marcszar_memorias_del_saqueo


 * Memoria del Saqueo -** //Fernando Solanas, 2004//

//What is the central argument or narrative of the film?// This film is not a typical sustainability film that analyzes the destruction that some particular element has done to the environment but rather a film that shows very vividly how corruption and ineffectiveness can paralyze even the most adaptable governments, businesses, and societies and lead to a cultural climate where all institutions are discredited and can't get anything done. The film does refer to a few ecological problems but its primary focus is how corruption, betrayal of public trust, and indebtedness can lead to the downfall of a society. In this case Argentina fell from enjoying a first-world standard of living to suffering from a third-world standard of living. The film shows us that absolutely no decisions and policies on sustainability can be carried out if every institution in society - the public, the media, the businesses, the government - is in shambles and paralyzed with ineffectiveness. The situation portrayed in the film is particularly chilling because there are almost continuous parallels between what happened in Argentina and what is currently happening in the US. Environmentalists in the US should take note that they will be able to achieve nothing without first reforming our social, business, and political culture so that they can become sustainable institutions in themselves.

//What sustainability problems does the film draw out?//
 * //Political?//
 * The film gives time to an interviewee who argues that the very institution of politics is almost always treasonous and is at the root of many social problems. He cites a French book, //In Praise of Treason//, which argues that treason is "part and parcel of politics." He concludes "To succeed you have to lie. If you say what you think, no one will vote for you."
 * //Legal?//
 * The film devotes a lot of time to a discussion of how bribed and corrupted judges were used to carry through legislative decisions that were very unfavorable to the public. In particular the film focuses on how Menem brought the Supreme Court under his control to force through changes in the parliament that would allow him to carry out mass privatizations in the Argentinian economy.
 * //Economic?//
 * The film described very well how mass privatizations of various sectors of the Argentinian economy were fraudulently carried out - the roads, railways, television and radio networks, water infrastructure (sold to Suez and Vivendi as made clear in the film //Flow//), national airline, oil and gas industry, ports, and so on, were all sold off at prices far below their fair value, stripped of their assets by their private buyers, and driven into debt and bankruptcy. The state had been criticized for supposedly subsidizing these industries in the previous era of nationalization (many of them actually turned a profit) but even after the industries were privatized the state was forced to continue paying out subsidies to the now "too big to fail" private companies.
 * //Technological?//
 * The film showed very convincingly how the adoption of an economic model along the lines of globalization immediately left the nation's industries defenseless and led to their gradual decay and abandonment - investment was funneled away from manufacturing and into the new "service" and financial economies to the point that the technology used in manufacturing and transport fell woefully behind to the point that most industries had to be shut down. Indeed the country's national rail network was largely dismantled and abandoned after privatization.
 * //Media and informational?//
 * The film contained some riveting imagery of the media engaging in some very shoddy reporting on the mass privatizations - footage of policymakers openly and mockingly encouraging the embezzling of public funds, the accumulation of public debt ("Owing money is good"), and depicting state-run enterprises as "inefficient" behemoths and privatized enterprises as modern and efficient ones were constantly played across TVs in Argentina. As one interviewee said "...The media praised the advantages of privatization. Like the TV journalist Neustadt - he had high ratings. Not only the politicians - we reporters and the media also played a role. How long must we put up with this idiocy? TV and radio in the hands of idiots, for a nation of idiots."
 * //Organizational?//
 * One interesting case was made against the privatization of the national oil company YPF (which was eventually privatized anyway). It was a profitable national enterprise whose profits were once used to fund infrastructural projects all over the country. Thus before the era of privatization the state did not have to rely on taxes or borrowing to pay for infrastructure projects (as we do here in the US) but rather diverted oil profits for a productive purpose. This is arguably a very sustainable economic practice because it avoids having to burden those who can least afford it with taxes to pay for large national projects.
 * //Educational?//
 * The film's narrator was quite frustrated that Argentinian society had no power to repudiate the illegitimate foreign debt they had been saddled with. The society is well educated and very well aware that their politicians and foreign financiers had saddled them with an "Odious Debt" that they were forced to repay. Time after time they elected politicians who promised to repudiate the debt, but once those politicians entered office they always legitimized it. The film showed us that even a socially-aware, educated, politically-literate society can do nothing if they have no political power.
 * //Behavioral?//
 * The film showed us that the public did not sit contentedly by as the economy was being fundamentally restructured. Perennial economic crises led to an almost constant stream of marches and protests in Buenos Aires to the point that politicians had to begin making concessions. The film claimed that the rise of Nestor Kirchner in the 2000s - the first Peronist/Justicialist after a long string of neoliberals and phony populists - was a victory for economic sanity.
 * //Cultural?//
 * There is an interesting discussion on who exactly the blame should fall on when corruption and malaise infects a society. One interviewee says that as much as we all like to blame the elite and powerful for our problems, we are all at least partially culpable: "It's not all black or white. Things aren't corrupt or pure. Argentinian society as a whole can't call itself pure and assign corruption to the ruling classes. The ruling classes come from that society."
 * //Ecological?//
 * The film showed us how Gas del Estado, once privatized, was mismanaged and abused so much by its private buyer (Repsol) that vast swaths of land around the gas fields were rapidly polluted and contaminated. A family living near one of the wells showed us how their local aquifer was severely contaminated once Repsol assumed control of the national gas company - the company claimed it had decontaminated the area but in actuality it never did. A family member pulls up some water from a backyard well and lights it on fire - the well is completely full of gasoline.

