The director of the film seems to have his head up his ass about the way things were in San Juan del Sur at 2004, and is a fine example of a gringo in Nicaragua (i.e. arrives as a surfer probably with little knowledge of the culture and language, “falls in love with the country”, buys a place and then gets angry when he sees other people do the same thing because he thinks he is some kind of unique being, wishes that the government would kick out everyone else but him.) When I was in Peace Corps in 2002, there was already a well established amount of gringos, some of the the worst crime rates in the country, and a lot of older foreign ex-pats with teenage Nica girls… and I am willing to bet it was this way years before my time there. His statements and article completely insinuate that San Juan was this pure tropical haven in 2004 and has gone downhill since then.

Also, this statement completely rubs me the wrong way: “San Juan del Sur used to be a fishing village and people were damn happy to fish before the gringos came and starting building sh*t,” he said.” Oh, really?! People there are telling him they prefer to live in shacks by the sea with no electricity and plumbing and making only enough money to buy food? Give me a break! This is exactly the kind of romanticism of developing nations that drives me bonkers! No matter where you are in the world, no matter how affluent - or not - the community is, EVERYONE wants the same thing: more money. Most people will go through whatever lengths possible to achieve that, and no community is going to turn down any opportunity to progress from hovels to houses.

Well said Katie!!

I had much the same reaction as you, but when I tried to write my response it included words like douche-bag and a-hole and so I decided it was better to keep my ranting to myself!!

I lived in Nicaragua from 1999-2002 (as a PCV and then working in a bar/restaurant) and then went back at least once a year for 3 months at a time until I got married and stopped being able to go down so much….I lived and worked in San Juan and still have many friends that I keep in contact with there..

I am by no means an expert on development or Nicaragua or anything at all, but I agree 100% with your assessment, and in general find the filmmaker’s perspective to be over-simplistic and I highly doubt that all of the residents of San Juan would be happier if development/tourism/foreign investment etc vanished over night….

Anyway, with all that said I am looking forward to seeing the film just because I know I will see many familiar faces, and to see if my initial gut-reaction about the film-maker was correct.

The first time I met Julian in San Juan del Sur he wanted to film someone shooting an AK 47 on the beach. He wanted to produce an “edgy” surf film.
He wanted to portray Nicaragua as somewhere dangerous and on the edge. I told him he was ten years too late.

I saw the surf film he produced featuring local surfers. It was well done and a great showcase for the local talent. So many smiling faces I guess there was no room for the Aka firing of the beach.

He did find what he thought was the edge, Playa Gigante. It also happens to be the little fishing village I have been living in for ten years. I take offense at my neighbors being portrayed as malcontents and land takers. I live here and hell a lot of these people work with me. I think Julian is way above his pay grade decreeing that my neighbors were happier before jobs and good wages arrived.

One of the problems I see is the length of time between the filming and the release date of the documentary.
Times and people change and the most vocal anti gringo in the trailer is today working side by side with a North American building a hotel restaurant on the beach here in Gigante.
His name is Zack Lopez and he now plays to rave reviews of how helpful and enterprising he is. Gone is the angry young man, replaced by a man who wants to feed his family and has seen the new “gringos” as the means to make more consistent money than fishing.

Here, let one of the locals of this little fishing village tell you about it as he invites you to come for a visit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y38-DkWwAPg

I am looking forward to see what the Canadian Film Board sponsored and how well they spent Canadian tax dollars.

This movie has about as much value as me doing one on the housing boom in Calgary during (pick a year) say 2004 and 2005.

And what does the “Bring You Own Gun” line (about property in 2005) do for toursim in 2010?

I hope that Nicaragua Immigration ban this jack ass for life.

I have run into dudes with this tude’ on my many travels/living and working, throughout Central America….I look forward to savaging his film.

Having spent 3 years in chontales and el ayote, certainly part of the expanding internal frontier, i am looking forward to this film. Here is also a new one - a film on nicarguans suing Dole (in case you already posted this, my apologies).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VYPQ6jJKWY

Some good points from some people who truly love this unique little corner of the continent. I like the dialogue, but none of us have seen the movie yet! Sure, I can see some hypocrisy in statements like “It was quite primitive then, different from what it became,” but I also think the filmmaker admits to learning something from the experience, from Rogers’ article:

“In the course of making the film, Pinder said his other preconceptions of ‘good guys and bad guys’ also changed. He says he now realizes that developers, whom he previously lumped together under the label ‘bad guys,’ come in all flavors. The same is true, he said, for the locals – even those who claim they’ve been wronged by foreign developers.”

Hey folks. It’s the director of LAND here. Great to see so much controversy, and no one’s even seen the film yet!

Unfortunately I wasn’t expecting so much negative attention from honest, good looking folk though. Before we kick up a mess, let’s keep our cocks in our pens and bear in mind that a one-liner on a movie poster designed by a distributor to sell tickets to a movie is not a meter by which to judge the motives and deep seated thoughts of a filmmaker with regards to his film. And a trailer is by its very nature meant to stir up controversy and make people talk about a film. Check.

