This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steve (talk | contribs) at 07:35, 30 March 2010 (→Timeline and media depictions: +the). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 07:35, 30 March 2010 by Steve (talk | contribs) (→Timeline and media depictions: +the)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) 2003 Irish film| The Revolution Will Not Be Televised | |
|---|---|
 Theatrical poster | |
| Directed by | Kim Bartley Donnacha Ó Briain |
| Produced by | David Power |
| Cinematography | Kim Bartley Donnacha Ó Briain |
| Edited by | Ángel Hernández Zoido |
| Distributed by | Vitagraph Films |
| Release date | 2003 |
| Running time | 74 minutes |
| Country | Ireland |
| Languages | English Spanish |
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (also known as Chavez: Inside the Coup and La revolución no será transmitida) is a 2003 documentary focusing on events in Venezuela leading up to and during the April 2002 coup d'état attempt, which saw President Hugo Chávez removed from office for several days. With particular emphasis on the role of Venezuela's private media, the film examines several key incidents: the protest march and subsequent violence that provided the impetus for Chávez's ousting, the opposition's formation of an interim government headed by business leader Pedro Carmona, and the Carmona administration's collapse, which paved the way for Chávez's return. The Revolution Will Not Be Televised was directed by Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain. Intending to make a fly on the wall biography of Chávez, the pair spent seven months following the president and his staff and conducting interviews with residents. In April 2002, Bartley and O'Briain were in the capital; shifting focus, they captured footage of the violence on the streets and the political upheavals at the presidential palace.
The film was positively received by mainstream film critics and won several awards. Reviewers cited the filmmakers' unprecedented proximity to key events and praised the film for its "riveting narrative"; criticism focused on its lack of context and pro-Chávez bias. First shown on television in Europe and Venezuela in 2003, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised later appeared at film festivals and secured a limited theatrical release on the art house circuit. Independent activists have also held unofficial screenings, and Venezuelan government officials encouraged its circulation to build support for Chávez's administration. The film is regularly shown on Venezuelan television, and in Caracas it is often broadcast during "contentious political conjunctures". The Revolution Will Not Be Televised paints Chávez in a favorable light throughout the crisis, which has led to disputes over its neutrality and accuracy; particular attention is paid to its framing of the violence of 11–13 April, the filmmakers' editing of the timeline, and the alleged omission of incidents and personnel. The film is alternately cited as an accurate portrayal or a misrepresentation of the events of April 2002.
Background
In 2000–2001, independent Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain—co-workers on previous projects who " in Latin American politics and issues around globalization"—proposed a fly on the wall documentary about Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, to the Irish Film Board (IFB). Paying for exploratory trips to Venezuela from their own pockets and a development grant from the IFB, the filmmakers built up enough preliminary footage to secure funding for a feature-length documentary. Financing primarily came from Ireland's national broadcaster, Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ), and other European broadcasters. The BBC provided post-production funding.
Bartley and O'Briain arrived in Venezuela in September 2001. Shooting over 200 hours of material on two digital video cameras, the pair spent several months "getting to know people all over the country". By April 2002, Bartley and O'Briain were in Caracas and spent much of their time filming at the presidential palace, following Chávez and his staff. Venezuela was at the time "embroiled ... in a severe political crisis" as Chávez attempted to bring more of the country's vast oil wealth under state control. Although the state-owned radio and television stations remained staunch advocates of Chávez's stated policies—to redistribute the nation's wealth to the poorest—the private media was more hostile. According to Phil Gunson of Columbia Journalism Review, "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." The crisis reached a head when Chávez attempted to remove the management of Petroleos de Venezuela, provoking a showdown. "Oil managers, business leaders, and large segments of organized labor" called a general strike. The strike was backed by a large segment of the population, "particularly the country's increasingly impoverished middle class" and some "disaffected" army officers upset at the increasing politicization of the military.
