Thirteen Days

"Thirteen Days" (2000) is a historical and political thriller movie directed by Roger Donaldson. It recounts the situation lived within the White House in 1962 when the United States discovered Soviet missiles in Cuba starting what it is known in history as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Donaldson movie is named after Robert F. Kennedy's book about the crisis, but the plot is based in the book "The Kennedy Tapes" written by Ernest May and Philip Zelikow. Both sources provide this movie with the facts but in addition to the Kennedy brothers that are part of previous portrayals of this historical event, Donaldson includes Kenneth P. O'Donnell (Kevin Costner) as a new main character which brings out to the plot a family drama happening outside the government.

The movie goes over the political atmosphere and decisions made during JFK's presidency after the US aerial surveillance discovers USSR missiles installed in the Cuban island that could potentially reach most of the United States. The plot emphasizes the US-USSR relations to disarm Cuba. While John F. Kennedy (Bruce Greenwood), Robert F. Kennedy (Steven Culp), and O'Donnell try to negotiate the removal of the missiles through non-violent approaches rejecting any military attack, the USSR continues the occupation breaking every single agreement made with the US government to back off. Finally, JFK, RFK, and O'Donnell successfully mediate the end of what seemed like the beginning of Third World War by promising the withdrawal of the US troops in Turkey six months after their agreement.

Though the movie is all about the Cuban missile crisis, Donaldson clearly shows that Cuba and its politics were the least important aspect to deal with. The tensions of this event are between the United States and the USSR as any other matter during the Cold War, portraying the Latin American country as merely a puppet working for the USSR interests. During the film, very few times we see an opinion on behalf of the Cuban government, like the character of Raul Castro talking in a UN general meeting, or the people supporting Cuba, such as demonstrations outside the White House with posters asking for peace and freedom of Cuba. The most important scenes are when representatives of the USSR speak, and of course, when the US demonstrate that the threat is real.

"Thirteen Days" is produced almost thirty years after the missile crisis depicting the event highly threatening in which the United States was the closest to losing the Cold War. This movie is released during a period in which the anxieties experienced during the Cuban Missile Crisis are reawakened. The end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century are marked with a new wave of international tensions (mini-Cold Wars) and proxy wars in which the United States and Russia (former USSR) are directly or indirectly involved. Cuba like any other Latin American country becomes a problem for national security if its politics are manipulated against the United States. However, Donaldson portrays a United States with strong beliefs on non-violent intervention (which was not by the time this movie was made). Perhaps, this is a reminder that even in the worst case scenario the United States could ever face, a warlike response should be the last resource.

South of the Border

By the end of the twentieth century the United States became head of international politics establishing its neoliberal ideology at a global scale. Western capitalism apparently buried the ideals of a once expanding communism (and socialism) which influence in the Americas only remained in Cuba, which the United States made sure to block and isolate from the rest of the world system. Nevertheless, as the classic liberalism revived with neoliberalism, in the same way the old and feared socialism is comes restored and stronger with the name of “The Socialism of the Twenty-first Century”. Oliver Stone’s South of the Border (2009) is a documentary that recounts the realities of five countries that have turned their traditional right-wing politics to a charismatic left-wing revolutionary mandate of “the people.” The socialist leaders of Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Argentina, and Ecuador share their opinion of the effecto of United States foreign policy on their countries and how their new movement in the protection of the most vulnerable groups (the poor, the indigenous and the worker) represents independence and real progress for all Latin American societies.

The documentary starts with a recollection of North American news that talks about Hugo Chavez’s “dictatorship” in Venezuela. Stone puts together media reports depicting Chavez’s government as a threat to the United States and all the Western democratic system like Cuba once was. However, by travelling to Venezuela, experiencing the life of its people beyond what is presented on the screen, and personality interviewing Chavez, the narrative of the documentary leans to left to supports the truth that is being hidden by the media (media that is probably influenced by people or corporations that protect American neoliberalist interests). There are very few personal comments from the director about the ideology since providing Chavez with an open floor to criticize U.S interventions in Latin America is more than self-evident support to the new ideological wave developing in most countries south of the U.S-Mexico border. In addition, the only times the United States’ perspective or comments on Latin American left-wing governments are shown, they are considered overreaction resulting from national security paranoia, conspiracy theories, or justification for controlling the region and its natural resources such as the Venezuelan oil.

Stone problematizes and to some extent destroys the idea that everything happening south of the border (politics, economy, culture) is the same. Chavez, for example, created policy that would benefit the lowest economic classes in the country and that meant using Venezuelan oil in Venezuela and for Venezuelans (cutting the supply to the United States). The Bush administration considered Chavez’s national policy dangerous for democracy and threatening for his government, creating tension between the two countries. When other of South America joined the new socialist movement, the United States unsuccessfully conspired to take their governments down because they were all the same as Venezuela, thus more anti-US leaders, less resource-access. On the other hand, we hear interviews from each socialist leader, Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Lula Da Silva in Brazil, the Kirchner couple in Argentina, and Rafael Correa in Ecuador. Each of them is intentionally shown very different materially, and ideologically speaking. Chavez with a military background, Morales a coca-grower indigenous, Lula a metalworker and labour union member, the Kirchner shown in their elegant house, and Correa with a revolutionary discourse. Each country has a different history and experiences different realities, but they all have been subjected to and exploited by American neoliberalism.

