27. ^ a b v Stoneman (2008), p. 15.
  28. ^ a b v Stoneman (2008), p. 16.
  29. ^ a b v Stoneman (2008), p. 17.
  30. ^ Stoneman (2008), p. 18.
  31. ^ Stoneman (2008), p. 19.
  32. ^ a b v d Stoneman (2008), p. 20.
  33. ^ Stoneman (2008), p. 21.
  34. ^ a b Stoneman (2008), p. 22.
  35. ^ a b v d e Stoneman (2008), p. 26.
  36. ^ a b v d Stoneman (2008), p. 23.
  37. ^ Schiller (2009), p. 483.
  38. ^ a b Schiller (2009), p. 485.
  39. ^ Stoneman (2008), p. 28.
  40. ^ a b v Stoneman (2008), p. 25.
  41. ^ a b v d Stoneman (2008), p. 24.
  42. ^ a b v d e f g Stoneman (2008), p. 27.
  43. ^ a b v d Burr, Ty (6 February 2004). "Riveting 'Revolution' shines on big screen". Boston Globe.
  44. ^ a b v Staff (27 November 2006). "Fairness and Privacy Cases". Broadcast Bulletin (Ofcom ) (74).
  45. ^ "Storyville – Chavez: Inside the Coup". British Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 30 March 2010.
  46. ^ a b v Stoneman (2008), p. 2018-04-02 121 2.
  47. ^ Stoneman (2008), p. 119.
  48. ^ a b Stoneman (2008), p. 33.
  49. ^ a b v d (ispan tilida) Lebon, Manuel (16 November 2003). "Cineastas venezolanos objetan video 'La Revolución no será transmitida': Desarman una farsa mediática" Arxivlandi 2012 yil 5 sentyabr Orqaga qaytish mashinasi. El Universal. "... que fue mostrado por primera vez por VTV el 13 de abril de 2003. Posteriormente, el Gobierno hizo 10 mil copias en Cuba de esta producción para mostrarla en diversas partes del mundo. ... La pieza audovisual 'tiene un lobby millonario que cuenta con apoyo de las embajadas venezolanas y hasta agencias de relaciones públicas que manejan presupuestos enormes para exhibir la cinta gratuitamente en las universidades o en cines comerciales de urbes como San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago o Nueva York'."
  50. ^ Schiller (2009), p. 496.
  51. ^ Schiller (2009), p. 495.
  52. ^ a b Stoneman (2008), p. 34.
  53. ^ a b v "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". Nyu-York Tayms Onlayn. Qabul qilingan 3 mart 2010 yil.
  54. ^ a b v d e f g "ScreenWest – Power Pictures". ScreenWest. Retrieved 25 March 2010.
  55. ^ a b Schiller (2009), pp. 486–487.
  56. ^ Schiller (2009), pp. 487–488.
  57. ^ a b v Schiller (2009), pp. 488–489.
  58. ^ a b v Campbell, Duncan (22 November 2003). "Chavez film puts staff at risk, says Amnesty". The Guardian.
  59. ^ a b v Schiller (2009), p. 479.
  60. ^ "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". Box Office Mojo. Amazon. Retrieved on 22 April 2010.
  61. ^ "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". Raqamlar. Nash axborot xizmatlari. Retrieved on 22 April 2010.
  62. ^ Schiller (2009), p. 490.
  63. ^ Stoneman (2008), p. 35.
  64. ^ Stoneman (2008), p. 36.
  65. ^ Schiller (2009), pp. 490–491.
  66. ^ Miller, John J. (27 December 2004). "Friends of Hugo: Venezuela's Castroite boss has all the usual U.S. supporters". Milliy sharh.
  67. ^ a b v Schiller (2009), pp. 492–493.
  68. ^ a b Stoneman (2008), p. 37.
  69. ^ Forero, Juan (21 March 2006). "Visitors Seek a Taste of Revolution in Venezuela". The New York Times.
  70. ^ Schiller (2009), p. 480.
  71. ^ Schiller (2009), p. 499.
  72. ^ a b Schiller (2009), pp. 485–486.
  73. ^ a b v d e f g h men j Bartley, Kim; Ó Briain, Donnacha (May–June 2004). "Who's Right? The Filmmakers Respond". Columbia Journalism Review 43 (1): 62–63.
  74. ^ Nelson (2009), p. 337.
  75. ^ a b Stoneman (2008), p. 39.
  76. ^ a b Stoneman (2008), p. 47.
  77. ^ a b v Stoneman (2008), pp. 39–40.
  78. ^ a b Stoneman (2008), p. 38.
  79. ^ a b v Stoneman (2008), pp. 43–44.
  80. ^ a b Stoneman (2008), p. 67.
  81. ^ Nelson (2009), p. 265.
  82. ^ Stoneman (2008), p. 55.