On 11 April, hundreds of thousands of people marched in protest against the government. " from their original route", the marchers advanced toward the palace, a path that took them close to government supporters who had come out in opposition to the protest. According to Gunson, "shooting broke out on all sides. A score of civilians died and more than 150 suffered gunshot wounds. The military high command called for Chávez to resign, and at 3:20 the next morning they announced he had agreed to do so. The presidency was assumed by a business leader, Pedro Carmona, but his government collapsed in less than forty-eight hours and Chávez returned to power."
As the crisis unfolded on 11 April, Bartley and O'Briain filmed outside the palace, first capturing footage of the demonstrations and subsequent violence, then events inside the palace during the afternoon and evening, and the early hours of 12 April. Through their previous contacts at the palace, Bartley and O'Briain were able to continue filming without interference: "no one paid any attention to us—we just blended in." Later that day, Bartley and O'Briain stayed away from the palace through fears for their safety. Unable to leave the country—the city's airport was closed—the filmmakers instead took to the streets, "to document the repression were witnessing". At the same time, a press office cameraman was in the palace, "reluctant to lose his job despite the change in government". He filmed the setting up of the interim government; when Bartley and O'Briain returned to the palace on 13 April, the cameraman let them have his footage.
Synopsis
The film opens with footage of Chávez touring and meeting supporters. At an address commemorating the 4 February 1992 coup attempt, he decries neoliberalism and says the international community has demonised him. US news footage reports Chávez's 11 April removal from office by calling his rule "controversial" and says the US hopes the new regime will stabilize the oil market. The film shows the US' concern at Chávez's increased control of the oil industry and the subsequent increased prices.
- September 2001 – April 2002
The film follows Chávez in his day-to-day routine of meetings and addresses. Interviews with communities from both sides of the political divide highlight how he is seen by the poor and rich. The former support his stated aim to redistribute the country's oil wealth; the latter are worried he will institute communism. The white ruling class opposes him through the private media, and in February 2002, the media war intensifies after Chavez takes greater control of Petroleos de Venezuela; the film says that although the oil company is state-owned, it was run like a private interest for the benefit of few. Business leader Pedro Carmona and union boss Carlos Ortega are the main voices of the opposition; after they visit Washington, the CIA and the State Department express concern about Chávez's rule and stress the importance of the country's oil. On private television, army generals also express their concern, and Carmona appeals for a public protest at the offices of the state oil company.
- 11–12 April
On 11 April, opposition protesters begin their march; Chávez's supporters gather outside the presidential palace. According to the film, the protest route is illegally changed to take it to the palace. The opposition march vanguard is shown "ready for a fight", causing damage along its way. The march reaches the palace and shots ring out; civilians are killed. Some of Chávez's supporters begin firing from a bridge in the direction they think the shots are coming from. Anread Izarra, a former private television journalist, says the private media aired selective footage of the incident to make it look like Chávez's supporters had shot unarmed opposition marchers. An empty street (Baralt Avenue at Llaguno Overpass) is shown from above the bridge. According to the film, "What the TV stations didn’t broadcast was , which clearly shows that the streets below were empty. The opposition march had never taken that route”.
Calls for Chávez to resign play on private television and an ex-director of the state oil company asks for the army to "do the right thing". A chief of Venezuela's navy withdraws his support of Chávez. The state television signal is cut amid rumors that the opposition has taken over the studio. The filmmakers watch footage of tanks surrounding the palace. Members of the military high command demand Chávez's resignation. According to ministers, he refuses and the generals threaten to bomb the palace. By 3:30 am on 12 April, Chávez has agreed to hand himself over to prevent the bombing, but he is still refusing to resign. Chávez's staff chant his name as he is led away. Carmona announces on television that a transitional government will be established. Later that day, opposition leaders appear on private television to thank the media and explain their plan—to get people on the streets before activating the army when the situation peaked. At the palace, the new regime celebrates, while the palace guards "reluctantly" serve them. Carmona is sworn in; he asserts that the country is getting back to normal, but images play of unrest on the streets as Chávez's supporters voice their anger. The US press secretary reads a statement blaming Chávez for the violence. Izarra says the private media then censored images of Chávez's supporters from television. Despite the media blackout, they use outside media sources to spread the message that the president has not resigned. A supporter says that, constitutionally, Chávez can only be removed through a referendum.
