Richard Rodriguez Political Mimesis
Political mimesis is a term that in this case, describes the film’s appeal based off of how the viewer is swept up in its effectiveness, or how the viewer is emotionally engaged in the film. For me, the most powerful portion of the film took place when members of the Venezuelan military demanded Chavez’s resignation while surrounding the palace with a barrage of tanks and military figures. When Chavez refused to resign, the military threatened to bomb the palace.
Members of the government were sat on the floor of the palace, awaiting some kind of resolution to the ongoing conflict. This portion of the film put me in the position of watching an intense government situation unfold as government affiliates panicked. It’s not a common occurrence …show more content…
Chavez was a president for the people. He was widely respected by the poorer Venezuelan citizens, who, despite Venezuela’s massive oil wealth, made up 80% of the 26-million-person population. Like many presidential candidates before him, Chavez promised to take care of the poor majority, increase overall quality of life, and re-distribute the wealth. He was all for education, and encouraged citizens to learn the constitution and know their rights as citizens. He was so loved by these communities that he received an average of two hundred letters a day, some of which he would reply to on the only non-private channel (channel 8) that aired in Venezuela. However, like Naomi Schiller mentions in her article “Framing the Revolution: Circulation and Meaning of The Revolution Will Not be Televised,” Chavez had a growing opposition. She mentions that this opposition “accused Chavez of concentrating power and being hostile to the business community, the media, the United States, and the Catholic Church.” Because of this apparent hostility, and the lack of balance between the public and private television channels, the media became a deadly weapon that would diminish Chavez’s reputation and become the underlying cause of Chavez’s removal from office. This small, but significant number of media outlets had low journalistic standards, and weren’t interested in reporting the truth. Instead, they took their biases towards Chavez to a new level by decontextualizing footage, and even released …show more content…
This removal was against the constitution, which stated that in order for a president to be removed, there would need to be a democratic referendum. This was not upheld by the military. It’s interesting to think about how this constitution bound law was disregarded all thanks to the way that the media represented a particular situation. This factor really brings to light the overall power that the media held. No matter the situation, the media made attempts to guide the citizens into thinking what they wanted them to believe. For example, when the citizens marched on the palace after Chavez’s removal, and even after the guards plotted against military rule and planned for the original ministers, legislators, and judicial officials to take back power, the private media outlets refused to report the news. Instead, they portrayed the whole situation as controlled in an effort to mask the truth and give the citizens a sense of normality under the new
Members of the government were sat on the floor of the palace, awaiting some kind of resolution to the ongoing conflict. This portion of the film put me in the position of watching an intense government situation unfold as government affiliates panicked. It’s not a common occurrence …show more content…
Chavez was a president for the people. He was widely respected by the poorer Venezuelan citizens, who, despite Venezuela’s massive oil wealth, made up 80% of the 26-million-person population. Like many presidential candidates before him, Chavez promised to take care of the poor majority, increase overall quality of life, and re-distribute the wealth. He was all for education, and encouraged citizens to learn the constitution and know their rights as citizens. He was so loved by these communities that he received an average of two hundred letters a day, some of which he would reply to on the only non-private channel (channel 8) that aired in Venezuela. However, like Naomi Schiller mentions in her article “Framing the Revolution: Circulation and Meaning of The Revolution Will Not be Televised,” Chavez had a growing opposition. She mentions that this opposition “accused Chavez of concentrating power and being hostile to the business community, the media, the United States, and the Catholic Church.” Because of this apparent hostility, and the lack of balance between the public and private television channels, the media became a deadly weapon that would diminish Chavez’s reputation and become the underlying cause of Chavez’s removal from office. This small, but significant number of media outlets had low journalistic standards, and weren’t interested in reporting the truth. Instead, they took their biases towards Chavez to a new level by decontextualizing footage, and even released …show more content…
This removal was against the constitution, which stated that in order for a president to be removed, there would need to be a democratic referendum. This was not upheld by the military. It’s interesting to think about how this constitution bound law was disregarded all thanks to the way that the media represented a particular situation. This factor really brings to light the overall power that the media held. No matter the situation, the media made attempts to guide the citizens into thinking what they wanted them to believe. For example, when the citizens marched on the palace after Chavez’s removal, and even after the guards plotted against military rule and planned for the original ministers, legislators, and judicial officials to take back power, the private media outlets refused to report the news. Instead, they portrayed the whole situation as controlled in an effort to mask the truth and give the citizens a sense of normality under the new