Superman's Greatest Moment: Defying Pinochet

Christopher Reeve's fight for stem cell research can certainly be termed heroic. though some cynics might argue that there was, after all, a self-serving aspect to it all.

But Reeve was, indeed, a real hero. And a brave one. Those of us involved with Chile learned that almost 20 years ago.

In 1987 when 77 Chilean actors were threatened with execution by the Pinochet dictatorship, Reeve courageously swooped into Santiago and placed himself at the head of a defiant protest march.

These were perilous times in Chile, a moment when rule of law was unknown and when the bloody secret (and not so secret) police ran amok.

It was a magnificent moment to see Superman himself defy The Dictator. Reeve, for his part, was always modest about his dramatic gesture, saying he was only doing his job as an elected leader of the Screen Actors Guild showing some solidarity for his Chilean counter-parts.

Recalling his Chilean experience he said that seeing the Chilean situation and the bravery of the protestors it changed the whole perspective of his profession, “I never again accepted censorship, I’ve since done what I wanted and said what I’ve felt”.

Reeve was later honored with two human rights prizes for his courage.

The civilian Chilean government that succeeded Pinochet also awarded Reeve with that counrty's highest honors.

Superman, Presente!
Viva Superman!

Comments

[Bonnie]

Marc.....

A beautiful eulogy for a wonderful human being and fine actor! Thank You!

[steve]

I'm curious if the Henry Jacksons and Elliot Abrams of the time weren't disappointed with his betrayal of America's good friend in Chile...Mr. Pinochet at the time?

[Jaime Olivares]

Excellent commentary. Congratulations. I didn't remember that beau geste from Reeve. My admiration for this real life super-hero is much greater now

[rosedog]

Wonderful, wonderful story of Christopher Reeve's earlier heroism, Marc. I had no idea. I hope a lot of people link to this post of yours.

(YO! OTHER BLOGGERS! THIS IS A GREAT CHRISTOPHER REEVE STORY. SO LINK UP ALREADY!)

On the stem cell issue, this Patti Davis essay posted today on Newsweek's site captures some of the essence of why his work for stem cell research was much more than the sum of its parts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6232686/site/newsweek/

[Ken]

Thank you Marc.

I had no idea.

PS American forces are apparently committing massacres in Iraq:

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/000172.html

[Randy Paul]

I remember when that happened. That same year I was involved with the planning for Amnesty International USA's New York celebration of Human Rights Day. We invited Reeve and he asked that his father, an English professor at Yale come and read works by imprisoned writers. Reeve said that he was hapy to attend, but he really felt the focus should be on the prisoners and not him. What a classy guy.

[santo]

"PS American forces are apparently committing massacres in Iraq."

No no -- repeat after me: We are l-i-b-e-r-a-t-i-n-g them. I for one feel much safer.

Kudos to Reeve and God's speed (damn Hollywood lib'rul!). But I prefer the Green Hornet & Kato.

[Michael J. Totten]

Wow. I didn't know he did that. Good for him, and thanks for telling us.

[Marc Cooper]

Randy... that's a great story. The only other celebrity I know who behaves like an authentic hero is Muhammad Ali. I spent some time with him in Baghdad in no less and his self-effacing compassion was mind-blowing.

[Victor S]

That's pretty cool. It gives me the warm-and-fuzzies. I had no idea he'd done that.

And thanks, Marc, for posting this little-known anecdote. I certainly don't agree with you about Hugo Chavez, and I think you mis-read Naomi Klein's piece a while back, but this was really sweet.

[steve]

Victor, great note on Hitchens on your blog:

http://apostatewindbag.blogspot.com/2004/10/hitch-finally-admits-hes-neo-con.html

[Stephen Cheng]

And so Hitchens is, so what? His political label may have changed, but not his principles and values.

Please. From soixante-huitard on the barricades of Paris and London and hawking the Socialist Worker outside tube stations to now writing book reviews for the Weekly Standard and giving private history lectures at a Republican White House - I think he's changed somewhat.

While most on the pro-war 'left' can't quite bring themselves to endorse Bush despite his giving them all throbbing shock-and-awe erections, Hitch has no problems with the rest of Junior's eco-ignorant, death-penalty-happy, born-again wackjob-ery and free-market-a-rama either.

He's a traitor. Straight up.

