Petro

If there weren’t enough elections in 2024 for you (and if not, get help…) then Sean Mattison’s Petro might be for you. This account of Senator Gustavo Petro’s 2022 presidential campaign in Colombia is both a dramatic look into the hostile world of Colombian politics in the modern age, and a reckoning with the country’s violent past.

The documentary follows Senator Petro during his second run for President. A controversial figure of Colombia’s left, many see him as a force for peace and justice in a nation still impacted by violence. But his own history as a leader of the M-19 guerilla group makes him a danger to the establishment, and a figure of much disdain amongst those with painful memories of the group. Petro senses a real chance for change, but forces outside his expectation stand in his way.

It takes more than a season or two of Narcos to understand the world of Colombian politics, but violent civil war and a devastating drugs trade can’t be ignored as shapers of the nation’s political landscape. It is from these events that Gustavo Petro has emerged, and his ascendency to a presidential candidate is the culmination of a remarkable journey. The controversies in his past are the stuff of Daily Mail dreams, but Petro’s refusal to hide from them mean that many in the country see him as someone uniquely capable and attuned to the issues they face. The documentary captures his humility and quiet charisma, and Mattison does an excellent job of framing the candidate in proper context and explaining his appeal.

The views of both supporters and opponents of Petro are used to paint an authentic and convincing portrait of the man. Passionate supporters believe in his land reform, healthcare plans and efforts to tackle violence and continue the country’s fragile peace process. But others such as Federico Gutierrez and Maria Fernanda, figures on the right, fear his potential to become dictatorial. His past in M-19 is given a fair assessment as well – and the group’s violent history is not lionised or whitewashed, even when presented in context. The efforts of the filmmakers to seek opposing views is respectable and means viewers will be satisfied that, despite its sympathetic stance towards Petro, it is far from a fluff piece.

The outcome of the election is of course public knowledge, and viewers who know the result will obviously feel no sense of intrigue the way unfamiliar viewers will. As someone who did not know the winner, the sense of danger established from both the legitimate threats to Petro’s life, and the country’s tragic legacy of assassination is palpable. The efforts spent in establishing his opponent – the eccentric and unconventional Rodolfo Hernandez – also means that the splits in the country leave the vote on a knife edge. Experiences may vary depending on your familiarity with South American leaders, but as a learning experience and thrilling political ride, the film excels.

Petro is more than a film for politics buffs. An unrelenting and frank look at Colombia and the imperfect politicians it produces, it brilliantly realises the power of movements and belief. And even if you find the argument that a former M-19 member ought not to be a President convincing, other elections show us that there can be worse candidates…