- 13 April
Chávez's supporters march on the palace while the guards plot to retake it. They take key positions and surround the palace. At a prearranged signal, they take members of the new government prisoner. Carmona slips away and Chávez's ministers reestablish their government. The private media is not reporting events, so the state television channel is relaunched to announce the news and urge the army to back Chávez. The president returns to celebratory scenes. The film ends with Chávez's making an address in which he says it is fine to oppose him, but not the constitution. The closing titles say that Carmona fled to Miami while under house arrest, and that Ortega went into hiding, only reappearing when Chávez said there would be no repercussions; he remained an opposition leader. Most of the dissident generals, after being expelled from the army, fled to the US; others remained as part of the opposition.
Distribution
In 2003, a shorter cut of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised—titled Chavez: Inside the Coup—aired on television in the UK, Ireland, several other European countries and Japan. In Venezuela, it premièred on 13 April 2003, on state television channel Venezolana de Televisión (VTV), and it has been shown regularly on Venezuelan television since; the state-funded community station Catia TVe often broadcasts the film during "contentious political conjunctures", such as the 2004 recall referendum, the 2006 presidential election, and in 2007 to "help build support" for the government's controversial attempt to revoke the license of private television network RCTV. The filmmakers could not secure a US television deal, but in March 2003 a VHS of the film screened for "fewer than 100 people" as part of an American Cinematheque Irish film festival in Los Angeles. Among the viewers was the president of Vitagraph Films, David Schultz, who bought the rights for theatrical distribution and paid for the film to be converted from video. Schultz initially struggled to secure the support of exhibitors; they were skeptical of the film's commercial prospects, and believed "the environment was not hospitable" for a film critical of the US so close to the start of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They only became receptive a few months later, when political perceptions shifted and the public became more aware of Venezuela because of its oil wealth. One such exhibitor was the Film Forum in New York City; Mike Maggiore, a programmer at the theater, worked to boost the commercial prospects of the film and raise its profile with film critics. He created press kits and circulated information to " a particular audience".
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised appeared at several film festivals in 2003, including the Seattle International Film Festival, where it won Best Documentary, and the Chicago International Film Festival, where it won the Silver Hugo. It premièred to the public at the Film Forum in November 2003. Its showing was accompanied by protests outside the theater from supporters and detractors of the film, both of whom "attempted to influence audience reception". A few weeks previously, the film had been withdrawn from an Amnesty International film festival in Vancouver, as "Amnesty staff in Caracas said they feared for their safety if it were shown". Opposition demonstrators at the Film Forum première attempted to throw doubt on the film's "impartiality, precision, veracity editorial integrity, and ideological independence", while supporters "encouraged theatergoers to denounce censorship" and sign a petition. Opposition protests also greeted showings in Canada, Australia and France. The run at the Film Forum earned $26,495, several thousand above expectations. After a limited run in other theaters, the film had earned over $200,000, "not enough to yield ... a profit", but still considered "a significant sum for a documentary".
Pro-Chávez activists also distributed the film unofficially. For example, the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador screened the film in New York City, where Bolivarian Circle members "accepted donations" for bootleg copies. El Universal said the Venezuelan government had 10,000 copies made, and according to National Review, the Venezuela Information Office (VIO) "encouraged art-house theaters" to screen the film. Government representatives aided the film's distribution, both officially and unofficially. Filmmaker Wolfgang Schalk said the film counted on the worldwide support of Venezuelan embassies and a public relations effort to show the film free at universities and theaters in cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New York. Peace Action New York were given permission for a screening during a fund raiser in the Lincoln Center, where 250 people paid £35 each to see the film and " in a question-and-answer session" with guests such as Leonor Granado, the Venezuelan Consul General. The consulate office made DVDs of the film available to "anyone who wanted a copy", as Granado said the film was vital to "building support in for the Venezuelan government". As of 2006, groups such as Global Exchange were arranging tours to Venezuela that included a screening of the film.