So, I’ll ease your minds a little by saying the film is neither a) a 1st year university development studies course, b) a ’simplistic romantic view’ of anything, past or present, nor c) a tourism pamphlet. It’s a film that, in its entirety, attempts to examine people’s dreams of paradise, perceptions of progress, and cycles of history in a place that has been our stomping ground, for better or worse, for many centuries. It’s not about the goods and evils in SJDS, despite vain efforts to tag it as such. It was shot over a 4 year period, the last shoot being a little over a year ago.

Unlike many other documentaries that take a heavy handed one-sided view, we’ve attempted to show the beautiful and the grotesque for what they’re worth. I’m sure there will be many people unhappy with the film, and that’s great. I can understand that some people are quietly upset they weren’t involved in a film about Nicaragua, as many people living there consider themselves ‘experts’ in everything to do with the country, and development politics globally for that matter. I certainly do not, despite having grown up in a ‘developing’ country, and worked in places like Kosovo and Bosnia during the war. I’m not interested in the ‘naive surfer’ image thanks. Furthermore, many people in SJDS, despite having gone down there for all the right reasons, have tailgated on the real estate thing, so unfortunately most expats, I realize, have a vested interest in keeping a picture perfect image of the place. I’m not interested in anything other telling a story I feel should be told.

Let me dispel a couple of myths that seem to be circulating:

I’ve never made a surf film, nor asked anyone to stand on a beach with an ak47 (??) I’m not sure what that post is referring to. I do know Dale, but he must be confusing me with some surf filmmaker. The Zac Lopez Dale speaks of is a close friend of mine and a central character in the film. Zac was never ‘Anti-gringo’. He was, however, strongly against the foreign elements in his village who came in and attempted to steal the community’s land, and who paid him peanuts for his work, then fired him and refused to pay him what he was owed. Let’s keep it at that.

I’m sure Nicaraguan Immigration will ‘ban this jackass for life’, because the film takes a very realistic and skeptical look at the Ortega government. Funny I was getting flack from expats when I was supporting Daniel before I made the film and realized who he has become.
I’ll take the ‘Jackass’ and ‘A hole’ (can’t you say asshole on the web?) attributes with a grain of salt, as the anonymity of the web generally tends to shift us into extreme mode. But Katie, my friend, it seems you’ve categorized me from the way I was quoted in some article. It sounds like you’re obviously the real thing due to your Peace Corps stint. Sorry, but it’s a pretty sad statement that you believe the only thing anyone wants is money. Believe it or not, some people are looking for peace, connection and privacy. Some people aren’t blindly overjoyed with the presence of the Saviours from the North, despite our own convictions. I obviously dare not question progress, it is a comfortable disease. But I have questioned the way in which development occurs, and I stand strongly by that question.

Anyway, I look forward to further controversy. Taking it easy and keeping the peace is key. I’ll be keeping an eye on all of Josh’s blogs and sites (thanks Josh for affording us the opportunity to have a forum on these issues). So pile the shit on high, and I’ll answer as respectfully as I’m questioned. I’m confident some people will be willing to take an open minded look at the film.

Thoughtfully, JP. Seven beers deep into a beautiful starry city evening.

This film must be stepping on some toes considering nobody has actually seen it. The way land is developed should be questioned; it’s possibly the most environmentally and socially important thing we do, and it certainly doesn’t get enough attention in the developed world. Is the “Mayan Riviera” now the model for development in Central America? Is any development a good thing? Maybe that’s a narrow short sighted view of progress in the developing world. What’s wrong with questioning all this? I look forward to seeing it.

Bosnia and Kosovo eh? Yeah, I was there too, many times…..I wonder however at your statement Mr. Pinder regarding how trailers should exist to stir things up. Does controversy (whether or not it exists) need to be thrown in our faces in order to entice us to want to watch your film? If the film has integrity you will have many eager viewers for it. Shock or agit/prop as an enticement tool is old hat.

And as for the reference to bringing guns - if you were not using them in Nica then why bother using it in your advertising? Seems a wee bit misleading to me.

Truth is oft-times far more entertaining and stranger than that of fiction.

Julian, glad to see you jumped into the conversation. Let’s be clear about something - yes, I haven’t seen the movie yet, but all I can go on is what the press release says, which includes direct QUOTES from YOU (not even a paraphrase) … which I later quoted and commented about your simplistic romanticized views of development. No, Julian, I did not say that I was an “expert” due to my stint in Peace Corps. But perhaps in my decade of career work in international development, for nonprofits and US Government and foreign governments, I can qualify my expertise a bit more in development work. I’ve lived and worked all over the world, Latin America and beyond. I travel just about monthly to developing nations to help implement projects, and work in Washington DC daily with various players and stakeholders in international development. So yes, I feel that my experience qualifies me to make a statement such as I did after reading your quote in the article.
Also, if you really want to get into it, Julian, the driving factor for any economy is money. Local economies are comprised of local people. Sure, people want things like “peace, connection and privacy”, but I will bet you anything that a community that will profit from some type of development will ALWAYS go for it. Claro que si a few individuals may object if it means taking away a few pleasantries in their lives, but overall the community will always fight for progress. How do I know this? I’ve seen it a thousand times over in my career. I am not portraying people as savage money-hungry beings. I am being realistic. Also, your quote in the release commented how idyllic SJDS was in 2004 (including Playa Gigante)… as though it was a sleepy fishing town and now everything has gone to hell. The point I made was that no, it wasn’t really in THAT great of shape even the few years before you got there. I wonder if your experience is merely a reflection of people who do the same thing worldwide, which is to be nostalgic for “the way things were”. In my time in Nicaragua, I met such a variety of people across the country who either loved or loathed the 70s and 80s in Nicaragua. But never once did I talk to someone who lived in an actual house structure with electricity that pined away for the days when they grew up in a much more rudimentary structure. This is my point - no where do people want to live in hovels - they do not chose shacks over stable houses for “peace, connection and privacy”. Yes, there are many evils that have come with the overly rapid development of SJDS (and I will be the first to say, “What a shame!!” and also the first to NOT be “blindly overjoyed with the presence of the Saviours from the North”), but there is also much prosperity and jobs in an otherwise depressed economy that have come with that progress. It’s a development catch-22, a problem that is certainly not unique to Nicaragua.
One more thing - did you not have any control over what the promotional poster looked like??? You seem to act on the defensive about this. I mean, if you chose (or allow) the tagline to be about bringing your guns and you want things to look edgy, OF COURSE you’re going to get push-back from some ruffled feathers.
All in all, I look forward to seeing the film. But I also hope you realize how strong your words come across, and that the article quotes your words directly, which make you seem like, well, no offense, a bit of an innocent idiot. If this is not who you actually are, you might want to think again when you speak up for journalists of any sort.

