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.
Hi Conner-- your claims in this post would be much stronger if they were actually sourced, or engaged with any of the course readings.
ReplyDeleteWhat would an objective portrayal of Batista Cuba, or of US involvement in Cuba from 1898 to 1959 look like in your opinion? The film isn't about kulaks, or Soviet agricultural policy in the 1930s. It's about what led to the Cuban Revolution. Can you comment on its historicity from that perspective?
While propaganda films do indeed seek to persuade, that is little different from any type of film. As a trained historian, I'd suggest there is more truth than there is lack of it in Soy Cuba, particularly given its date of production. The Cuba of 1964 was very different than the Cuba of 1980.
Remember-- the task of these assignments is to engage the film and the specific readings assigned each week.
Conner--I agree that propaganda in film can be at times deceiving or misleading. Could you provide more concrete examples within the film of where exactly Soy Cuba goes wrong historically?
ReplyDeleteAs Chad suggests, academic references would bolster your argument.
As for the greedy capitalistic, playboy type North American characters in the film, they are simply that: characters. Good, bad, evil, chauvinist, poor, rich characters exist in every film.
I do not think these few characters serve the function of symbolizing the US at large, nor do I believe Kalatazov attempts to have them stand as synechdoches for the average "American."
I have also heard that Soy Cuba was not received well in Cuba or in the Soviet Union. I found this fascinating since it was such an engaging and well-directed film, especially for one made in the 1960s. It is understandable that a Soviet director would miss the mark on representing Cuban culture and would therefore fail to connect with Cuban audiences, but why do you think Kalatozov was so far off in his ability to make his movie ideologically compatible with Soviet audiences?
ReplyDeleteWhen I wrote my blog I also kind of dismissed Soy Cuba as just a form of propaganda that had some historical accuracy. But, after reading the readings again and going more in depth with them I think we're letting our own views on Communism get in the way.
ReplyDeleteAs Dr. Black pointed out on my blog post by the time the movie was made the Cuban Revolution was as equally a nationalist movement as it was Marxist. So we must not see the movie simply in the light of Communism but we must also put it into correct historical context with the way Cuba reacted AFTER the revolution.
@jcmaerder
ReplyDeleteApparently if I remember correctly the article I read awhile ago, is that the movie simply wasn't... for lack of a better word, radical enough. I knew Soviet perceptions of America were bad, but I guess I really had no idea how bad they were.
@Everyone else
I will be the first to admit that I hate everything Soviet with a fiery passion, so yes I could have easily let that get in the way. My issue with the film however lie not with the Cuban Revolution or even the film's depiction of it. My primary concern is with the film is that it was directed and produced by the Soviets. A faction which has no right to create anything self-righteous. Many will argue the same about America at that time, and I fully understand those arguements. However, the self righteous nature of the film is laughable simply because a Soviet directed it.