Critical reception
Reviews
Among mainstream critics in the US and UK, the film received almost exclusively positive reviews. 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. At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the film received a score of 82 based on 24 reviews. 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 events.
| "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 The Washington Post |
Frank Scheck, writing in The Hollywood Reporter, said the film presented an enthralling story that "resembles a taut ... political thriller", and Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times called it a "remarkable documentary" full of "astonishing shots". Both critics said the film was made so through the filmmakers' unique inside access to the events at the palace. Ebert reserved criticism for the film's partiality, particularly the selective way in which Chávez's opponents were framed, while Shenk faulted the lack of historical context; however, he said this was balanced by the film's "brevity and succinctness". In Variety, 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. He had praise for the camera work and editing, and said the film was a "startling record" that " to yet another level" when events shifted to the presidential palace. He cited these scenes—along with those of the protesters' clashing—as " with a vibrant tension and uncertainty".
J. Hoberman of The Village Voice said the film was a "gripping" account that did "an excellent job" of taking apart and presenting the footage of events, and said it was "nearly a textbook on media manipulation". Writing for The New York Times, Stephen Holden said the film was "a riveting documentary" that " 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". He reproached the film's uncritical depiction of Chávez, and how it hinted at CIA involvement without presenting any proof. Ty Burr in the 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; Burr also said the film's attempt to make the US into a villain was ineffective. Burr said, "because 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." Nevertheless, Burr concluded that the film's narrow focus remained engrossing.
Desson Thomson of The Washington Post stated that the film successfully " the panic and fear" at the palace as events unfolded, saying it came across like a "raw, Costa-Gavras-style thriller" that was "worth watching down to the last thrilling minute". 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". He concluded, "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is an extraordinary piece of electronic history. And a riveting movie." In the Miami New Times, Brett Sokol agreed that the film was "never less than thrilling", but said that as history, it was "strictly agitprop". 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".
Accolades
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised was nominated for and won several awards. In 2003–04, it won the Silver Hugo at the Chicago International Film Festival, Best Documentary at the Seattle International Film Festival, the Best Information and Current Affairs Program—and the Grand Prize—at the Banff World Television Festival, the International Documentary Association's Award for Feature Documentaries (shared with Balseros), the European Broadcasting Union's Golden Link Award for Best Co-Production, the Prix Italia for a Television Documentary, Best International Feature Documentary at the Grierson Awards and the Marseille Festival of Documentary Film, the Golden Nymph Award for Best European Current Affairs Documentary at the Monaco International Film Festival, Journalist of the year and Best Documentary at the ESB Media Awards, and Best Documentary at the Galway Film Fleadh and Los Angeles Wine & Country Festival. In 2004, it received a Peabody Award for excellence in television broadcasting. The film was also nominated for Best Documentary and Best Irish Film at the Irish Film and Television Awards. The annual 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 selected The Revolution will not be Televised for his top ten classics from the history of documentary films.
Analysis
Disputed accuracy
In Venezuela, debate about The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is "often acrimonious"; the film has become "remarkably important" in framing people's understanding of the events of April 2002. The previously accepted international view was that Chávez's ousting came from a "spontaneous popular response" to the repression of his regime; the film "directly contradicts" this position, and since its release it has rapidly become "the prevailing interpretation of ". The film's critics charge that it omits or misrepresents important events. Much of the criticism is centered upon the filmmakers' "use of stock devices", such as compositing clips from several events to present them as one incident. Parallel editing also depicts sequences as if they occurred at the same time, when some of the footage was captured on different days. Bartley and O'Briain justify these methods as standard practice in the construction of documentary realist films. Phil Gunson, writing in Columbia Journalism Review, said that most of the film critics who embraced the film ignored "the complex, messy reality" of the situation; he charged that the filmmakers "omit key facts, invent others, twist the sequence of events to support their case, and replace inconvenient images with others dredged from archives". Bartley and O'Briain argue that Gunson's points are "issues of dispute" that "continue to divide opinion" in Venezuela.