Thanks for the response, Katie. I understand your position.

However, I find it hard to believe that anyone can argue the type of unrestrained development going on in SJDS at the time of the film was anything resembling progress. As you well know, having lived there during this time, it was disgusting. I witnessed first hand 70 year old gringos with teenage Nicaraguan girls; developments being constructed without the slightest respect to the environment or laws of any sort; innumerable local workers being overworked, underpaid, and taken advantage of; land stolen; judges being paid off at an alarming rate. Do you remember when huge logging trucks would barrel down the backroads in the middle of the night stealing exotic wood from protected forests on a daily basis? How can it be argued that this type of development helps anyone other than those who are perpetrating it? I don’t believe this has to happen in order to ‘bring progress’ to an ‘under developed’ community.

And yes, I witnessed the use of guns dozens of times, to answer the questions about the poster. “Bring your gun” (despite the tag line on the poster not being my decision as I said before), refers to the wild west nature of the country. Just so you’re aware, one of the central characters in the film was kidnapped at gunpoint and tied up in his house. This wasn’t ’sensational’ despite what you may believe. We had been living with and following this particular character for two years before this event. As a filmmaker, am I supposed to omit this unfortunate event because it casts a negative image about Nicaragua? I think it casts a fantastic image about Nicaragua: Don’t fuck with local people when you’re a guest in their country!
I was also standing beside a journalist, who, as you may remember, was shot at a rally in Managua as a group of gunmen opened fire on us from a truck; I also had a pistol aimed at me by a developer south of SJDS who shall go unnamed. So to tell me why I can’t reference guns with regards to this story? Where I come from, this is not typical.

This is also not a film about Nicaragua, although it does take place in Nicaragua. It is a film about the expansion of the new form of imperialism, that is, foreign development (of course with other similar themes incorporated which I’ve mentioned): when a country is taken over not by political or violent means, but with foreign money and private interests. I’m certainly not interested in protecting the image of foreign developers in an ‘underdeveloped’ country. I do have to wonder if all the backlash from expats in Nicaragua would be the same if this film took place in Mexico (which it very well could have).

What happens in this film, and also in the trailer for that matter, actually took place. If we had come down here and shot a bunch of sensational things then cut it into a film I would certainly be the first to condemn it. But this film was shot over a 4 year period, in which we spent weeks and months at a time living with and following our characters in order to paint a very human and realistic picture of their struggles and successes. Many documentary films have a 15 day shoot schedule, just for your reference.

The trailer for any film, for better or worse, as I mentioned before, by its very nature takes the most controversial and entertaining clips from a film to get the attention of a WIDER audience. I couldn’t imagine a distributor making a trailer in which everyone’s happy and nothing is happening. It’s meant to tell the central struggle of the characters within the film.

How many films about development and exploitation in ‘developing’ countries have been made? Literally, tens of thousands.
And how many people have seen those films? Very, very few.
So if a ’sensationalist’ poster and trailer entice a wider audience to see the film because it looks entertaining, and they are subsequently forced to think about the important global themes it attempts to convey, then I say fantastic.

I certainly stand by the fact that in my opinion the south coast of Nicaragua was better off before the unrestrained bubble of a development boom in the mid ’00s. If that makes me an innocent idiot, then so be it. But a whole lot of my Nicaraguan friends would argue with you on that.

Ironically you’ve nailed it, though, Katie. The film is precisely about the fact that issues are not black and white. Our discussions have illustrated the situation perfectly. Thank you for your input. I look forward to hearing from you when you’ve seen the film. Please feel free to contact me directly or on Josh’s forum. Cheers. JP

@Katie
The riots in the streets of Managua today must be part of your Washington DC dictated, international development catch-22.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704448304575196591294263232.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments

@Julian
It’s telling that expats and international development professionals are so sensitive about the issue of foreign development in Nicaragua, you’ve definitely struck a nerve. They must know something’s wrong with the current trajectory of societal change for them to spit venom and fire so quickly. Even if it turns out that your interpretation is completely backward (which I doubt), their sentiments are signaling that something’s seriously wrong down there, and that your lens has been well aimed.

