Soy Cuba: Propaganda at its Worst

It takes only minutes to make two very accurate conclusions about Soy Cuba. The first thing that should be noticed is just how stunning the cinematography is for a film this old. Before the advent of the steadycam harnesses and complex camera rigs it is rare to see such masterful direction of the camera.  Mikhail Kalatozov, along with the Soviet and Cuban governments, sought to tell the story of everyday people rebelling against the tyranny of the Batista Regime and capitalism.

Evaluating the effectiveness, accuracy, and ultimately the historical value of Soy Cuba presents a difficult challenge. It is not unreasonable to presume that American viewers would assume that Kalatozov managed to create a film that would have been successful in Castro’s Cuba and the USSR. The film is beautiful, has four well told chapters, strong acting, and overt sympathy for the communist cause. For those who have not studied the film in the past, it is important to note that Soy Cuba was poorly received in both countries. Cubans found the Russian’s understanding of Cuban culture lacking while the Soviet population somehow found it lacking in revolutionary appeal. This alone makes evaluation of Kalatozov’s final product difficult. It is obvious that his film did not find resonance with the national identity of Cubans or the perceptions held within the USSR.

Unfortunately, Soy Cuba offers little value as an accurate period piece. It is inherently a propaganda film, which at best is ignorant, and at worst revisionist. It is nearly impossible to take a film which can at one moment abhor violence and the next glorify it. While Soy Cuba was not incorrect in portraying Batista’s Cuba as a corrupt American playground, it obvious inability to attempt an objective portrayal is exhausting.

Many posts have noted Soy Cuba’s accurate representation of the playboy Americans, greedy capitalist, and harsh security officer. Soy Cuba is not incorrect in criticizing these figures, as they certainly existed. Where Soy Cuba looses its validity is how absolute and self-righteous it is. Anyone who knows the history of the Kulaks should have been laughing at the Soviet portrayal of the old farmer burning his sugar-cane. The harsh measures used by Soviet and Cuban security forces were almost a mirror image of the Batista regime. There are countless other examples of how this film falls into the illegitimacy of propaganda.

If there is to be historical value found within the film, this value would be centered around the idiocy of propaganda. It is a dangerous tool used by all governments, and when presented as historical truth its damage to the untrained mind can be catastrophic. Soy Cuba is a masterpiece when it comes to the art of film. But outside its technical merits, there is very little of value. 

Gabriela: The Illusion of Progress

The steamy love story that takes place in Gabriela was in and of itself unimportant to a historical understanding of Brazil in the early 20^th Century. The turbulent setting of the film along with the complexities that Gabriela’s relationship represent are far more critical to analyzing the film in a historical context.

The theme of progress was a central point of conflict which drives to political subplot of the film. The small town had come to represent an uncomfortable union of the old guard and those who sought to replace them. While it is interesting that expansion of the harbor represented the goal of the so called “progressive” challenger, what is more important is how little the dynamics changed in its aftermath. The comments made at the ceremony were telling, it was not new, it was just different. As much as those challenging the old guard advocated industrialization, their goals were of a much simpler nature. The ceremony featured the installation of a different face, with the former loyalists doing nothing more than pledging themselves to their new leader.

It appears that industrial progress was more of a political tool than it was an overarching ideal of progress.

The film also shows the infringing modern society on a societal level. The drought had forced an integration of poor and rich in a rather revolutionary manner. Nacib’s relationship with his servant was certainly normal within society, however the ability of that relationship to grow into a formal marriage represented a new openness within Latin American culture. The intermingling of rich and poor was by no means a common occurrence, and the struggles found within that relationship demonstrated lingering societal prejudices. Outside of marriage, Gabriela and Nacib had a simple lustful relationship. But with marriage, Gabriela proved incapable of accepting the societal norms expected of a proper woman. The marriage was of force of division rather than union, and was only reconciled upon the relationship’s return to a primal nature.

Despite the failure of progress to allow for a true union of rich and poor, it did have an effect on the rule of law’s triumph over the archaic sense of honor. It was so frowned upon to not avenge a man’s honor that Nacib feared he would have to flee for not killing his wife. However his temperance was vindicated when he found out that the doctor had been convicted and imprisoned for killing his wife and the man who she was with. It was taken for granted that the doctor need not fear the law. His failure in the court of law was perhaps the most poignant example of progress overtaking the old order.

Gabriela represented a society in the midst of change rather than a society that had changed. The film beautifully portrayed the uncertainty of a community living in revolutionary times and its ability to sense change while failing to understand it.

-Thomas Ingram

Camila: Love and Rebellion

Maria Luisa Bamberg wished to critique Argentine society both during the rule chaos of the mid 19th century as well as the period leading up to the films release. The main character Camila appears to be very much a representation of Bamberg's own beliefs regarding the Church, sexual oppression, and patriarchal society. Her film and the true story on which she based Camila provided a perfect foundation for a potent critique of society.

The questions and arguments Bamberg present were meant for Argentina; yet they are common across both Latin America and Western Civilization. The peril of two young lovers rebelling against an oppressive society was by no means novel. The Church, patriarchy, and totalitarian government fulfill their typical roles as villainous institutions. Yet despite these rather unoriginal themes, Camila was a huge success both in Argentina and the United States.

The reasons for Camila's success in Argentina are very clear. The country was just emerging from the inherent oppressive nature which accompanies military dictatorships. The fact that filming began right after censorship had been lifted obviously allowed the film's message to have a weight it obviously did not enjoy in the United States. The imagery throughout the film; such as the plethora of portraits of Rosa, red banners, military pageantry, and red pennants on the clothing all invoke an overbearing sense of government intrusion. The hopeless story of these two young lovers being pursued and punished by a ruthless government for what seems a minor crime is obviously offensive to a majority of viewers. However, Bamberg was hoping to criticize much more than the tyranny her country had experienced throughout its existence.

The protagonist is without a doubt a feminist heroine. She constantly challenges the accepted norms by voicing her opinion in a society which demands women be silent. Her pursuit of love with a clergyman is in-itself a plea for human passion over Christian values. For many this was a relevant and effective argument. That being said, it must be asked it Bamberg's melodramatic narrative lost a measure of potency due to certain traits possessed by Camila.

While the grievances brought by the film are legitimate, the actions of mindset of Camila seemed naive and overly selfish. Her wish to rebel against society was propelled by an irrational and lustful passion, not an academic or rational awareness of her situation. While it seems clear to Bamberg and a modern audience that Camila should not have to curtail her natural rights and emotions for an overbearing society; such a mindset is ignorant of the reality of Western society. Perhaps if Camila had been more insightful of the gravity of her actions, as Ladislao was, the tragedy would have appeared to be that much more a crime against reason.