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". Private television repeatedly showed Chávez's supporters' shooting from the Puente Llaguno bridge at Baralt Avenue below, an area purportedly full of opposition marchers. 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. Gunson charges that this edit is itself a misrepresentation, pointing out 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. In response, the filmmakers say, "Nowhere in the film did we say that only were shot ... Nobody can say with certainty who orchestrated the shootings." Gunson also asserts that the footage of the empty street was taken earlier that day, citing an "analysis of the shadows" by Wolfgang Schalk, who created a counter-documentary, X-Ray of a Lie, to " the film scene by scene to uncover narrative strategies and use of artifice". Brian A. Nelson, writing in his book The Silence and the Scorpion, 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". Bartley and O'Briain reaffirmed their claim that the opposition did not pass below the Puente Llaguno bridge, citing eyewitness statements—including one from Le Monde Diplometique's deputy editor—and an Australian documentary, Anatomy of a Coup, that "came to conclusions similar to our own".
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 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 supporters. 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. Gunson also cites footage of Freddy Bernal that shows his singing 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. Similarly, Gunson says that until shot at, "the opposition march was entirely peaceful"; 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". Bartley and O'Briain admit that they included a "limited" amount of archive footage, but say it was merely to build context "before the core narrative of the coup off" as they "could not be everywhere filming at all times".
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised makes the claim that state television was "the only channel to which had access"; it does not mention that during the violence he requisitioned "all radio and TV frequencies" to make a two-hour address. 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. Chávez subsequently took RCTV and Venevisión off the air. The film's assertion that VTV was taken over by opposition "plotters" is also disputed; according to X-Ray of a Lie and Gunson, staff left willingly. Gunson further alleges that footage of VTV's signal being cut—mid-interview with a government legislator—was fabricated. Bartley and O'Briain affirm that they were eyewitness to ministers' being unable to broadcast, and that the International Federation of Journalists corroborated their claim that opposition forces took over VTV. 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". He says that the opposition protests were multiracial and that armed government supporters "made the center of Caracas a no-go area". Bartley and O'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 The Christian Science Monitor. Gunson does agree that the film was right to point out that the private media "behaved disgracefully" by "systematically viewpoint from print, radio, and TV" during the period of the coup.
Military involvement
"More serious" than these claims, Gunson says, is the "deliberate blurring of responsibility for the coup". The film presents the idea that the military commanders dispersed, "leaving a total power vacuum". However, the high command's "senior figure", General Lucas Rincón (who announced Chávez's resignation), was not part of the coup and remained in the government after April 2002. 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". Bartley and O'Briain reiterate the fact that "elements in the military force in the effort to make Chávez resign" and say that it is "irrelevant" that the whole military did not join the coup, as this "is the case with most coups". The filmmakers say that General Rincon's announcement was omitted because it was "supplementary to the main, key fact of the story", that Chávez did not sign the resignation letter.
X-Ray of a Lie
Main article: X-Ray of a LieVenezuelan TV producer Wolfgang Schalk investigated The Revolution Will Not Be Televised for five months. He and Thalman Urguelles were commissioned to "produce a response", and in 2004 they created the documentary X-Ray of a Lie, which set out to expose its "manipulation". Schalk said the film "presented a distorted version of events ... to fit a story that appeals to audiences." Schalk is affiliated with the Venezuelan opposition; Bartley and O'Briain say that it is "not insignificant that Schalk has led the well-resourced campaign, linked to , to discredit and suppress ".
See also
- Puente Llaguno: Claves de una Masacre, a similar documentary
- Media representation of Hugo Chávez
- List of Venezuelan films
References
- ^ King, Michael (7 March 2003). "The Camera Is Mightier Than the..." The Austin Chronicle.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ 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.
- ^ Schiller, Naomi (October 2009). "Framing the Revolution: Circulation and Meaning of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". Mass Communication and Society. 12 (4): 478–502. doi:10.1080/15205430903237832.
- Bartley, Kim; O'Briain, Donnacha (2002). The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. Event occurs at 0:31–0:32.
- ^ Template:Es icon Lebon, Manuel (16 November 2003). "Cineastas venezolanos objetan video "La Revolución no será transmitida": Desarman una farsa mediática". El Universal. Retrieved 2 March 2010.
