MovieChat Forums > Salvador (1986) Discussion > I'm Salvadoran, a Few Facts about this F...

I'm Salvadoran, a Few Facts about this Film

posted 21 years ago by Alien_Latino
56 replies | jump to latest

Everything was accurate on the film, the roads, the violence, the army incidents, even roadside advertising posters depicted in the movie, but there were also gross and preposterous falsehoods, here are a few:

--Mexican accent being spoken by every "Salvadoran" in the movie (this doesn't look bad nor matters among anglo viewers since they can't tell the difference between the spanish of one country to another but for bilingual viewers it was very sad).

--The film was overtly pro-leftist. The guerrillas were portrayed as homely liberators getting themselves rid of a tyrannical government, that's far from the truth, half the rebels were common criminals and others joined just to get rich quick and to steal with their new-found power of carrying weapons.

--The army was portrayed as brutal, it was brutal, but so were the rebels who blatantly killed many innocent people, in some instances just to take over their ranches and houses.

--The movie depicted a cavalry battle, oh my gosh, is Oliver Stone for real? There isn't a single instance in the war where horses were used to charge against tanks or army bases, not even one instance.

--The scene of the Archbishop being killed was distorted, in the movie he was shot point-blank by a guy who had just taken the oyster in his mouth kneeling before him, in reality the Arhcbishop was killed by a sniper that was on the last bench near the back exit of the cathedral. He used a long-barreled rifle.

Hope this clears a few things up :)

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] withnail-1 21 years ago

I feel the american political scene is paralyzed by finger pointing at "leftists" or "neo-cons". when will americans realize that killing, done by the left or the right, is wrong? when the US stops supporting dictators because they're right-leaning, and stop meddling in the internal affairs of other countries the world will be a better place. this is in part the message of Stone. he is a patriot but tired of the US siding itself with anti-democratic death squads in the name of a "crusade". too bad no one listens to him.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Alien_Latino 21 years ago

Well I wouldn't be sure if I can distinguish different German accents, so don't say that "anybody" can do it no matter what language he speaks.

REDGUARD: With your alias I can see that you are a Communist, how can I expect an unbiased conversation from you? El Salvador's guerrillas were brutal and seasoned criminals, they didn't do nothing for my country, how can I support a guerrilla movement that hates my social class? The class of educated and hard-working people?

"El comunismo es para los guevones y los peresozos" Roberto D'aubuisson

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bpsim 21 years ago

Why so many post deleted here?
What it talk about?

[–] WhatsInAUserID 20 years ago

I took the film as being as much about people in general and civil war/internal struggles as it was about the specific conflict in Salvador.

It does annoy me when people complain of historical innacuracies in films - like it says above, watch the news, read the paper, read a book - this film isn't a documentary.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stormkite 18 years ago

>>the rest of the world should just back off and leave America alone.

Be a lot more likely to do that if the US would do likewise.

Not going to happen in our lifetimes.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] suz-mal 14 years ago

--the rest of the world should just back off and leave America alone. --

You have got to be kidding?

[–] criskavaquer 20 years ago

I'm salvadoran too, and I agree with most of the facts you are writing, I know that Mr. Stone is not an Historian teller, and I know he does this to entertain, but if you are going to tell a story you'll have to do it well and precise, according to reality, I am not a leftist guy, but I think both sides in the war had good and bad people. Ones of the things in the movie I didn't like was the scene when archbishop Romero is killed because it is all wrong, that was a big mistake, he wasn't killed in the cathedral, he was killed in a chapel, he wasn't killed by two bullets of a pistol, he was killed by one bullet of a rifle .22 milimeters, one bullet in the chest.
I personally didn't like the movie but I'm not saying the movie was bad.
I agree with the guy who says that USA does not have to be in other countries politics and internal affairs.

[–] IwasSquidly 19 years ago

A sorry and never reported fact is that the US dropped more bombs on El Salvador than any country betweeen Viet Nam and Desert Storm. Plainly, the CIA was not the answer to revolutions of the belly but neither was the Peace Corp. Specifically in El Salvador, El Papa, John Paul II said the 'insurrectionist' church was not the answer either.

If American policy during the Cold War was reflexive and paranoid, no one can believe the KGB meant well for anyone. Long before there was a School of the Americas training thugs there was Spain. From Cuba through the Americas to the Phillipines they left a legacy of dysfunctioning, oligarchic kleptocracies. Each and everyone of these former colonies has suffered feudal, meritless, venal, arrogant, racist elites (Castro is no exception!) hell bent on ruining their patria for self-interest.