Wow…..I don’t know whether to call bullshit on some of the macho holier than thou posturing (oh wow man I like had a gun stuck in my face or someone got shot near me) or to just sit back and laugh at the bravado of some who believe they know better because of X happenings?

Oh man, choices….I shall keep track of this one.

@DriveGoddess

troll

Hello DriveGoddess. I don’t even know why I’m responding to this nonsense. But,

I answered your direct question about why guns were referenced in the film. I don’t know where ‘bravado’ or ‘posturing’ or ‘holier than thou’ came into the equation. Or about ‘knowing better because of X happenings’? Who said what about knowing better than anyone else?

What is it about the anonymity of the internet that suddenly turns certain people into mean, pinch-eyed instigators? Is it so difficult to have a normal, civilized discussion about an issue without people lashing out like wounded animals? I honestly couldn’t see this type of behaviour taking place if we were all sitting in a room face to face. The waning of humanity.

It must be lonely being such an angry person, DriveGoddess. I truly feel sorry and wish you better times ahead.

Been reading all the comments about this “documentary” on San Juan. I came to Nicaragua in 1998 and have lived here ever since. I was involved in NGO work for my first 4 years in Chinendega, Managua and El Empalme De Boaco. I have witnessed first hand the poverty this country had and still has. In 2002 I moved to San Juan and that’s where I have stayed. Mr Pinder has created if the trailer is anything to go by something that I must admit I found very funny and entertaining but totally unbalanced as he sought out and found the extreme views of some of the people San Juan attracts and also the views of local people who have an ax to grind on the development that has and still does take place here. The land boom that really began in 2000 and pretty much ground to a halt around 2006 had all sorts of winners and loosers. Some Nicaraguans did really well and some lost just like some foreigners won and some lost. The clip he shows of trucks and bulldozers hard at work is actually a Nicaraguan owned development and has been from the start and is still Nicaraguan owned 100%. Unless I got it wrong you imply that this is ruthless foreigners hard at work screwing over the Nicaraguans ? Their is no black and white answers to the effect the land boom had other than the after affect has seen a huge investment in the long term infrastructure of San Juan. The water pipe line from lake Managua should be complete by next year. Drinking water for everyone rich or poor, the sewage and settling ponds for San Juan being overhauled and the barrios in the surrounding areas are being piped into the system, rich or poor your gray and black water is being got rid of (stop and think of the long term health affects of both projects), the road to La Virgin has been redone and again if you ride a bike, ox cart or 4×4 life is easer, storm drains have been installed in the center of the town so when the big rains happen the flooding is much less. The beach front has been cleaned up and the place looks so much better. I know many local Nicaraguans who are very proud of the improvement’s that have been made and yes I know Nicaraguans who have told me to my face they would like all foreigners gone. How much of this positive development was a result of the free for all of the beginning of the century I really can’t answer but feel it helped put San Juan on the map for long term infrastructure investment. Mr Pinder’s comments that “San Juan del Sur used to be a fishing village and people were damn happy to fish before the gringos came and starting building sh*t,” strikes me as not very well thought out as the locals and now a few foreigners are still out their fishing and still seem damn happy doing it, not much changed their.
“Seeing 16 year-old (Nicaraguan) girls with 60-year-old (foreign) men was off-putting.” is a comment I can agree with but I would use language stronger than “off-putting”, it is exploitation at it’s worst being done by a bunch of fucking scumbags. A 16 year old with a 60 year old scumbag is unusual and rare as normally the girls are older but not by very much, I have seen more foreign men loose than win in that game and I do smile when I hear of their banks accounts being cleaned out. It is an ugly disgusting game which is also played by Nicaraguan men, sadly they rarely loose. This goes on pretty everywhere you have wealthy people living in a poor country and San Juan has its share of this, it did not just happen when the land boom started it was their well before.
I suppose what I am trying to get across here is their is no romance in poverty whatever Mr Pinder seems to think, not all foreigners are here to exploit and pillage and the land boom while not pretty at times brought attention to a truly beautiful part of the world. Is San Juan a better place for the local Nicaraguans now than it was before the boom ? I truly believe it is better but not for everyone as change affects places for good and bad in the developing world just as much as the first world. IF the next stage of the development is handled better which I hope it will be San Juan can have a great future. Just like everything in Nicaraguan history nothing is really black or white just shades of gray.
Paul Phelan

Qualifier: Haven’t seen the movie, haven’t read the article, did Peace Corps Nicaragua 2002-2004.

First, rich Nicaraguans have been exploiting their own (including underage girls)for hundreds of years - it is by no means a foreign monopoly.

Secondly, I agree with Paul and Katie that, although we (selfishly) might not want to see Subway and Holiday Inn on our surf trip to a supposedly untouched land, it generally does help bring some income and jobs (and infrastructure) to the locals where before there was none.

Finally, I’d like to point out the link between these two subjects. If a 16-year-old girl can go find a job as a waitress, she doesn’t need to sell herself to a wealthy pervert. It’s been shown again and again that as countries (and regions) become more wealthy, women in particular benefit tremendously; they don’t have to depend on men as much for financial support and also don’t feel compelled to have twelve children. If they remain desperately poor, they can be exploited. The only way to break this cycle is through economic development, and for a little town on the Nicaraguan coast, the best resource it has to offer is tourism.

