Completed two years after _Batalla de Chile: La insurrección de la burguesía, La (1975)_ and _Batalla de Chile: El golpe de estado, La (1977)_, this film deals with the creation of ... See full summary »
A depiction of life in wartime England during the Second World War. Director Humphrey Jennings visits many aspects of civilian life and of the turmoil and privation caused by the war, all without narration.
Interview with Jason Holliday aka Aaron Payne, house boy, would be cabaret performer, and self proclaimed hustler giving one man's gin-soaked pill-popped, view of what it was like to be ... See full summary »
Real-life individuals discuss topics on society, happiness in the working class among others and with those testimonies the filmmakers create fictional moments based on their interviews. ... See full summary »
An early example of ultra-realism, this movie contrasts the quiet, bucolic life in the outskirts of Paris with the harsh, gory conditions inside the nearby slaughterhouses. Describes the ... See full summary »
Completed two years after _Batalla de Chile: La insurrección de la burguesía, La (1975)_ and _Batalla de Chile: El golpe de estado, La (1977)_, this film deals with the creation of thousands of local groups of "popular power" by ordinary workers and peasants to distribute food; occupy, guard, and run factories and farms; oppose black-market profiteering; and link together neighborhood social service organizations, first as a defense against strikes and lockouts by factory owners, tradesmen, and professional bodies opposed to the Allende government, and then increasingly as Soviet-type bodies demanding more resolute action by the government against the right. Written by
Fiona Kelleghan <email@example.com>
A far less universal message than in the previous two films.
"The Battle of Chile" consists of three films created using footage that was smuggled out of Chile after the ouster of the Allende regime as a result of a coup d'etat in 1973. The three films all tell a different version of events and so they are NOT films that must be seen in sequence. As for the first two, they made a very persuasive argument against the rightist government that replaced it and emphasized the legitimacy of the Socialist Allende presidency. However, in the third film, the ouster of the Allende government isn't even mentioned and the tone is very different. Whereas in the first two, the coup was to circumvent the wishes of the Chilean people, part three is much more a propaganda piece extolling the virtues of a communist/socialist Chile and a takeover by 'the people'. And, in one portion, the film admits that less than the majority of Chileans want this sort of state and so it is up to the followers of Allende to force this change. As for me, listening to comments which seemed right out of Marx about the evil bourgeoisie, class struggle, the frequent use of the term 'comrades' as well as referring to the right as 'mummies' seemed to lose my interest. Had I only seen part three, I would have thought that the Allende government NEEDED overthrowing! What a difference another focus can bring to the same issue. Now I am not saying that it was good that Allende and thousands of his followers were killed or that the Pinochet regime was wonderful--they were monstrous. What I am saying is that for the average non-communist and person who knows little of history, part three is not a persuasive argument--whereas parts one and two are because they avoid the Marxist rhetoric and focus, instead, on the underhanded way the Allende government was toppled as well as the atrocities of the new government--none of which get mentioned in part three. Overall, part three looks like a communist propaganda piece--and not an especially persuasive one. My advice is to definitely see the first two films first--then, if you feel the need, to see the last.
2 of 8 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?