Condi Rice confessed the errors of our ways to the UN. She announced the US would no longer support every merde murdering his own and claiming to fight for America's interest. I'l take her word for it. (Don't go there....Iraq is not part of this discussion.) While too late for El Salvador, don't forget it was Reagan that finally told Marcos his time was up. The US studiously refrained from interfering in the triste of Manila that continues today.

A little perspective for America bashers: the last time a US president gave an order to fire on US civilians it was 1863 and the Irish were murdering blacks on the streets of New York, and the last time one man owned one or more states his name was GeorgeIII or Napoleon, or he lived in Madrid.

I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed!

[–] PSTerran 19 years ago

Honestly I think it's called artistic license. The rest is lack of cultural knowledge specific to that area. Some of the points you mentioned are exactly bothersome in another film about EL Salvador's Civil War, Voces Inocentes.

I agree with almost everything you pointed out, especially the cavalry charge and the Archbishop assassination scene. I don't agree with you on the reasons why people joined the guerilla, but I also do acknowledge that organizations do get hijacked for personal gain not just in El Salvador but throughout the world (i.e. islamic fundamentalism vis-a-vis Al Qaeda). However, in El Salvador's particular circumstances, a lot of people joined up with the guerillas because in their current circumstances they had nothing to lose. They were the perfect candidates to be guerillas. They had no access to education, food, and were usually far away from the city and lived in the countryside. They either joined the guerillas, or they could continue to, pardon the expression, eat feces the rest of their lives. That's how revolutionary movements get started: they need people who are suffering to join their cause, and I certainly can't blame them. Look at their options.

I have a lot of unanswered questions, I too being a Salvatrucho, why Oliver Stone did the film the way he did. Just nit picking things that are irksome to, as you say, someone who would know that some of this stuff was done by artistic license rather than accuracy to detail. I'm wondering if any of that is cleared up in the DVD? Anyone know of the extras in the DVD and if anything is said about that topic?

[–] abclaret 19 years ago

I think some people are missing the point which is that Romero was killed by the death squads, as were the nuns and countless other people while the USA sanctioned it. To say that doesnt mean you have to support the guerrillas, but frankly of two forces at work I think the guerrillas had the people more at heart.

[–] illogic66 15 years ago

I'm just mentioning that it was mostly made in Mexico, since other people have been complaining about the Mexican accents. He began filming in El Salvador but had to leave quickly because it was too dangerous, and he surely didn't have the money (or time) to train actors to all learn Salvadoran accents, let alone to transport a fleet of Salvadorans up to Mexico for a few lines of dialogue. This film barely made it to theaters in the US, and probably never played at all anywhere south of the border except if somebody had it on video.

I believe Stone did the best he could with his minimal budget. Obviously he took some artistic license, and it is not a 'bio-pic'; he's an artist, not a documentarian (in this case), and honestly I believe that it is absolutely fair for an artist to use their art to make a valid point about an important subject, especially when there is a great deal of money and effort spent to support the opposing view-point. During the Reagan years, our government did pump some money into Hollywood (and everything else media-related) to specifically influence the tone of certain films and enforce the military agenda, like the film 'Red Dawn' for example. It's not just something the Russians do, as we were told at the time.

When you're making a film on a low budget, you just can't spend all your money on mostly-unimportant details, like a picture-perfect re-creation of Romero's execution-- he was shot, it was at a church; good enough for the movie. It isn't exactly deceptive. Maybe Stone couldn't afford to do it just like it happened, maybe he felt it wouldn't convey the drama to an audience who had been watching 'Rambo' that year. He didn't have the budget of 'Saving Private Ryan' for this film, and he's lucky it played on Z-Channel in LA or NOBODY would have seen it and James Woods wouldn't have been nominated for an Academy Award.

[–] ixtrm-sol 13 years ago

stone obviously had personal agendas when making this film and used artistic license to do so. he was a vietnam vet so it's kinda understandable he's wary of us government's paranoia and exaggeration of the communist threats and butting in other countries' internal conflicts again and again based on how sides labeled themselves as pro-usa or not. to make the point that the side us government supported were usually as bad if not worse than the terrorists they're fighting, stone had to make the salvador military forces look really bad while diminishing the guerrilla's contribution to the violence. i think boyle's little speech around the 90 minutes mark is pretty much expy of the director's personal opinions. in a sense, this movie isn't just about the salvadorian civil war but also commentary on us foreign policies of picking sides based on leftist/rightist labels.

[–] Geisha1492 19 years ago

Yeah, That really pissed me off when the actors were using mexican accents as oppossed to Salvadoran ones. That was indeed a letdown.