Or is it the Unfulilled Collective Promise of the Gringo that we continue to peddle, despite its deflated, pathetic reality.

Cannot resist joining in.
First some timely facts.
The fishing village survived the 80s despite the closing of the fish packing plant, Copescosa. The plant was reopened in the early 90s under a Panamanian firm with a Greek at its leader. Their trawlers eliminated the sea shrimp from the waters and they closed down, leaving unpaid electric bills, etc. meanwhile not honouring Nicaraguan Labor Law clauses regarding severance pay for employees.
The China-Taiwaners came and did the same thing with other species but without using the processing plant. They had their own facility onboard one of their vessels. Their sailors also managed to clear out the sea cucumbers that live under shallow shore rock ledges and if it were not for the persistence of the species, black spiny sea urchins might have been wiped out, too.
Other boats from abroad arrived and did their bit to take advantage at a time when the country was so to speak “unruly”, that is to say, rules did not really apply. A fisher captain from West Coast USA told me back then at Table 3 in El Timón, “I am here until it runs out, then I move on.” That kind of fishing permitted by the “new” authorities in the 90s was completely non-sustainable.
As a consumer I can relate. A lobster tail used to fill a plate… Now 3 colitas occupy a small portion of one.
In the early 90s, the attitude of the fisher captain was being replicated by so many from all over… locals who dive down to take out the spawning lobster and the tiniest of its offspring, restaurant owners who sell it to visitors from afar, clients who enjoy the salubrious taste of fresh virgin seafood. It is there for the taking in a land such as this where rule knows no order and orders do not rule. (Footnote: except for turtle eggs now.)
Back then, it was considered “crrraaaazzzyyyyy” to buy land in Nicaragua. But the hyper-development phase began anyways just before the turn of the century.

Fishing may have been the mainstay of about 30% of the municipal economy, subsistence agriculture and livestock making up another 30%, with another 30% dedicated to service (pulperías and 3 beach bars and a couple of places in town). That left 10% for the lawyers.
Then came the LAND BOOM! and hyper-development. (Cue The Munsters theme song). The lawyers began to make more.

So many were those who came and would randomly bump into complete strangers and they’d ask about buying land. “I hear it’s cheap,” some would say. “I have a plan,” said others. Whatever their reasons or motives, they continued to flow into town, looking every which way to try to realize some dream they may have had in their head. (So much for my personal plan of settling down here to have a place to get away from all the hype and tension of Managua etc.)

Depending on the person, I might have been encouraging or dissuasive. (To a former newcomer who is still here and participating in this blog, I am considered a basic food group.) It was not up to me and my opinion was just, to put it one way, a voice in the wilderness.

Development/change/progress/process whatever name it goes under, became inevitable. And besides that, new opportunities for enjoying the culinary arts were opening up all over SJS. It is hard to argue with good food and variety entertainment.

How it happened… the context in which it did… the idea that it is impermanent… the oddity and wackiness of some characters involved in it… That is what I am expecting from this film after seeing the trailer to the documentary. I know that there is no way that it can possibly tell the whole story or even any part of it without there being a different optic seeing it in a distinct manner.

When it is screened and viewed widely around these parts, I look forward to the discussion it will provoke. I can sit back then and take a break from my habitual behaviour.

BUT…. I do have to say that picking Sar-Deano as a representative of anything but himself is pushing the limits of credibility.

To Hugo… Subway came to town and left already. Something about not being able to keep sandwich beef fresh enough not to induce gastroenteritis. Now a gymnasium with a fish ‘n chips shop next door.
To Julian… the unnamed developer who threatened you with a gun…. Must’ve been the yahoo at Remanso. He is an intolerant (non’foreign) fuck with a temper and a gun.

And just in general… using terms like “locals” just shows where it is you come from and are going to.

Found it interesting that Nicaragua’s GINI coefficient (standardized measure economic inequality) has been on the rise since 2001, the beginning of the land boom.
www.bit.ly/cntrEe

Julian quoted: This is also not a film about Nicaragua, although it does take place in Nicaragua. It is a film about the expansion of the new form of imperialism, that is, foreign development (of course with other similar themes incorporated which I’ve mentioned): when a country is taken over not by political or violent means, but with foreign money and private interests.
____________________________________
At the risk of propelling negativity but in hopes of helping educate: I hate to burst your bubble, but there is NO way that any of this is “new form or imperialism”… you might want to dig into some history of Latin America and Africa, India, Central Asia, and many parts of Asia to understand that this “form of imperialism” has been going on for, oh, hundreds of years! Why, the ENTIRE CONTINENT of Africa is the direct result of this “new form of imperialism” from Europe - borders were etched out without any consideration of tribal boundaries… all for the sake of European nations and their quest for power in land tenure and access to resources. You want to talk about imperialism? Let’s get serious and talk about the “new form” that is going on in the last century, that of global corporations versus individuals nations or of even less consequence, individuals from other nations. The stakes are astronomically higher when you talk about corporations.
Please, be a bit more cautious in statements like these or else you sincerely do continue to sound like an innocent idiot when you talk about development work across the world.