Cuba comes back to the story. For the Bush administration, Cuban communism might not be a threat or influence in the United States anymore, however, it could have influenced other Latin American countries. In contrast, how the other five countries of the documentary are portrayed, there is no support to Cuba or any of its policies. The interview with Fidel Castros’ brother is included to clear the misconception that the Socialism of the Twenty-First Century is the same as communism. In numerous occasions each president is asked whether the Cuban communism is the “grandfather” of their projects (since the “father” would be Venezuelan Chavismo) or at least it has inspired them, but the answer is clear: no, they share ideology and their projects seem to follow the same pattern, but socialism developed independently.

The last part of the documentary summarizes all the encounters with the socialist leaders, the paranoia and sensationalism of American news, and Latin America’s history of struggles due to indiscriminate foreign intervention in their politics. In addition, possible unfolding of the socialist wave of South America is discussed. Nowadays, this discourse could need upgrades, but by that time Obama represented hope and openness to new ideas that could clear Bush’s intolerance and reconstruct alliances with Latin America. Stone not only supports this new social and political movement, but he suggests that its expansion to northern countries in Latin America has shown that an historical change is starting.

Political changes like this new form of socialism that has decreased poverty, has increased technological and social development, and has stood up against neoimperialist forces to protect their sovereignty might be something that the United States is lacking. Latin America is portrayed as a victim of US foreign policy, powerless in the face of the economic and political control the United State has over most international organizations. Latin American politics are the result of the direct and indirect oppression, and socialism re-emerges within those conditions and to change them in favour of its people.

The Debt

The Debt (2015) is a drama that delivers a multi-narrative plot to explore how far (or over how many people) someone will go to obtain what they want, whether the reasons are satisfying an appetite for wealth and self-pride or ensuring the well-being of loved ones. The plot details the lives of two Peruvian families (one indigenous and one low-income) and a group of investors from a New York finance corporation.

In the beginning, we are introduced to each group individually. Oliver and Miguel both work for the American finance corporation buying huge proportions of Peruvian agrarian bonds (land debts) for a lot less than the actual price, then to obtain revenue from the actual amount of the debts by negotiating directly with the Peruvian government. Then we have Maria, a low-income nurse whose mother is suffering a treatable, but a painful medical condition. Maria’s economic condition does not allow her to help her mother, especially since treatment is given to those who can pay or to those who have great influence on the system. Finally (but probably the most important), we meet the indigenous farmer Florentino and his family. Florentino has been pressed to agree to sell his land to a Peruvian investor that has promised an agricultural project with stable jobs and possible healthcare to him and the rest of the agrarian community of the Peruvian highlands. Florentino, however, has rejected every single time since giving up his land will mean going back to a serfdom status of the colonial times under the rule of rich landowners.

This Barney Elliott drama movie is also a historical and political work about the agrarian bonds of the twentieth century in Peru which remain unpaid until today. Ancestral land ownership is currently a contested right in many Latin American countries for which agriculture and resource extraction as their main national income source. Historical facts like this one provide this production with a high sense of realism which denounces social injustices and the impact of neo-liberal politics in the lives of the indigenous and the poor, two of the most vulnerable groups in Peruvian/Latin American society. Indigenous people, like Florentino, remember vehemently the huasipungo period when they were slaves of the landowner and see any attempt to take their lands as an attempt to enslave them again. Nevertheless, the history of struggle and resistance of those groups to stop neo-liberal influence (that under their eyes is an imperialist project) is of little importance when American investors (in alliance with local elites) look to profit out of it, as portrayed in the movie. Indeed, Latin American politics, politics that look to decrease social inequality and injustice that come from a shared history of colonialism, are perceived by those US investors as “hearth bleeding politics”, too dramatic, too unrealistic for the free-market politics and interests of the neoliberal project.

Eventually, each of the three sides of this story the characters is challenged to choose a life or death decision that opposes their initial convictions. The farmer Florentino unwillingly gives up his land to Oliver (representing the private corporations) to save his little son's life. After long waiting hours and under the circumstances, the nurse Maria decides to put her mom's life before Florentino's son in her only chance to get medical attention (which will cost the kid his leg).  Finally, the only person left that has the actual power to change repetition of injust enforcements is Oliver. After he finds out that his Peruvian partner and friend died on the highlands looking for the real motivations for taking away the land from the agrarian indigenous community (exploiting the gold mines and not giving them stability and healthcare as promised), Oliver decides to break the chain that could result on a profitable scamming on land prices. "You think they want to help us? We are only cholos indios for them. Do you want to be slaves again?" said once Florentino in Quechua warning his community about selling their land.

Comparing Oliver's thinking at the beginning of the movie to how the plot developed at the end, this movie questions neoliberalism. Oliver talks about free-trade benefits and how the system and social problems of a country are the faults of its people and not the market, thus everyone should follow the project. Politics and economy for the US finance company are black and white, take it or leave it, but as the plot goes on Oliver starts to understand the difficulties of the process and the lives that are getting affected. Undoubtedly this movie has a critical socialist view on the neoliberal ideology. Latin America in that system does not benefit, only serves to the interests of those setting the rules, even though the proposals might seem more promising. Interestingly, however, the Peruvian government is portrayed as highly manipulable. American private corporations have more power and influence than government officials and, of course, the people. Neoliberalism for Latin America is not more than another form of social, political, and economic control, it is neoimperialism. In this case, the vicious change was stopped, but it required the involvement of someone within the power elite, otherwise, Latin America seems too weak to effectively block economic and social issues by itself.