  83. ^ Stoneman (2008), p. 51.
  84. ^ Stoneman (2008), p. 48.
  85. ^ a b (ispan tilida) Linzalata, Ernesto (31 July 2004). "Estrenan 'Radiografía de una mentira': Cuando la ética es fundamental en la vida" Arxivlandi 10 July 2011 at the Orqaga qaytish mashinasi. El Universal.
  86. ^ a b v Stoneman (2008), p. 56.
  87. ^ De La Fuente, Anna Marie (15 June 2007). "Venezuelan networks tread lightly". Turli xillik.
  88. ^ a b "Revolution Will Not Be Televised, The". Metakritik. CNET Networks. Retrieved 27 February 2010.
  89. ^ "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (2003)". Rotten Tomatoes. IGN Entertainment. Retrieved 27 February 2010.
  90. ^ Hornaday, Ann (12 December 2003). "In Venezuela, A Filmmaking, & Political, Coup". Washington Post.
  91. ^ a b v Shenk, Frank (1 April 2003). "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". Hollywood Reporter.
  92. ^ a b v Ebert, Rojer (31 October 2003). "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". Chikago Sun-Times.
  93. ^ a b v Foundas, Scott (10 July 2003). "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". Turli xillik.
  94. ^ Xoberman, J. (4 November 2003). "Recall Sequel in Venezuela? Hugo Your Way, We'll Go Ours" Arxivlandi 11 May 2008 at the Orqaga qaytish mashinasi. Qishloq ovozi.
  95. ^ a b Holden, Stephen (5 November 2003). "Film review; Tumult in Venezuela's Presidential Palace, Seen Up Close". The New York Times.
  96. ^ a b v Thomson, Desson (12 December 2003). "A Revolutionary Documentary"[doimiy o'lik havola ]. Washington Post.
  97. ^ Sokol, Brett (27 November 2003). "Through a Lens Distortedly". Mayami New Times.
  98. ^ Jenkins, Mark (26 December 2003). "The Bigger Picture Show". Washington City Paper.
  99. ^ Staff (15 October 2003). "IFB Backed Projects Receive Over 70 IFTA Nominations" Arxivlandi 2011 yil 2 oktyabr Orqaga qaytish mashinasi. Irish Film Board. Retrieved 25 March 2010.
  100. ^ (golland tilida) "Maziar Bahari over zijn Top 10"[doimiy o'lik havola ]. IDFA. Retrieved 3 March 2010. "Het is een van de films uit de Top 10 van filmmaker en journalist Maziar Bahari (Teheran, 1967), sinds 2000 vaste IDFA-gast ...The Revolution will not be Televised, Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Brian (Ierland, 2003)."
  101. ^ "Irish Film Board/Bord Scannán na hÉireann – Awards 2003" Arxivlandi 2011 yil 7-avgust Orqaga qaytish mashinasi. Irlandiya filmlar kengashi. Retrieved 24 March 2010.
  102. ^ a b Staff (7 December 2007). "RTÉ's Proud Awards History Continues In Competitive Times" Arxivlandi 27 July 2009 at the Orqaga qaytish mashinasi. RTÉ. Retrieved 25 March 2010.
  103. ^ Kay, Jeremy (3 December 2003). "Balseros, Revolution win top honours at IDA Awards". Har kuni ekran. EMAP. Retrieved 24 March 2010.
  104. ^ Halligan, Benjamin (October 2003). "Leeds International Film Festival, 2003". Senses of Cinema. ISSN 1443-4059.
  105. ^ 63rd Annual Peabody Awards, 2004 yil may.

Bibliografiya

  • Bartley, Kim; Ó Briain, Donnacha (2003). The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. [DVD]. (Geyvey, Ireland: Power Pictures).
  • Nelson, Brian A. (2009). The Silence and the Scorpion: The Coup Against Chavez and the Making of Modern Venezuela (Nyu York: Nation Books ). ISBN  978-1-56858-418-8.
  • Schiller, Naomi (October 2009). "Framing the Revolution: Circulation and Meaning of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". Ommaviy aloqa va jamiyat (Philadelphia, PA: Teylor va Frensis ) 12 (4), pp. 478–502. doi:10.1080/15205430903237832. ISSN 1532 7825.
  • Stoneman, Rod (2008). Chavez: The Revolution Will Not be Televised – A Case Study of Politics and the Media (London: Wallflower Press). ISBN  978-1-905674-74-9.

Tashqi havolalar