Rarely have i been so hesitant on how to judge a movie - it seems at the same time exceptionally good and rather weak, both with respect to it artistic form and its political content.
Regarding the content, as mentioned by several commentators, a guiding theme of the movie is to make you feel and understand in which ways not much changed about the oppression of the South of the world by the North and of First Nations by immigrants to the new world; and even more importantly, that for bettering this, it's not enough for the average European to just be good and help the poor, because that merely leads to the paternalistic and condescending behaviour shown by the film's protagonists towards their indigenous workers. In short, the depiction of the dialectics of oppression, privilege and solidarity - in particular the voluntary, cheap, incomplete kind of solidarity - is relentless and far above average.
On the other hand, the supposed topics of the movie are hardly even touched: I learnt a lot more about the Cochabamba water war from the user comments here on IMDb than from the film itself, it doesn't really explain what that war was all about. There is a bit more material about Columbus, De las Casas and their time, but it's all fragmentary, symbolist, and doesn't form a coherent picture, as it would be needed to really understand anything about history.
Regarding the artistic form, i'd call this "Epic Theatre" in the Brecht'ian sense, as flabbergasting as that may seem in our post-modern times: Not only by the fact that the plot of the movie is "turning a movie", but by many other details as well, the spectator is frequently made aware the s/he is watching a play. To name just one example: People read from historical letters, then actually go on to comment why they read from those letters, and propose interpretations of the text, just like Brecht's chorus. Or imagine, in a movie, actors telling the stage director: "There are more important things than turning a movie" - and walking away from the scene. Fragmentation techniques, interruptions, contrast and contradiction, all these defamiliarizing elements of Epic Theatre abound, and even elements of the typical simplistic and abstract scenic design can be found in some parts of the movie in the movie. The overall effect is intense, this is certainly exceptionally artful, very unusual and worth seeing.
Unfortunately, there are several artistic defects as well. Most of the characters are rather schematic and not very convincing, in particular in their change and development, and some turns of the plot seem contrived and artificial. Even worse, the Epic elements are not used for their proper purpose, which is making the audience think, deeply understand the social conditions at hand, and critically reflect them. Sure, the alienating effect is sufficient to make you aware that you are watching an explicitly political movie - but as i said, information is missing to really understand and reflect the alleged topics. You are merely left in diffuse indignation about the injustice of the world, with some equally vague hints that it's both possibly to individually oppose and collectively fight injustice. That alone is not news, really; the depiction of both options is neither very convincing nor in any way specific.
Altogether, i deem the movie far from perfect as a work of art; but it is so diverse in its content and form that there are certainly many ways to view it, and more than one aspect that's worth seeing. Thus, i recommend you see for yourself, i don't think your time will be wasted.
Regarding the content, as mentioned by several commentators, a guiding theme of the movie is to make you feel and understand in which ways not much changed about the oppression of the South of the world by the North and of First Nations by immigrants to the new world; and even more importantly, that for bettering this, it's not enough for the average European to just be good and help the poor, because that merely leads to the paternalistic and condescending behaviour shown by the film's protagonists towards their indigenous workers. In short, the depiction of the dialectics of oppression, privilege and solidarity - in particular the voluntary, cheap, incomplete kind of solidarity - is relentless and far above average.
On the other hand, the supposed topics of the movie are hardly even touched: I learnt a lot more about the Cochabamba water war from the user comments here on IMDb than from the film itself, it doesn't really explain what that war was all about. There is a bit more material about Columbus, De las Casas and their time, but it's all fragmentary, symbolist, and doesn't form a coherent picture, as it would be needed to really understand anything about history.
Regarding the artistic form, i'd call this "Epic Theatre" in the Brecht'ian sense, as flabbergasting as that may seem in our post-modern times: Not only by the fact that the plot of the movie is "turning a movie", but by many other details as well, the spectator is frequently made aware the s/he is watching a play. To name just one example: People read from historical letters, then actually go on to comment why they read from those letters, and propose interpretations of the text, just like Brecht's chorus. Or imagine, in a movie, actors telling the stage director: "There are more important things than turning a movie" - and walking away from the scene. Fragmentation techniques, interruptions, contrast and contradiction, all these defamiliarizing elements of Epic Theatre abound, and even elements of the typical simplistic and abstract scenic design can be found in some parts of the movie in the movie. The overall effect is intense, this is certainly exceptionally artful, very unusual and worth seeing.
Unfortunately, there are several artistic defects as well. Most of the characters are rather schematic and not very convincing, in particular in their change and development, and some turns of the plot seem contrived and artificial. Even worse, the Epic elements are not used for their proper purpose, which is making the audience think, deeply understand the social conditions at hand, and critically reflect them. Sure, the alienating effect is sufficient to make you aware that you are watching an explicitly political movie - but as i said, information is missing to really understand and reflect the alleged topics. You are merely left in diffuse indignation about the injustice of the world, with some equally vague hints that it's both possibly to individually oppose and collectively fight injustice. That alone is not news, really; the depiction of both options is neither very convincing nor in any way specific.
Altogether, i deem the movie far from perfect as a work of art; but it is so diverse in its content and form that there are certainly many ways to view it, and more than one aspect that's worth seeing. Thus, i recommend you see for yourself, i don't think your time will be wasted.