Skip to Navigation

Opinion and Analysis: Venezuelan Media

Danny Glover, Haiti, and the Politics of Revolutionary Cinema in Venezuela

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).

Source: NACLA