Katie, It is a new form of imperialism. The IMF and the World Bank dictating the terms of investment and development loans is new, i.e. a post WWII phenomenon. Still imperialism, just different terms, hence “new”. Your point isn’t even semantic, just a revolving door of circular logic, whereby you disagree by agreeing with some points, but not others. In truth you’re asking a film, which you haven’t seen, to be more precise in it’s interpretation. This is completely illogical. I think you’re having a gut reaction to the film, without seeing it, and blindly arguing based on some emotional attachment you have, and being quite rude and irrational while doing it.
In the end facts remain: the last decade of globalization hasn’t had the desired effect, and you can question whether the current model of foreign development has actually helped Nicaraguans. This film, right or wrong, can only spark debate. This is all documentary film making can ever do. I think the personal attacks I’m reading here are misguided and pointless.

Julian, what exactly did you mean by “the Unfulfilled Collective Promise of the Gringo that we continue to peddle, despite its deflated, pathetic reality”?

H. Sanchez sure does like his revolver, Nick.

I’ll certainly take a crack at defining it, Jim! It’s a gut emotion, not a studied or erudite theory by any means. I want to be clear, if perhaps I wasn’t before, that I’m not a development expert nor do I care to be. I am a filmmaker, and as such my job is to delve into a particular world and create some semblance of art out of my own personal, and possibly disagreeable or unpopular, perspective. I certainly don’t pretend to be the authority on such issues. That being said, I have lived in numerous places around the world, and actually did study development politics in university until I realized what bullshit it was. So I will admit that I would typically be averse to the label ‘naïve idiot’. Although I’ve come to understand that being ‘naïve’ is sometimes the best approach to a contentious and multi-faceted subject. Otherwise we can become Testa Duras click-clacking our horns against one another endlessly.

The “Unfulfilled Collective Promise of the Gringo” is a personal euphemism, and if pressed, I’d have to explain it this way:

Let’s consider the term Gringo to represent a broader concept, not simply an American (I would hope in this day and age the term Gringo touches a broader spectrum anyway).

The culture and lifestyle equated with concepts like progress and development bring with them a big open expansive horizon of opportunity. Opportunity, mind you, that is oft-times a worm dangling by a hook before an unsuspecting fish: the worm can be had, but at what cost? And I’m not necessarily pigeon-holing the promise of progress as an idea correlated only with tourism. I’m just saying it’s the most recent and pervasive form. And it just so happens to be the backdrop to the narrative of LAND. The Story, and what a film is about, are two completely different things.

The promise of progress can never be fully realized because there is no definition with a clear-cut timeline or end-goal. Nor is there any particular motivation other than the rather brutish thought that some particular community is more ‘primitive’ than the entity abetting the ‘progressing’. Sometimes intentions are good, and other times malicious.

We sell the ‘primitives’ on the idea of an unsustainable culture that may be counter-intuitive to what they had spent decades, generations, or centuries cultivating. It looks like a quick, easy, fruitful solution to all woes. This is, obviously, nothing particularly new. It’s gone back to the days of colonialism, imperialism and beyond. Let’s not fool ourselves though: The beast is a shape-shifter, but bares the same teeth, and even sharper claws. It’s perhaps more powerful now due to its acceptance into mainstream thought. History is only the cycle of an infinite Present.

Instead of dealing with our own injustices and concerns on the home front, we think we can solve the problems of humanity abroad. This mentality was the catalyst of colonialism: it was all about the physical expansion of a way of thought. Let’s take power through violence, kill off those who disagree with our ways, and then force the remainder of the population to adhere to our methods of being. I’m sure deep down we’re all attempting to come to terms with our brutal mistakes over the past centuries, and our guilt weighs heavy. But in a very present sense, we’re still perpetrating the same attitude that has lodged the world into its current position. Maybe its time to start asking ourselves what we can learn, as Gringos, from other people, rather than pushing the ‘we know best’ model. Because we’ve been doing it for a helluva long time, and it hasn’t seemed to work yet.

The phenomenon of Imperialism has seen a resurgence on a global scale, of recent, as a wild number of human beings suddenly find themselves capable of purchasing what, to them, resembles paradise (or escape from disastrous homogeneity?). I don’t think anyone can be blamed for having, and acting on, this feeling. We’ll call it Quiet Imperialism.

(New) Imperialism of the 19th and 20th century is described as: “…aggressive competition for overseas territorial acquisitions and the emergence in some colonizing countries of doctrines of racial superiority which purported to explain the unfitness of backward peoples for self-government.”

Sounds familiar. And so this new Quiet Imperialism spreads in its own unique and tortured way. Instead of violence and warfare, the new weapons are cash and capital: welcome to the market in all of its problem-solving glory.

If the promise held out by the Gringo mentality (that progress and evolution, in an expansion and consumption sense) were to be unquestioned and adopted, and then successfully reproduced the world over, the capacity of the human species to survive would be significantly lower, if at all. It’ll always be unfulfilled because the end goal is nothing short of the complete expenditure and destruction (or construction) of physical commodities and territories.

We think we’ve got this perfect model from which the world should follow: With the purest of the Gringo Promise we bring in clean water, proper infrastructure, pharmaceutical drugs. I don’t think anyone could ever argue with the right to health, safety and protection for everyone (although it could be argued that our northern populations are dangerously over-drugged). And yet, the very system promising this progress is proving to be the greatest failure and disgrace of any species in the planet’s history. While we promise clean water and disease-less populations to the ‘developing world’, we ourselves elect governments who support mass capitalist exploitation on a global scale, and we ourselves now stand on the brink of extinction, particularly because of our sad, unfulfilled promise.