[–] rogerscorpion 18 years ago

Wow! For the longest--Hispanics complained about Gringos playing them. Now--w/Latinos playing Latinos--you complain about the actors' accents.
Look--I really don't much care about accents. I'm more concerned about the facts. I DO understand some of your concernes about the facts, tho.
Back in the 30's, in the film Beau Geste, 3 French brothers--the Geste brothers, were played by Gary Cooper, Robert Preston & Ray Milland--2 Yanks & a Brit. Each used his natural voice. Not one used a French accent. No one minded.
In the 70's, on the other hand, Jon Voight, starred in a film set in Germany--The Odessa File. He played a German journalist. His accent won plaudits, but ppl said it took so much concentration--that his acting suffered.
When 2 German Characters are speaking English in a scene to each other--there's no reason for them to speak English w/German accents. Face it--any 2 ppl of the same nationality are unlikely to be speaking to each other in a foreign tongue. They'd be speaking GERMAN. We're suspending a little disbelief, by accepting that they're speaking English already--aren't we?
In Dracula(1979)--all the actors except Frank Langella, were Brits. All the characters were Brits, except Van Helsing(Olivier), who used a Dutch(accurate) accent & Dracula(Langella), who used an American(inaccurate) accent.
Let the actors act. If their performances are bad--tell us about it. If the facts are misrepresented--bring it on.

Carpe Noctem

[–] ContinentalOp 18 years ago

"El Salvador's guerrillas were brutal and seasoned criminals, they didn't do nothing for my country, how can I support a guerrilla movement that hates my social class? The class of educated and hard-working people?"

Ah, you are not of the peasant classes. You said REDGUARD was incapable of having a non-bias convo becaues he may be a communist, however, it is likely that you will be biased against the guerillas and the peasant classes.

A wee bit hypocritical if you ask me.

Regards,
The Count

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

[–] orin69 16 years ago

Totally agree with you roger, accent is not the main issue on a movie...

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PulpFictionWhatsInTheBriefcase 17 years ago

This film was more even-handed than Oliver Stone bashers want to admit. What about when the CIA agent points out to Boyle that leftist journalists in Cambodia supported the Communist Khmer Rouge at first? Or the rebels being 80% as bad as the government?

The U.S. involvement in El Salvador was really quite horrifying. In particular the Reagan administration through Alexander Haig trying to sell the dead nuns down the river as gunrunners or whatever really stabs at you as to how low things could go.

[–] BobStage 17 years ago

A dreadful shame.

I personally love this film. It deserved a lot of attention, but was overshadowed by Stone's smash hit "Platoon".

Oh well. It had a massive success at video purchase.

[–] Ohiowatha 16 years ago

...and was re-released in 1986 after the success of Platoon. Great film.

[–] ReasonlsOutToLunch 16 years ago

This thread wins "the most deleted posts" in a thread award also "the long running thread" award. The OP brings up a lot of valid points. There really isn't a good reason to change the way someone was killed especially if the time, place, and method are well known. I have no doubt the OP is also accurate when describing rebels. However, were the government not brutally oppressing people this whole situation could have likely been avoided. I am a centrist, so I don't have a dog in the fight between the left and the right.

[–] Magenzus 16 years ago

I would have liked to see the brutal side of the guerrillas as well a lot more, I mean, they kidnapped and killed a lot more innocent people than the government probably did during the civil war. I would have liked to see Russia, Cuba, and Nicaragua´s involment to a full extent.

You have to watch this as a movie, you cant believe everything they show you its really biased.

[–] hoboquisine 16 years ago

I would of of liked to see the part where you read the United Nations Truth Commission report that determined that 96% of war crimes during the Civil War were perpetrated by the government and right-wing death squads.

But I know you'd just dismiss it as "communist propaganda"

Oh well.

[–] Magenzus 16 years ago

Where did you get that information? Its completely false..haha 96% you must be ignorant or crazy to believe something like that being true in a 3rd world country civil war. The communists based their entire economic system on kidnaping people and socio-communist country aids...there is no way that those war crimes account for only a 4%..just from where did you think something like that could be considered as an even possible percentage? Its completely false and id love for you to show me that 96% written anywere in the report.

Also those war crimes you refer to are probably the death squads, which werent done by the government but by civilian conservatives like d'aubuisson and the UN dismissed direct connections and even qualified most facts as leading to the governments exclusion in the case. FMLN even killed american officials in zona rosa but of course none of those matter I guess?

FMLN is still against the government until now that they have won by deceiving the people of the country..during the war they hated the goverment and went against it..when the new democratic government won they still continued blaming the new government for things the previous government had done..they just whine and whined, got the country in the gutter so that people would vote for *beep* them, they dont care about the country all they ever wanted was power...funny thing is the movement was started to protect 'campesinos" and even the campesinos are smart enough not to vote for them..the middle class is the "dumb" one i guess in el salvador.

