Calley Media Collective's film gives a compelling history of Venezuela since the Caracazo uprising of 1989. Although a heavily pro-Chavez film, the emphasis was on the grassroots movements seeking to radicalise the Bolivarian revolution from below, rather than simply focussing on Chavez’s actions. Stress was laid continually on the way this revolution embodied a reawakening of revolutionary public consciousness, and of a battle fought at the micro-level for radical change, within the movement led and guided by Chavez. Certain changes initiated by Chavez were mentioned, such as the land and fishing reforms which seemed to help small enterprises achieve a more sustainable and ecological way of farming the land and sea. But more important was the level of discussion about the changes that was seen to be happening at the community level. Rather than giving the story of Chavez, the film presented the revolution as in the hands of the people. For instance, the film mentioned (albeit briefly) the people’s gaining control of the country’s oil, so it is truly a national resource. The film linked the Bolivarian revolution to other similar movements across the world, suggesting itself as a model, in its anti-imperialist, anti-neo-liberalist stance. The private media, which had been used to promote the failed coup, was demonstrated to be widely mistrusted, leading grassroots movements to create their own media outlets (including people on motorbikes spreading the word of the planned demonstration against the coup) and the government funding of such projects, which enabled this film to be made. The discussion which followed wondered why such widespread political fervour and action had not been awakened in Britain, and it was speculated whether the seeming absence of a strong party-parliamentary system in Venezuela contributed to the organisation of grassroots action. Questions were also raised as to whether Chavez is merely ‘empty rhetoric’; manipulating the hopes and desires of the poor without yet achieving the radical changes he has promised. Here it was generally concluded that such criticism should be made, but yet support given for such a dramatically different approach to the common problems created by imperialism and neo-liberalism.