Comment

The political and moral message of Sequestro Express

David Berry

Sequestro Express ('Kidnap Express') is a film about kidnap and terror in Caracas, Venezuela, written and directed by Jonathan Jacubowicz. The film details events surrounding a group of kidnappers who terrorise the rich to extort money in order to finance their existence (survival). Sounds simple and straightforward, but this film is far from being just that. Sequestro Express works on many complex levels and raises important questions about Venezuela under Chávez. There are two principle levels that this comment will focus on. The first level 'explicit' is our reaction to both the use of kidnap and terror in a film that clearly seeks to make a political and philosophical point. So for instance what should our moral reaction be, in principle, to kidnap and the terrorising of individuals to gain either in profit or notoriety? Should it be a universal moral indignation regardless or can there ever be an empirical context in which we can try to understand, empathise and possibly find a solution to the problem?

More recently, terrorism has become a central feature of the political agenda since both Bush and Blair declared a 'war on terror', of which kidnap is a part. One aim of this is to influence public discussion and perceptions of terrorists and the acts that they engage in. The idea of terror and kidnap loom large in public consciousness, not least because the mainstream media has been so complicit and effective in peddling the US and British governmental ideology in their respective campaigns. The perpetual and repetitious use of propaganda by the British media for instance regarding the possibility of a terrorist attack and creating phantoms was detailed in the BBC's The Power of Nightmares trilogy screened in the Autumn of 2004 and written, produced and narrated by Adam Curtis.

Surely, no rationally minded person could claim that the act of terrorising and kidnap is morally justified? So what moral reaction to kidnap and terror when they are used in a film that has a touch of the Tarantino about it that seeks to make an overt political and moral point?

Jakubowicz is undoubtedly a thought provoking writer and director, with a deep sense of critical analysis, albeit in this case, born out of his personal experience; for he was a victim of kidnap and terror. In this context the film cannot be seen as objectively documenting the use of kidnap and terror that principally highlights the social divisions between rich and poor in Venezuela. On the contrary, this film is riddled with subjective involvement with multiple use of value-judgements. In this context there is an inherent truth intrinsic to the film; a truth of self-experience.

However, perhaps the most intriguing element of the film is the attempt to portray a far more complicated and complex society other than the simple dichotomy between seemingly polar opposites of rich and poor, which is represented in the female character 'Carla' played by Mia Maestro. She is the daughter of a rich doctor and from a privileged background, but works in a medical clinic in the barrios helping the poor. Jakubowicz has been critical of the Chávez government for seeing matters in terms of rich and poor or left and right, and therefore the character 'Carla' is the manifestation of his belief that if Venezuelans are to find solutions to an unequal and severely divided society that they must probe a lot deeper to find them. Jakubowicz claims that Chávez is using the divisions in Venezuala and exploiting them for his own political purposes. But he is equally critical of the accumulation of wealth that has spawned such anti-social behaviour such as kidnapping, as much as he is about political manipulation. This can be seen within the film itself as the father of the male character 'Martin' (Jean Paul Leroux), who is kidnapped along with 'Carla', is seen casually smoking an expensive cigar whilst throwing money needlessly away at a casino. 'Martin' also betrays 'Carla', so much for his principles, and pays the consequences by being ruthlessly shot by the kidnappers, and the decision to execute of course was ultimately the writer and director's! It's a metaphorical assasination for 'Martin' represents the abuse of power and privilege, whilst 'Carla' is the embodiment of a benevolent human spirit, regardless of class.

The second level 'implicit' is based partly on the timing of the film's release (during the era of Chávez) and also, and perhaps more importantly linked to the film's international distribution and the Company behind it. This is the first Venezuelan film to have an international distribution, and the film's distributors are Mirimax, which is controlled by The Walt Disney Company. Mirimax, you may recall, were the original distributors of Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, but then decided to pull out because Moore's film was seen by Mirimax to be both 'political' and 'partisan', so the rights to the film was thus subsequently acquired by Lions Gates Films who then distributed Moore's film. For Mirimax to claim that Sequestro Express is neither 'political' or 'partisan' would be to stretch the limits of credibility. Of course the film is both; it's just that Moore's film wasn't the kind of politics or partisanship that Mirimax (Disney) had in mind, whereas Sequestro Express fits an American-Republican agenda very well indeed.

For their part the Venezuelan authorities have denounced the film for what they say is a graphic and irresponsible use of drugs and the film's anti-social message, which is seen as a backhanded attack on Chávez, particularly his failure to find a solution to this problem. Vice President José Vicente Rangel has been a leading figure in the government's attack on the film and The National Autonomous Centre of Cinematography of Venezuela refused to nominate the film for an Academy Award as Best Foreign Film in 2005, despite the fact that this is probably one of Venezuela's most important films in its history. Was the decision not to nominate the film because kidnap and terror show Venezuela in a bad light? Is it because kidnap and terror cannot be justified as a means of storytelling, whatever the empirical and culturally specific character of context? Do the authorities suspect that Mirimax's decision to enthusiastically endorse the film, represents another gringo conspiracy and is counter-revolutionary seeking to further destabilise Venezuela?

Amongst all the complexities over the moral and political implications of the film and conspiracies surrounding it, discussed in this comment at least, is the oft-forgotten principle concerning freedom of artistic expression, which in this case, I would argue, must be defended at all costs, even if we smell a rightist rat in Mirimax who would simply see Jakubowicz as a pawn in their quest to oust Chávez and Co., and even if Jakubowicz is a willing partner.

In my view the authorities should see this film in the context of a newly flourishing and democratically expanding civil society, much better to embrace it in a critical dialogue rather than resort to bullying tactics that have seen the film denounced on 'Chávista TV' as heretical. Perhaps also the film can be seen ironically as a product of the new Chávez era that allows for an environment for such artistic creativity to flourish, for there is no doubt that the events of which this film is based owes much to Chávez for confronting the vast inequalities that exist in Venezuela. The real point of the film is to highlight that there is much work to be done or else things could get much worse, and these two different perspectives would be better enriched through dialogue and not stand-off.

Of course, such dialogue on how to effectively take matters forward and to find solutions to endemic social problems should proceed in a civilised and respectful manner. On this basis, Jakubowicz could also do well to think about how he should engage with Chávez more positively, 'speaking after Chávez's visit to London last month, Jakubowicz told The New Statesman, "As English people love him so much, I'm campaigning for Chávez to become mayor of London. Really, you're welcome to him"' (http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net). For anyone interested in the political situation in Venezuela, I recommend that you see this film not least for what is a very honourable reason behind the making of it:

'This [film] is not a coincidence; this is a consequence of an extremely unfair society. I thought it was necessary and I thought I'd use my own experience to tell the story. If you look at the language in which the movie is told, that is the way I perceived reality during those 45 minutes when I was kidnapped with a gun under my nose' (http://movies.about.com).

Of course, the important moral and political messages are the clear statements about poverty and wealth; about the haves and have nots; about the thin and impoverished and the fat and rich; and more explicitly about the consequences of inaction, which are kidnap and terror, which dominate many Latin American societies. This film isn't about justifying such criminal activity, it's about a global-capitalist system that has abjectly failed to provide the basics of life for human beings and about corruption and greed that is a part of Venezuelan life.