I moved yesterday. The person who was helping me pointed out that there is a good public library on my street. So later the day I joined it and rented a DVD, this one right away. I didn’t know anything about it, just saw three familiar names on the cover: Yevtushenko, Coppola, and Scorcese. As the last two people had nothing to do with the movie’s production I assume they produced the DVD version of this 40 year old classic for the western world. Thank you. The most amazing cinematography. So lucid, long shots, moving around any and everywhere. From the top of a hotel around a beauty pageant right into the pool; in-and-out of shantytown shacks; from a multistory building right onto the street at the same height following a funeral procession as an overhead shot; in a bar where the “rooms” are separated by hanging bamboo stalks; on the sugarcane field. I cannot imagine how some of the shots were. And so far I only commented on the movement. But the over and under exposure was also exceptional. The whiteness of the tropical outdoors were brilliant. The darkness of the people as well. The strong contrast between them sharpened our senses to the contrast of their conditions.Technically there are four stories here told in a consecutive manner. First we see the story of Maria with a crucifix on her neck, who prostitutes herself to American tourists, hates herself for doing so, and loses the only person who cares for her. Then we see an old farmer who sends away his children to have fun in the village and burns his place down because his land and cabin is sold to the United fruit company. The third segment is about a university student who fails to assassinate the Batista leader, but he himself gets killed in a protest and becomes a symbol for the emerging revolution. And finally another dirt poor farmer joins the armed rebellion after his son is killed by senseless bombing.
Each of these segments end with a poem, starting with the title of the movie and going on explaining what we just saw. How the imperialist pigs ruin the country and the people. I am using obscene words, the poetry is much more subtle, but suggesting the same. And that’s where the trouble starts for me. It is a propaganda movie after all and nowhere more transparent then in these lyrical musings. I am sorry, I just cannot stand the language of this kind of clear indoctrination. The visuals are so beautiful and powerful in themselves. Why did they have to ruin it with words. For me the image part would have stood even as a stronger testament. The words had a backfiring effect.
Two more reasons to get confused. In the movie the tourists speak English and the others Spanish. But all of it is washed over with Russian dubbing of the usual kind: the same monotone voice reading everybody’s texts. You cannot hear the originals clear enough to understand. The only exceptions are the segment closing poems, read by a woman (symbolizing the feminine aspect of the Cuban motherland.) Those lines were read with feeling, slowly and in Russian. Now add to all of it the English subtitles and the chaos is quite full. Based on this and my comment on the content of the words I would prefer to watch the movie without any words next time. Too bad that the music (mostly slow jazz) cannot be listened to separately. The other confusing factor is the director’s name. On the DVD cover and in the movie’s credits he is listed as Kalatozov. But IMDB lists him as Kalatozishvili. The explanation is simple in this case: the shorter is the Russian, uniformed version of the longer, original Georgian name.
This is a top 1000 movie