alli1976 Wow I had to write in when I read the last review. Saying this movie is a one-sided view of Allende's government is a bit like saying Schindler's List isn't critical enough of Jews during WWII. Its just NOT what the movie is about -- its about how memory can do things politically - both through its repression (keeping a whole generation of Chilean kids in the dark about Pinochet) and its revelation. I saw this in a public theater during a Latin American film festival and I've never seen such an enormous shared emotional reaction to a documentary. The scenes where Guzman (director) shows his earlier film, Batalla de Chile, to young Chileans whose parents told them that Allende was just a stupid commie -- when these kids see for themselves what really happened for the first time, and Guzman focuses the lens on the reactions on their faces - its just unforgettable. Rent it -- you wont regret it.

B24 Having watched this film twice, I am compelled to say it cannot be fully understood without seeing the original and earlier film upon which it is based. The viewer must also have an opportunity to form an opinion as to how it relates to certain historical facts. Without that additional information, any comments rendered here become superficial.This documentary is about another, earlier documentary -- as seen through the eyes of a generation once removed from the events upon which the first documentary relied to advance its thesis. Got that? Good.Now imagine you know nothing about Chile except that it produces passably good wine. The first thing to do before watching this film is to read history, noting how Chile was at first a smallish colony of Spain attached to Argentina, its larger neighbor to the east, as well as to the more important colony of Peru on the north. Independence came at the start of the nineteenth century. Most inhabitants today are European in origin, including a very large component of Germans in the south. Native Americans are found in abundance in the large cities and in the north. Chile's history into the twentieth century paralleled to some extent that of Argentina, its erstwhile rival on the other side of the Andes. Wars were fought, capitalism thrived, and North American and European money poured into the country's mines and rich agricultural lands. A large social and economic underclass formed as the result of too little land to sustain any agrarian movement, and the gap between rich and poor was always wide.Enter socialism in 1936. By the 1960's, a kind of populist movement similar to (but not the same as) Peronism in Argentina threatened vested foreign and domestic interests. This movement resulted in the peaceful accession to the presidency of Salvador Allende Gossens in 1970. It was not long, however, before its more extreme nationalistic and communistic elements began expropriations and other questionable attacks on private property. Enter the Yankee CIA and the usual suspects from the Right. By 1973, a reactionary alliance of Chile's military and upper classes employing tactics of intrigue, subversion, and misinformation found enough support to attempt a brutal and successful coup d'etat against the Allende government. Almost by accident, film director Guzman was able to capture the "battle of Chile" on footage that was suppressed until the late 1990's, shown only abroad until he returned after fascism had been rooted out. "Chile, la memoria obstinada" is his 1997 effort to document reactions of today's Chileans to his earlier work. If you have read this far, you now know how to begin viewing the film in question. Pieces of the original "battle of Chile" are ugly reminders of what we would call today terrorism of brother against brother. Interviews of young and old provide contrasting emotions as young Chileans see the older film for the first time. It is at once powerful, yet of necessity incomplete, reportage. As a documentary, it succeeds where technique and development of singular strands of thought do not. One wishes there could be more, but when a life ends prematurely as the result of assassination or "disappearance," there is nothing left.The viewer must draw his own conclusions as to who were the good guys and who the bad guys in this sad story. You can guess by now where this reviewer comes down on that question.

Fergus27 Patricio Guzman has spent most of his adult life producing film of the fall of Allende in Chile. This film is as pro-left dishonest in its own way as are the pro-right films/books concerning Chile in the 1970's. At no time (perhaps I missed it) did I see any note concerning the fact that the Allende Government was a collaborative government of Socialists & Communists. Without active & massive communist support, Allende would never have been elected.I consider it impossible that one can watch this type of politically generated film and gain an understanding of the complexities of the times. At one point in the film, Guzman states that Allende wanted to make some basic "social changes." A slight understatement of "basic:" (1) Breakup of private land ownership; (2) nationalization of various industries; (3) ousting of all foreign ownership in Chilean companies (as was normal for Socialist/Communist takeovers - no or minimal payout to the foreign owners who has forked over the capital to invest in Chile).......etc.etc.

Milhaud Not only is the subject interesting but the way the movie has been directed too. The film is built around parallels between today (1997) and Salvador Allende's time in Chile (1970-1973), including Pinochet's coup d'état. We see many people, many places, then and now (Patricio Guzmán was a filmmaker in Chile at that time). We hear all the way Guzmán's uncle trying to play Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata with his 80-year-old fingers and his failing memory, which gives a special color to the whole film. We also hear many thoughtful reflections from interesting people about memory. The final part, where we can see students watching the documentary about Allende's time and the coup, and learn and reflect about the history of their own country, is very moving.One must say however that the way Allende's experience is presented is one-sided. People are correct when they say that Allende and his supporters had a dream about democracy and justice, but nowhere is there any hint that at the time of the coup, the country had been in a social and economic chaos for two years because of Allende's poor results as a government. Of course, that can't excuse Pinochet's regime, but it could have added a useful dimension to the whole story. Anyway, the movie is not an apology for Allende as much as a reflection about remembering painful personal and collective events after almost a quarter of a century.