[Josh Legere]

Hitchens does not write book reviews for the Weekly Standard. He writes book reviews for The Atlantic.

Hitchens has never claimed to be a Neo Con... That might be a tag the Victor wants to give to him.

Is it more important to be loyal to the "family" or loyal to oneself?

Hitch is a freelance radical.

[steve]

That's the weakest defense of an ally of Suharto I've ever read.

[Josh Legere]

Who is defending Suharto? I think you are imagining things Steve. Those voices in your head...

[steve]

Hey, if it's ok for you to claim, without evidence, that Klein defends Sadr...what's wrong with claiming you defend Suharto?

Now, voices? no. you defend hitchens...who defends wolfie as a loyal liberator of third world dictatorships...who actually was a man who praised Suharto to no end not long before he was overthrown alas...

[Josh Legere]

I do not agree with Hitchens support of Wolfe...

Never said I did. It is important for the attacks to be correct.

Hitchens does not write for the Weekly Standard
Hitchens is not a Neo Con and has denounced that title.

I do not follow people. I do not have to agree with them to admire them.

Ok Steve... Whatever you say guy

[steve]

Oh, I see Josh, you're a victim...Only how odd, you portray Klein as a sympathizer of Sadr without anything in the way of serious evidence....that's ok...but god forbid one should associate you with suharto given your support of Hitchens...
You sure play fair.

[Josh Legere]

Steve,

Klein explicitly stated that she not only supported Sadr democratic rights but that she supported the resistance. THIS IS IN PRINT. Hitch has never supported Suharto... he has actually done the exact OPPOSITE. By Klein supporting the resistance and specifically Sadr, she is endorsing (not overtly but rather as a consequence of) his tactics of killing innocent people. This is clear. It is in print.

I appreciate much of Hitchens writings. Most of all of them are prior to his conversion. Trails of Henry Kissinger, Why Orwell Matters, Values of the Worst Family, and his minority reports. I appreciate his book reviews that he was been writing for the Atlantic. I disagree with much of what he has said recently in regards to Bush and Iraq. But I respect that fact that he is following a path that is calling him. It is a matter of principle for him and it takes courage to go it alone.

But Hitch has never uttered a word of support for Suharto. Actually the opposite. His support of Wolfe is a bit of a shock but how can I hold him accountable for the fact that someone he supports, happens to support Suharto? Is he supposed to agree with everyone all of the time?

So because I like some of Hitchs writings and he supports Wolfe who supports Suharto... I support Suharto? That is an insane conclusion.

You have supported the Cuban revolution that was supported by the Stalinist regime in USSR. So I guess you support the Gulags? This is your logic.

Where is your rational thought in this conclusion? I got it... NOWHERE to be found.
You are indeed nuts!

This is why the Left does not matter.

[steve]

Well, yeah, sure, and so has the US military. In fact, they claim to wish that he would join the political process instead of resisting the occupation. and, much like Rove does with Kerry's statements, you take entirely out of context why she supports his democratic rights.
Sure she supports the right to resist the occupation, but that's not controversial, most Iraqis do too. And the occupation is frequently trying to find ways to get them to join the occupation.
Sure we can hold him accountable, Hitch that is. Why not? He claims to be a crusader for democracy, human rights, all that is fair and assumedly ignored by the left...ok, then why the praise of a defender of dictators like Wolfie?
Josh, you need not get all in a tizzy...I'm merely giving you back exactly the tactics you employ in debate. And you don't even appreciate the irony in it.

[Victor S]

Excuse the tardiness, gentlemen, but Josh-o, he has indeed written for the Weekly Standard:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/607xdxhe.asp

and

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/269kenvl.asp

Both of the links are book reviews, by the way. The import here is that it took a remarkably short period of time following Hitchens' contretemps with the Nation for him to shack up with the neo-con's internal bulletin. Whatever one thinks of the war, the rest of the American right's agenda should be repugnant enough for Hitchens to steer well clear of such a publication at least by a few buoys. But apparently not.

I remain convinced that the pro-war 'left' is not so left in other repects either. Hitch repeatedly describes himself as a 'single issue voter' as far as the war is concerned. The war is not the only issue, and no leftist can ever be a single issue anything anyway.

Bush is too dangerous to be making excuses for no matter what one's opinion of the war is.

[natalie]

i miss you Christopher Reeve