Sean Penn, Danny Glover, and now Oliver Stone demonstrate that
truth — and Hollywood hokum — are stranger than
fiction.
Penn and Glover are masters of political disaster. And
somehow, the perfect storm of their inarticulation seems best
demonstrated whenever they deign to defend Hugo Chavez. What is
it about this man that brings out the worst in movie star
miasmas? Their recent and well-publicized comments on Mr.
Chavez are hardly worth repeating. They’re more fit to be
enshrined on the walls of an abandoned gas station
restroom.
Nevertheless…
Penn, a man who thinks that Chavez is the arbiter of
Venezuelan’s “dreams,” also thinks journalists who call Chavez a
dictator should go
to prison. Glover, the beneficiary of nearly $20 million in
Chavez’s motion picture funding, has long admired the leader,
embraced the leader, and supports him as a “brother.” Such
comments belong in a satire but are inexplicably said
in earnest. Penn and Glover continue to be
apologists for a man who is seen for what he is — a dictatorial
thug — by everyone not blinded by his dim bulb of
alleged social benevolence and charm.
How dark must it be for Hugo Chavez’s charisma to brighten
up a room?
This clothes-less emperor, however, who attributes
Haiti’s earthquake to the U.S.’s detonation of a secret
underground weapon, has claimed yet another supporter in the
American trifecta of western “intelligentsia” known as
Hollywood.
“He behaves well. I think he’s compensating those
businesses that he has nationalized. Most peoples’ lives in this
country have improved under Chavez,” said
Oliver Stone recently, while promoting his
new film on the Venezuelan leader. Stone continued, “[t]here
is no question that the American press, the Anglo press, does not
understand the way he speaks… . I’m not an expert on the
local day-to-day issues, but I admire Hugo. I like him very much
as a person. If I can say one thing, he shouldn’t be on TV all
the time.”
Stone’s self-deprecating admission is right on the
mark. Even though expertise is hardly required to understand
that although Mr. Chavez talks of wealth, prosperity,
and liberty, he only brings such things to those who
know better than to speak out against him. That is what it
is to understand the way Hugo Chavez speaks, and it’s perfectly
clear.
Despite Mr. Stone’s admitted limitations, he feels
confident in saying that Chavez is compensating those
businesses nationalized under the strong arm of a
centralized power and media grab. I’d like to hear what the
victims of Chavez’ nationalization process have to say about it
— the unfiltered version — if they could say one
thing. Just because he opines on their well-being — or makes a
movie about it — doesn’t make it so.
It is interesting, Stone’s choice of words: “if I
can say one thing.” Because, saying one
thing can get you into a lot of trouble if you don’t agree
with el Presidente. Just ask Guillermo Zuloaga, the
president of Globovision, the only remaining television station
still critical of Hugo Chavez. While other stations critical
of Chavez’ methods have slowly but surely disappeared, Mr.
Zuloga, who has been a constant thorn in the side of Hugo
Chavez’s push for a Latin American utopia, has remained,
recoiled, and repeatedly ridiculed. How is Mr. Zuloga being
compensated for his exercise of speech and opinion? Mr.
Zuloaga, is now being brought up on charges of harvesting a
product that is antithetical to the Venezuelan-Chavez way:
personal wealth, or, said another way,
profit:
Guillermo Zuloaga, president of Globovision, is accused
of illegally storing vehicles with the intent to sell them for
a profit… . This is a gentleman who has committed a crime,
and he should have to answer to Venezuelan justice,” Justice
Minister Tareck El Aissami said Friday. “We have already
started the process. We have generated an Interpol alert for
the capture of this fugitive, wherever he is. He and his son
are sought by a Venezuelan justice tribunal.” The charges
against Zuloaga originated in May 2009, when 24 vehicles were
found on one of his properties in Caracas. According to the
government, they were being kept there in violation of existing
law. Zuloaga, who owns car dealerships, has said the vehicles
were stored at his house as part of his business.
Imagine, a car dealer keeping cars. Imagine a car
dealer who owns cars trying to sell them for a profit. How would
Chavez’s view of car dealerships go over in middle, center, or
even off-kilter America? Not very compensatory, I reckon.
“Oh, you just don’t get ol’ Hugo — he means well,” goes
the pedantic palaver. That is probably true. He means
very well. He means very well to retain power at any
cost. He means very well to silence anyone not willing to
agree with him — particularly in the media. He means very
well to tighten his grip until he produces a clear and
unmistakable sense of uniformity. And then he means very well to
be a leader, free of the problems associated with
adversarial discord or opposition — the kind of uniformity
where unflattering movies about ex-presidents
and governmental conspiracies would land you unemployed or
in jail.
That’s something Messrs. Penn, Glover, Stone and anyone
fond of artistic license and freedom of expression might want to
consider before deigning to “admire” a dictator. I
know it’s something I’ll consider before I see one of their
movies.
