Countries & Movies: Cuba
Cuban cinema is presented in the Golden Thousand with one film - "I am Cuba" directed by Mikhail Kalatozov.
Of course, we are aware that the film was directed by the outstanding Soviet film Director Mikhail Kalatozov, co-author of the script was the great Soviet poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko, cinematography by the famous Sergei Urusevsky. And the financing of the picture was made from the budget of the USSR.
But! Taking into account that along with Mosfilm, the production company was the Instituto Cubano del Arte e Industrias Cinematográficos (ICAIC), the main actors were Cubans, the co-author of the script was a Cuban, the film was created at the initiative of the revolutionary government of Cuba, and finally, Fidel and Raul Castro and Che Guevara acted as technical consultants on the set, we decided to include this film among the Cuban ones. As a matter of fact, not only we, but also Wikipedia.
The premiere of the film "I am Cuba" took place in Cuba on October 26, 1964.
Films at the intersection of art and propaganda often have a difficult fate. Not passed these difficulties and the film "I am Cuba". Upon release in October 1964 in Cuba and in November of the same year in the USSR, the film was heavily criticized both in Cuba and in the Soviet Union. Cuban film critics criticized the film for the fact that in it, allegedly, Cubans are depicted too stereotypically. And Soviet film critics scolded the picture for the fact that it allegedly portrayed too attractive bourgeois way of life that existed in Cuba before the revolution. As a result, the film was almost never shown in Soviet cinemas.
And in the US and other Western countries (except Japan) the film at all was banned by censorship as Communist propaganda.
However, from officials from ideology (and precisely such were most Soviet film critics) it was difficult to expect something another. But the film has been subjected to criticism from the part of such recognized Masters as Andrei Tarkovsky. Naturally, Tarkovsky made claims to the film not for any ideological reasons. He, oddly enough, was not satisfied with the camerawork. His specific claims were made to the long continuous takes with which the film abounds. In his "Lectures on filmmaking" Tarkovsky, in particular, wrote:" After all, there were attempts to shoot everything from one point of view, for example, in "Rope" by Hitchcock or in "I am Cuba", etc. And what is the result? Nothing! Because there's nothing in it."
And these claims were all the more surprising because the cameraman on the film was, as mentioned above, Sergei Urusevsky, who largely ensured the triumph of the film "The Cranes Are Flying" at the 1958 Cannes film festival. Moreover, Urusevsky's talent for this film was enhanced by the most advanced optical technology at the time: for the filming of this film, Urusevsky was provided with optical devices that were in service of the Soviet army.
This film by Mikhail Kalatozov's should be buried in oblivion if not two great American filmmakers! Through the efforts of a small New York film distribution company Milestone Films in 1994, the film was presented to Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola. Who literally fell in love with this film, not paying attention to its anti-American orientation. They achieved the release of the film on the screens of American cinemas, and since 1995 the film has been successfully demonstrated in almost all Western countries and at many international film festivals. As part of out-of-competition screenings, of course.
Roger Ebert, guru of American film criticism, praised the film. Of course, due to the propaganda nature of the film, Ebert could not give it the highest rating, he gave the film only three stars out of 4 possible. At the same time in his review he noted: "Since the film's prediction of a brave new world under Fidel Castro has not resulted in a utopia for Cubans, who suffer under one of the world's most dismal bureaucracies, the film today seems naive and dated - but fascinating..... as an example of lyrical black and white filmmaking, it is still stunning." And, by the way, it were the continuous close-UPS which displeased Tarkovsky that most appealed to Ebert.
Similarly, the cinematography in this film was admired by The New York Times film reviewer Stephen Holden. In his review of 8 March 1995 he wrote: "What makes "I Am Cuba" much more than a relic of Communist kitsch is Sergei Urusevky's visionary cinematography. The film's high-contrast black-and-white photography, which renders palm trees and sugar cane fields a searing white against an inky sky, illustrates the revolution's explosive polarities and burning passions."
For the reasons listed above, the film was denied the opportunity to qualify for any film awards. But from moviegoers, it received a very high rating: 71% of IMDB and Kinopoisk users gave this film a score of 8 or higher. Moreover, the average score received by the film from US moviegoers is 8.1.
According to Filmgourmand, "I am Cuba" has a rating of 8,169. In the Golden Thousand it takes 507th Rank.