//What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?// The film's discussion on the extensive role foreign (mostly American and European) banks played in the illicit restructuring of the Argentinian economy - they engaged in everything from freezing the assets of ordinary citizens to engaging in moneylaundering on the behest of various politicians to outright bribery to narcotrafficking to illegitimately selling off public assets - was done very well and engaged in a lot of detailed, damning analysis.

//What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?// Like many gloomy films, this one attempted to end on a lighter note by telling viewers that there were signs that the people were gradually regaining power and electing better politicians (Kirchner et al). I am not so convinced that Argentina has completely shaken off political corruption. While the film's assertion that globalization has developed serious flaws and is beginning to unravel seems to have some anecdotal truth in it, it will probably be much longer the system completely collapses.

//What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?// The film shows string after string of corrupt leaders constantly dismaying the voters who elected them and then briefly concludes that the rise of Kirchner might change all that (the "first victory against globalization"). It would be interesting to examine Kirchner's record these past few years to see if any substantive changes were actually carried out of if the people were just betrayed again.

//What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?// The film is geared towards Argentinian viewers and other audiences throughout Latin America. The citizens of Argentina already engage in a lot of fervent protests against the rampant political corruption there so this film serves as a means to embolden their efforts and to show them that their efforts are not going unnoticed.

//What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?// The film does not tell its viewers to engage in any particular actions since they are //already// engaging in protest and debate; rather the film serves as documentation of the various efforts taken by citizens to fight corruption in Argentina. The film could be a useful lesson in foreshadowing for American citizens - we seem to be heading in the exact same direction as Argentina.

//What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?// .
 * Does the film convey different perspectives on the issues?
 * No, it is structured around the opinions and world view of the narrator so in that sense we should be aware that he might be sensationalizing or exaggerating some issues. For example, the many national assets that were privatized did not always work as efficiently or as transparently as the narrator claimed they did before privatization.
 * Is it overly “balanced”?
 * No, this film makes it very clear that it is anti-establishment and skewers the various political leaders in Argentina with relish; it makes no attempt to interview them to hear their side of the story.
 * Does it enhance scientific literacy? If so, what kind of scientific literacy is promoted?
 * Yes, one interesting example is where two doctors at an underserved hospital are trying to find ways to treat the rampant malnutrition among children there. They translate some books from English to produce temporary medicines to treat the health problems associated with chronic hunger. They run across another book, however, which offers quite a different treatment method for malnutrition. This medical book does not suggest medicines or medical treatments but rather says "Undernourishment is a socio-economic and cultural disease that can be cured by giving everyone a job."
 * Does it enroll viewers, or preach at them?
 * The film does engage in a few stunts and musical scores that seem overly dramatic and cheesy but on the whole it is composed of raw footage and interviews that are quite eye-opening and engage the viewer via imagery, not via lecturing or posturing.
 * Does it include images or examples that are likely to stick with viewers?
 * Yes, constantly - the bloody protest scenes in the streets, the determined "Mothers of the Disappeared," the scenes of impoverished children scavenging in dumps, the gutted railroad cars that had been stripped of their assets by their private operators and pressed back into service, the derelict factories and ghost towns, the TV footage extolling mass privatization and "frivolity" (i.e.- corruption), etc, etc.

< Back to my portfolio