[–] illogic66 15 years ago

He was a Major in the Salvadoran army and commanded the death squads, though the death squads were technically not considered 'military' because they were mostly soldiers out-of-uniform, probably for the very purpose of avoiding visible connection to the government in the eyes of the world. Unfortunately for them, the US was keeping track of what their employees (like D'Aubuisson) were doing, and many of the records have been declassified.
I haven't seen the report the other person was quoting, but there is no credible evidence whatsoever that the guerillas performed anywhere near a majority of the war crimes involved in the situation. If there is, please share it with us, to support your unlikely claims.
Here is one of my sources for this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1891145.stm

[–] queerever 13 years ago

You are alive, and have obviously profited from the suffering and recent, horrible history of El Salvador. One name for it is Bourgeois. Of course you have exaggerated the crimes of the Left and the guerrillas - and even if you were there, in the thick of it, watching Leftists massacre and steal from others - not you or anybody has a real clue about the whole situation, ie. EVERYTHING that happened. You believe in your side of the propaganda argument because it is comfortable and suits you. I don't buy it, it's a lie. Right wing governments are always an ACTIVE force oppressing the people, (if not Domestically, then Internationally); of course people will commit crimes in rebellion. Of course the Left was involved in and the perpetrator of horrors, also. But all in all, you are just an apologiser for Fascism. There is nothing worse than someone who thinks that they are the authority because it is "their" country - usually, that just leads to a total loss of perspective.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] contractorjohn2003 15 years ago

Obama & Liberals = Leftist Guerrilla uneducated criminal thugs.
nuff said

[–] Lardossan_Wavejumper 15 years ago

you are retarded

nuff said

[–] illogic66 14 years ago

you sound like a contractor... been in the sun too long and don't have any grip on reality. Hope you can still grip your hammer to pound those intellectual nails all day, bubba.
I can't imagine what kind of disorder caused you to think this would be the right place to post the most random, factless and idiotic insult I've heard this week. It has nothing to do with this thread.

[–] tetsuo 14 years ago

Actually both sides of all civil wars have their dark sides. Nobody are saints.

I'm from the Phil. the army their is corrupt, sometimes brutal power trippers. The landlord private armies are brutal pricks who abuse the local populace. On the other hand the guys they are fighting(the commies and the muslim seccesionists) are mainly criminals who like to kidnap people, and extortion rackets.

So I prefer the gov. Communism is a failed ideology, even Fidel recently said so and look at Cambodia with Pol Pot.

[–] johnf_sf 13 years ago

Alien_Latino, In America and Hollywood, the leftists/communists/liberals are ALWAYS presented as the heroes, regardless of truth.

It'd be nice if people could live without Fascist Dictators AND communist pigs AND exploitative imperialists. True conservatives know ALL three are corrupt.

[–] queerever 13 years ago

You are very wrong.
Nice to see that some Conservatives have enough heart to at least fool themselves that they are idealists too, not. In all of history, in every, single situation, Conservatives have always been allies of, if not the very thing, first and third on your "fantastically comprehensive" list. By the way, I don't just think, but I know that there has always been more people in the world, hoping for any kind of Socialism (see Oliver Stone and this film), to try to put a dampener on Conservative Dictators and exploitative Imperialists, than there have ever been ("true"?) Communists or pig people.
The Left is where the idealists are, plenty of phonies too, of course. Whereas the Right is all about economic liberalism, (at any cost, people not worth the freedoms), while basic, human rights are curbed - Dark Ages; church and the rich and their happy servants, status quo. Humanity can only claim any progression due to the history of the Left, its predecessors and the like. To start with, imagine worker's never being able to organise and struggle for basic wages and decent work conditions - Conservatives have never been TRULY involved in that struggle. In fact, even until today, Cons are usually, actively against said decency, ad infinitum.

[–] Pharaoh-in-de-Nile 11 years ago

Alien_Latino, In America and Hollywood, the leftists/communists/liberals are ALWAYS presented as the heroes, regardless of truth.

Yes, that is right. It isn't like 98% of Action Films in the 1980s didn't feature evil Communist/Anarchist/Stalinist/Viet Cong villains or anything.

I remember the good old days of the 1950s where every other film didn't feature Communist Russian or Chinese spies or atheist commie traitors taht the good ol' G-Men had to save the USA from.

To be frank you rightist dimbulbs should stop whining like little pansies that there are a MINORITY (not majority) of US films that feature Socialists as more-in-the-right than your pet fascist dictators. Scum.

"The game's afoot!"