Here’s a recent article in a North American Spanish publication on LAND. The writer has seen a media screener of the film, and is writing about the entire film, not reacting to some random article or a poster related to it.

Cheers. JP.

http://www.elcorreo.ca/elcorreo/story.php?story_id=13721

Some more random thoughts on the matter…
Economic imperialism is the export of capital in order to continue making profits once the national market no longer offers as many opportunities. The “imperialism” many people refer to is cultural, with the export of customs, ideas, systems, and more.
I don’t know if what is/was going in and around San Juan del Sur (and other places in Nicaragua) is really imperialism or just plain shopportunism. Taking advantage of the comparatively low prices for land and labour (way lower than neighbouring Costa Rica)at a time when an investor-friendly governing system was in power with the concomitant corruption of complicit authorities.
Anyone who has seen some of what has been going on here knows that not all the “developments” are evil, but as usual it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the barrel.
Progress came to Nicaragua not as a steamroller, but as an excavator and it is not likely to leave unless the country sinks into another civil war, which does not seem likely.
Having an appropriate regulatory framework would be a start, an improvement over the quasi-anarchic set-up presently in place.
But then the question is begged of whether responsibility can be regulated. The possibilities for doing as one pleases when the pockets are filled with lots of cash exist.
Back in the Sandinista years of the 1980s, a common slogan was that Nicaragua ni se vende, ni se rinde (does not sell out or give in). But with the changeling that happened in 1990, the signs went up saying se vende (for sale). The land boom that happened was openly encouraged and catered to. Some actually believed that it would be good to get all that money and then expropriate the properties again at a later date.

Julian, as I stated in various posts, this isn’t about the film. This is more about your words and your point of view. Of course I can have no input on a film I’ve seen yet… but I can certainly have an input on the words you have sent forth, such as those originally stated in the press release article as well as your “new imperialism” theory. Despite me pointing out several times that this is about you, not your film essentially, you don’t seem to be getting that. Likewise, I don’t know you personally, I can only go by the context of your printed words and relay my feelings towards them. Additionally, I have been nothing but debatable… never once rude.
Also, the original point I made about imperialism… I still stick to it. Look, the fact is that imperialism is never going to go away in every form. So rather than have this whole fight-the-Man and thinking that development politics is “bullshit”, why not find better ways to adapt to the inevitable? Rather than rant on about how shitty it is that the gringos came to what seemed to you as a tropical paradise (as you stated in your original press release), why not open dialog here with people like me who have yet to see the film but who are interested in talking about change that makes sense? Nick hit the nail right on the head with several of his comments (”But then the question is begged of whether responsibility can be regulated.” and “The land boom that happened was openly encouraged and catered to.”) I think your comments in this message board still possess a bit of naivety in these facts. I’m glad you think that is a good thing. However, I don’t feel the same way as you. Education in the history and understanding of the present to help motivate the future is what makes the process whole.

My apology - I didn’t realize that Josh [McLaren] and not Julian had written the note about me being “rude” and arguing about a movie I have yet to see. I thought these were Julian’s words, and I apologize for the mix-up. Josh, please see my above message, directed towards you, too. Thank you.

Katie… there is no need to adapt to the inevitable since nothing is inevitable, except perhaps for things happening in a way that was not planned for or wanted. Some sort of principle at work there along the lines of (but not quite) “if it can go wrong, it will.” Which by the way, is how many things turn out here, much to the frustration of those trying to get what they want done.
Having thick-headed people come down here with a plan or dream of what they just know could be done is a recipe for some degree of conflict… with reality and with people here. I cannot count the times I have heard people lament about how this country would be GREAT if only… and why can’t it be this or that way… and how come no one does something to fix that situation or behaviour. It’s like they want Nicaragua to be like the place they came from. That’s not imperialism as such, just an ignorant attitude, as if they can play like gods and shape the clay of this land into their own idea of an image. And some of them do not even realize what the country’s environment, physical reality is. Like they cannot see the forest for the trees.

Nick - re: your definition of economic imperialism as “the export of capital in order to continue making profits once the national market no longer offers as many opportunities”

To me that just sounds like the definition of “foreign investment”. Is all foreign investment imperialism?

If the investment is designed to bring more money back to the home base than will be left in the country in the form of reinvestments in physical and human capital, then yes. Foreign investment that just brings salaries is like that, especially when the salaries paid are as low as they are. Classic examples are the Nike etc. sweat shops around the world making clothes for sale at US prices while paying “local” salaries. Or McDonalds where you can get a combo for $3-$4 dollar like up in the States, but the wage paid is nowhere near the minimum paid up there.

@josh McLaren and Julian - just because I choose to call BS on some of what I see as posturing that does not make me a troll, angry, hiding behind a screen or a malcontent. What was it one of you said? Sad? All too often when one is challenged they start to trot out the usual accusations especially if the accuser is a female.

Funny, predictable and indeed sad on the part of both of you. Looks like what I had to say hit a nerve. Boohoo.

