Rachel Boynton’s Our Brand is Crisis at first seems like a straightforward critique of a team of American political consultants attempting to export a “particular brand of democracy” to Bolivia against the popular will. Many critics have indeed branded it this way and left it at that. The title refers to a scene where the firm’s advertising consultant is explaining the need to frame or brand the country’s staggering economic crisis in the advertisements for their candidate. It can be read as a disconnected foreign consultant using the nation’s real, human suffering for his own political ends, or perhaps just his own financial ends (getting the paycheck for the consulting job). However, there’s a lot more going on in the film than a simplistic critique (an “anti-”, as discussed in class). The consultants are completely aware of their situation, their actions, and the implications of their work. As Ms. Boynton commented in class, the real critique, often overlooked, is of the consumers of these brands, the public (foreign AND domestic) that keeps the consultants employed.

One of the consultants, Jeremy Rosner, comments early on that the firm believes in and promotes a “particular brand of democracy,” which is progressive, social democratic, and market-based. But, he acknowledges that there are “conditions democracy ultimately can’t deal with.” That is not the statement of an ignorant or dogmatic person. He is very well aware of the problems with democracy in Bolivia – he outlines them concisely as indigenous under-representation in the political system, globalization “have-nots,” and regional division. Later, the consultants point out that democracy needs to tangibly benefit the people to work. As Ms. Boynton said in class, these consultants are rigorously logical and rational men.

The interesting questions surround the issues raised when it becomes clear that the consultants are supporting a candidate who does not reflect the popular will. They acknowledge that the country desperately wants change, but that they are attempting to convince it to vote back in one of the old guard. Goni is clearly disconnected from the people, most visible in the dinner scene where a well-dressed woman complains about the peasants attacking the suburbs. Boynton asks Rosner at one point whether it is arrogant for Goni to pursue policies that the majority clearly doesn’t want, and he responds that “that’s a tough one.” But ultimately the blame does not lie with the candidate or the consultants. They all believed in the policies, they all believed in Goni, they were not knowingly or willingly hurting the Bolivian state in any way. And while intention is not necessarily a moral excuse, the greater blame here lies with the public which makes it necessary for a candidate like Goni to hire American political consultants. At one point, Rosner comments on the feeling he gets seeing people voting, positing that they never have more power than in that one action. The real critique arising from that statement is not of Rosner’s arrogance or idealism, but of the fact that, with all that power, the voters ended up only legitimating the need for him, for that “particular brand of democracy” and the consultants that come with it, in Bolivia.

In a documentary about “spin doctors,” the inevitable question is how much are we as the audience being spun? Boynton limited the direct influence of the consultants on the film, but what about Boynton’s influence? She said that she became involved in the campaign on a certain level, just by filming it – she wanted Goni to win too. So, just as the consultants believed in Goni, Boynton believed in the consultants (and Goni). This creates an interesting layering of presentation. As we discussed in class, the consultants seemed to be shaping Goni, giving him form, “filling the empty vessel.” But Boynton to a great extent was shaping the consultants in the film – just as every film shapes its subject, or the audience’s perception of the subject. This parallel was very evident as Boynton talked about the process of filming the documentary. She emphasized going in and listening with an open mind. She talked about being an outsider in the campaign, assuming that they knew more about the subject than she did because they were involved in it. In the film itself, Jeremy echoes these sentiments, but with reference to running the campaign. He said they “listen very hard, very closely, with no preconceptions.” He discussed their position in a foreign country, highlighting the fact that they “come in as outsiders.” In this sense, it is a documentary about itself – the form illustrates the subject, documentary as spin, spin as documentary.