... contó con el soporte de las poderosas cadenas europeas BBC, ZDF, RTE, Arte y NPS y 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. El Gobierno está logrando crear un fenómeno comunicacional con esa película así como lo fue El Mariachi: una película muy chiquita a la que le meten un dineral en promoción para llevarla al mundo'.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help) - ^ "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". New York Times Online. Retrieved 3 March 2010.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help) - ^ Campbell, Duncan (22 November 2003). "Chavez film puts staff at risk, says Amnesty". The Guardian.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Miller, John J. (27 December 2004). "Friends of Hugo: Venezuela's Castroite boss has all the usual U.S. supporters". National Review.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Forero, Juan (21 March 2006). "Visitors Seek a Taste of Revolution in Venezuela". The New York Times.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ "Revolution Will Not Be Televised, The". Metacritic. CNET Networks, Inc. Retrieved 27 February 2010.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help) - "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (2003)". Rotten Tomatoes. IGN Entertainment, Inc. Retrieved 27 February 2010.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help) - Hornaday, Ann (12 December 2003). "In Venezuela, A Filmmaking, & Political, Coup". The Washington Post.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Shenk, Frank (1 April 2003). "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". The Hollywood Reporter.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) Subscription required. - ^ Ebert, Roger (31 October 2003). "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". Chicago Sun-Times.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Foundas, Scott (10 July 2003). "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". Variety. Retrieved 1 March 2010.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - Hoberman, J. (4 November 2003). "Recall Sequel in Venezuela? Hugo Your Way, We'll Go Ours". The Village Voice. Retrieved 15 June 2008.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - Holden, Stephen (5 November 2003). "Film review; Tumult in Venezuela's Presidential Palace, Seen Up Close". New York Times.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Burr, Ty (6 February 2004). "Riveting 'Revolution' shines on big screen". Boston Globe.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Thomson, Desson (12 December 2003). "A Revolutionary Documentary". The Washington Post.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Sokol, Brett (27 November 2003). "Through a Lens Distortedly". Miami New Times.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Jenkins, Mark (26 December 2003). "The Bigger Picture Show". Washington City Paper.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - "Irish Film Board/Bord Scannán na hÉireann – Awards 2003". Irish Film Board. Retrieved 24 March 2010.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help) - Kay, Jeremy (3 December 2003). "Balseros, Revolution win top honours at IDA Awards". Screen Daily. EMAP. Retrieved 24 March 2010.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - Staff (7 December 2007). "RTÉ's Proud Awards History Continues In Competitive Times". RTÉ. Retrieved 25 March 2010.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - "ScreenWest – Power Pictures". ScreenWest. Retrieved 25 March 2010.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help) - Staff (1 April 2004). "The Peabody Awards Are Announced". The New York Times. Retrieved 25 March 2010.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - Staff (15 October 2003). "IFB Backed Projects Receive Over 70 IFTA Nominations". Irish Film Board. Retrieved 25 March 2010.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - Template:Nl icon "Maziar Bahari over zijn Top 10". 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)
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help) - ^ Bartley, Kim; O'Briain, Donnacha (May–June 2004). "Who's Right? The Filmmakers Respond". Columbia Journalism Review. 43 (1): 62–63.
- Bartley, Kim; O'Briain, Donnacha (2002). The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. Event occurs at 0:33–0:35.
- Nelson, Brian A. The Silence and the Scorpion: The Coup Against Chavez and the Making of Modern Venezuela. Nation Books. p. 265. ISBN 978-1568584188.
- ^ Template:Es icon Linzalata, Ernesto (31 July 2004). "Estrenan 'Radiografía de una mentira': Cuando la ética es fundamental en la vida". El Universal. Retrieved 2 March 2010.
{{cite news}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - Clark, AC (2009). The Revolutionary Has No Clothes: Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian Farce. Encounter Books. p. 91.
- De La Fuente, Anna Marie (15 June 2007). "Venezuelan networks tread lightly". Variety.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)
