I Am Cuba
The third
off-list movie of 1964 is “I Am Cuba” (“Soy Cuba”). This movie was recommended
to me (thanks Bea!) particularly for the camera work and that is also the main
draw of the movie.
“I am Cuba”
is a propaganda movie in support of the Cuban revolution. This had taken place
just a few years before and I suppose the Cuban revolutionary leadership felt a
need to justify and celebrate their take over. At this time, having kicked out
American interests, Cuba was isolated and had turned toward the Soviet Union
for support, and this included a Russian film crew with very good credentials.
The team,
led by Mikhail Kalatozov, were already famous for their filming techniques and
their tracking shot, super-wide angle close ups and super sharp infrared shots
were perfected on Cuba. This makes “I Am Cuba” very interesting from a
technical point of view. It also lifts what would otherwise be ham-fisted
propaganda into something more easily digestible.
That is of
course the problem with any propaganda movie. There is a very clear intent and
that intent must be perceived by even the densest and illiterate viewer. This
tends to make propaganda movies very one-dimensional to the extent of
oversimplifying the issues and they easily appear stupid. “I Am Cuba” tries to
walk that balance. Sometimes it works, sometimes it plumbs into the propaganda
traps, but even in the worst moments the cinematography saves it.
There is no
over-all story, but rather four vignettes with that in common that they all
relate to the revolution.
The first
is about rich Americans flouting their money and corrupting the local
population. Obviously, the intent is to make the Americans look like assholes
and it is difficult not to be upset at the difference between the upscale
tourist sites and the slums.
The second features
a poor farmer who works his sugarcane plot with his children. His hard, but
rewarding, labor is interrupted when the landowner shows up to tell him he sold
the land to United Fruit so he can piss off. The farmer sees his livelihood
stripped away in an eyeblink and in desperation sets everything to the torch.
Then, back
in Havana, we follow Enrique, a student presumably, who first saves a lady in
distress from brutish American navy-men, then joins a demonstration against the
corrupt government only to be shot down as a martyr.
Finally a
farmer family in a remote, rebel controlled area gets bombed, killing one of
the children in what I consider a huge cinematic faux-pas (you do not kill
children in movies!). As a result, the husband joins the revolution, marching
towards a glorious victory over the evil capitalists with a lot of flag-waving.
It is a
movie with no grey zones, no room for doubt, there are the good guys, the
revolutionary, and the bad guys, the corrupt elite backed by America. It is a
simple choice between joining the revolution or being screwed over. As a viewer
suffering hardships it is an effective movie that serves its propagandistic
purpose and even as a neutral viewer I sit back thinking that if I lived in
such a divisive and corrupt country I would not find it hard to place my
sympathies, even if I cannot approve of the means to the end.
The Danish
model is a little different. In 1849 a group of civilians representing the
population (male and bourgeois, admittedly) got an audience with the king and
demanded constitutional monarchy and parliamentary rule to which the king
answered “okay” (in 1849 wording) and on June 5th we celebrate the
founding law (Grundloven) of 1849. Not a single shot fired.
Content-wise
“I am Cuba” can be a hard swallow and the killing of a child in the end was
awful, but the photography alone makes this a remarkable movie and it deserves
interest for this reason alone. I could see it replace a few movies in 1964.