Reader Review
Sent in by
Jason Connolly
Salvador -- A Video Review
Salvador was directed by Oliver Stone and stars James Woods - in an Oscar-nominated role - as down-on-his-luck photojournalist Richard Boyle and James Belushi as his equally despondent associate, out of work d.j. Dr. Rock. The film explores U.S. involvement in El Salvador, the civil-war-torn Latin American country in which most of the story takes place. I chose to review this film because many readers, although fans of Oliver Stone, have likely not seen it, and it is one of Stone's best pictures.

When Salvador was released, Stone was not a well-known filmmaker, having directed only the Canadian horror production Seizure (1974) and the dreadful Hand (1981). Salvador offered a new trajectory for Stone, away from the horror genre and toward films with a political bent (for which he would later become famous), these including such critically acclaimed notables as Platoon, J.F.K. and Nixon. What Salvador offers to viewers is a passionate glimpse into the considerable risks taken by photojournalists dedicated to capturing warring factions on camera, an examination of the U.S. involvement in El Salvador during the years 1980-81, and an exploration of the Hunter S. Thompson-esque relationship of the film's two central characters.

Woods received an Oscar nomination for his role as photojournalist Richard Boyle and a deserved one. He convincingly evolves over the course of the film from a self-absorbed burn-out into a spiritually- and politically-awake protector of Maria (Elpidia Carrillo), a Salvadorean peasant woman. Woods is always enjoyable to watch, in this turn incessantly fueled by a hell-bent desire to consume pills, booze and pot and to draw his friend Rock into increasingly difficult and potentially lethal situations for his own freelance objectives. This is not a sanitary disposition, and I pondered to think that perhaps it is not an overly levelheaded progression, which is even more a testament to Woods' acting that he is able to effectively pull off the transformation and make it believable.

What I liked most about this film is Stone's bearing on U.S. involvement in El Salvador, as voiced through Wood's character. It is a risky stance, one that criticizes U.S. military backing of a right-wing corrupt, violent, and guerilla government simply because the alternative may happen to be a Marxist one. Stone did a tour of duty in Vietnam, and it is hard not to draw parallels here between his position on the nature of U.S. involvement in that war and the one taken here with regard to El Salvador. In order to carry these views into the film medium, Stone made Salvador completely outside the studio system. It was shot over 50 days in Mexico on a relatively cheap budget yet the picture looks as though it spared no expense in order to appropriately choreograph the numerous military scenes. Salvador has been criticized for being too preachy, yet I respect the firm stance Stone takes with regard to U.S. involvement during this period. In the words of the U.S. backed Salvadorean presidential candidate and leader of the right, "these priests who are poisoning the minds of our Salvadorean youth are going to be the first to bleed." Stone therein poses the question to the viewer, which is better: a U.S.-backed gangster democracy or a more compassionate Marxist one?

There is a persistent feeling of tension in Salvador owing to the constant physical threat imposed by the ever-present paramilitary, and this tension serves to underscore the courage - and/or insanity - of photojournalists such as Boyle who undertake these dangerous assignments. In the words of another photojournalist in the film, John Cassady (played by John Savage), "you gotta get close Rich to get the truth, you get too close you die." The film makes the viewer identify as one of the U.S. outsiders, constantly looking over shoulder to determine whether predatory paramilitary or death squad members are on the verge of closing in. It is nervous tension akin to the feeling one gets when watching Schindler's List, and Stone is equally as adept as Spielberg at pulling it off to affect the viewer. Although Stone's other 1986 film Platoon would ultimately garner most of the attention from Canadian audiences, I encourage all readers to check out this film. It provides us yet another compelling reason for why Stone is one of the most controversial and politically-conscious directors in film today. Many consider this to be Stone's best work, and although I rank it third behind Platoon and Wallstreet, it is nevertheless essential viewing.

Do you Agree with what he's saying? Or Tell Us Your own reviews HERE
or mail to:opinions@boldopinion.com