I have nothing to hide as my net persona is very well-known, my experience in zones of conflict actual and my over twenty of years of travel throughout Central America, solo in my car, more than qualify me to say what I say as I have met many individuals who exude a similar voice as the two of you….it is a voice that all too often I find distasteful and smacking of more than a bit of arrogance. You may wish to revisit some of your marketing ploys because if something is produced well and with integrity it does not need to be sensationalized.

Yeah, dialoguing in person would be preferable but that is not possible. Yet. Do not for one second call me a troll just because my words hit hard. Learn to roll with it boys because it is rough, tough world out there.

The film opens tomorrow (June 4, 2010) in Canada. The Toronto Star gave a glowing review:

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/article/818708–land-the-price-of-manufacturing-paradise

“Rather than pitch this tale as a battle between moneyed, arrogant northerners and poor, idealistic locals, Pinder takes a subtler approach. Difficult questions about the ethics of development are made even trickier by the changing motivations and ambitions of the people involved.”

Most of what Julian says is true; the unfortunate fact is he comes off as just another jealous backpacker with no game.

Johnny P, have you seen the film? I have and frankly, I think the filmmaker has plenty of game. There are few backpackers (or anyone) out there with skills enough to stick with a project for so long and create an award-winning product.

This is a great debate. I hope most of you have read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins.

I can’t wait to see the film. Julian, I’m really glad you took the time to make it. I lived the exact same deal, same time frame working as a water/wastewater engineer just south of you in the Guanacaste. Some developers attempted to do the right thing, but we saw how wrong things can get in the land development game.

I too am anxious to see this film. A latecomer to SJDS in the past two years, I am so surprised to hear this is the wild west of over development.
I found from day one and still do, that the town is most charming, extremely friendly ( no harbouring resentments from Nicaraguans that I can see) and moves ahead with only positive vibe.
I am not sure how busy it was back in 2005 with all the “developments” springing up… I do know that after 2006 it all came much to a screeching halt. With recession, and the financial meltdown around the globe plus some politics of Ortega being back in power in 2006…. well lets say not much has happened since. Yes there are a lot of developments, but as I see it, most of them are in total limbo, waiting for signs of a turn around to start up again. There are a few of course that did weather the storm and have moved along with some modest success. For the most part these developers have done serious and to a large extent “green” concepts which probably allowed them to bring in the few buyers still venturing around the area. With the “developing” of the area, there is so much more now in infrastructure, which benefits everyone, and considerably the poorer part of the residents. They certainly are not complaining.
Fact is probably most of the influx of outsiders are still Nicaraguans who flock there now more than ever to really enjoy what is so much more a destination than in previuos years. In looking around there are as mentioned a lot of developments. Most only got started to stagnate. And even then they are all so spread around up and down the coast… just getting to one and to the next is still a daunting challenge in driving.
Overdevelopment ? Maybe in simple appearances but far from reality.

Not to want to throw mud… I must see the film first but I have to admit I too sort of feel,that the commentor that characterized Mr Pinder as a disgruntled surfer without his own plan may have been too accurate. Maybe also with a good eye for a bulked up tale when he sees it ?

Two points: 1) I\’m really looking forward to seeing this film and 2) considering the unhinged venom directed at Land/Pinder by some above haters, I think Julian has responded with eloquent grace. Well-played, Pinder.

Interesting.

I have read all the reviews, read all the comments, and done my research. I live and work on the “internal frontier” in Nica…

The most hilarious reading, in these comments, are those from Pinder himself. Rather than write a long (and ponderous) missive as he does, let’s cut to the chase.

“If the promise held out by the Gringo mentality (that progress and evolution, in an expansion and consumption sense) were to be unquestioned and adopted, and then successfully reproduced the world over, the capacity of the human species to survive would be significantly lower, if at all.”

Mr. Pinder, I would suggest therefore, you 1) stop using a movie camera (too much ‘progress and evolution’) 2) stop attempting to make a buck by utilizing aforesaid products of ‘progress and evolution’, and 3) in short, go live in the jungle, with no running water, no electricity, and no capacity to spread your idiotic ideas.

The utter gall of those people, who, like you, just “know better” than all the rest of us, including the Nicaragüenses who WANT RUNNING WATER, who WANT A JOB, who WANT some of the things that you have and yet detest, is sickening.

You should have named your file “Hypocrisy Incarnate”.

Hi Larry. I’m not pretending to ‘know better’ than anyone. In fact, I’m admitting that my take may be unpopular and that regardless I think we need to re-conceptualize, or at least dialogue about, HOW development moves forward. I try to be as clear as possible that I’m not advocating ‘no running water’ and ‘no jobs’ as you say. In fact, I would say I advocate a much more responsible type of development wherein we think about ‘what kind of jobs’, ‘are the employees being paid fairly’ and ‘are there proper labour and environmental regulations being implemented’ etc. I do think following a blind model of ‘unfettered development is the answer’ as we have many times in the past doesn’t solve the real, systemic problems.
I’m not sure how familiar your are with documentary filmmaking, Larry, but unfortunately you don’t ‘make a buck’ by shooting a documentary film on Nicaragua!
Hopefully you’ll be able to see the film, as I hope it touches upon some of the issues in a very human way, without forcing a point of view down your throat. And ironically enough, I wouldn’t even say it’s a film about ‘development’! I do appreciate your opinion though.