Diodora Hernandez is an indigenous Guatemalan woman who survived being shot in the eye the summer of 2010. She is an outspoken anti-mining activist and believes she was attacked as a result. The bullet entered her right eye and exited behind her right ear.
The documentary Gold Fever zooms in on human suffering like that of Hernandez in the rural Guatemalan town of San Miguel Ixtahuacán, where a subsidiary of the Canadian company Goldcorp Inc. operates Marlin, one of the most controversial mines in Central America. The Northland Films production has many elements of a good documentary: beautiful aerial and time-lapse shots of the Guatemalan landscape, thought-provoking social commentary, disturbing historical footage and news clips, and harrowing interviews with indigenous people who have suffered because of a multinational corporation’s exploitation of their resources.
But for anyone expecting conclusive investigative reporting, the film will feel hollow. The documentary suffers from an over-reliance on allegations that are often unsubstantiated. One scene zooms in on a rash on the leg of a child; the mother, Gregoria Perez, believes contamination from the mine caused the rash, but she has been told that bad hygiene is to blame.
It’s almost impossible to avoid the passive tense when writing about this film, which tends to reference “they” and “them” without clarification. Who told Ms. Perez that bad hygiene is responsible for her child’s rash? The documentary gives no answer, providing no interviews with medical experts or citing of medical records. The shot of the child’s leg and the mother’s claim are the extent to which the alleged harms to the townspeople’s health are documented on film.
Another woman, Crisanta Hernandez, gives a heartrending account about her brother being burnt alive in front of her, then denied access to a hospital. She does not identify his attackers except to say that they were men from the community and they were wearing masks. The documentary insinuates that these men, presumably mining employees, assassinated her brother, but the details and the event’s relevance to the mine are never clarified. For such a serious accusation, one would expect more information — a newspaper clipping, a police report, anything.
Many of the indigenous residents are farmers, growing corn and other crops for their own consumption. They believe the mine endangers their health, agricultural production and sacred land. Others in the community see the mine as a blessing because of the jobs it created. The documentary features only one interview with a supporter of the mine, a local employee who explains that it allows him to put food on the table for his family. Apparently, Goldcorp and Guatemalan officials declined to be interviewed for the film. As a result, it’s largely one-sided.
The most effective part of the documentary comes when we see Hernandez in the hospital after surviving being shot. The trauma of the shooting is apparent in her dazed and fearful expression. The two male shooters worked at the mine, according to the filmmakers. But sometimes, Gold Fever yields only confusion in its attempts to be fair. The film shows old video footage of cows’ carcasses near a river as two men — a farmer and a veterinarian — argue about the cause of death. The farmer is certain the cows died because they drank water contaminated with cyanide from the mine. The veterinarian is just as sure they died due to natural causes. They argue over their expertise; the farmer says he’s been a farmer for decades and has never seen anything like this, while the veterinarian claims his medical credentials validate his opinion. No conclusion is reached.
One thing the documentary does consistently well is challenge the idea that economic development via mining is always beneficial to rural Latin American communities. The governments of many countries in the region have become increasingly eager to attract foreign investment, particularly in mining, citing the creation of jobs as a main factor for their decision. Through extensive interviews, the documentary calls into question whether these are actually win-win projects, and whether the value of these minerals is worth the price paid by the local people.
Historical context about the killings of 200,000 people between 1960 and 1966 in Guatemala, most of them Mayan, is powerful and timely, considering this year’s conviction of former dictator Efraín Ríos Montt for genocide — a conviction overturned 10 days later. The film includes an old clip of Ríos Montt exclaiming, “We have been saying that Guatemala is marvelous! But we need a change. And the change consists precisely of imposing your will over others.”
In a country with such a dark history, it’s crucial to document ongoing human rights issues. Unfortunately, Gold Fever falls short, its potentially hard-hitting points often resting on a shaky foundation.
Grade: C
‘Gold Fever’ will be an international screening tomorrow, October 17th. For more information, visit the film’s website.