Soy Cuba

          Soy Cuba is a visually stunning film, especially for it being filmed in the early sixties. The plot line focuses around four distinct chapters that work as a roadmap of sorts; showing Cuba's journey from a U.S. influenced dictatorship to the communist outpost it is today. The stories are obviously subtle metaphors of the role the U.S. played in Cuba's turbulent history. It portrays the mistreatment of the Cuban citizens and how this ultimately led to an all out revolution in the country. The film shows the increasing poverty and escalating unhappiness that dominated most parts of Cuba. These stories of individual Cuban's, and the impact that the corrupt government has on them helps to give the viewer an idea of what these people were going through. This certainly makes it easier to understand there struggle and see just what led to the Cuban revolution in 1959.
           The first of the four chapters in the movie depicts a club scene in Cuba with a relatively exciting looking nightlife. One of the first noticeable aspects of this scene was that the nightclub was full of American men, who were portrayed as somewhat power hungry and acted as if they usually got what they wanted. This certainly had something to do with the wealth and power the Americans held in the film. They were portrayed as having enough money to buy whatever they wanted including the girls at the nightclub. One girl catches the eye of the American men and he ends up following her back to her home in the slums. He proceeds to try and buy a crucifix off the young women because he said he collected them. This scene was seemingly full of metaphors and open to interpretation. The loss of the crucifix could signify a loss of purity or even the loss of her religion and god. A good parallel is the view of the American people in the eyes of Cubans during this time period. They saw us as a rich, powerful country that ruthlessly controlled other smaller nations (Chasteen 260). This is once again played out through the film when the Cuban children begged the American for money as he left the slums.
           This film increases in intensity from each story to the next. Each story is filled with more despair and hopelessness than the one before. They go from a young girl who is used for sex by a hypocritical, pompous American tourist onto the next scene of a sugarcane farmer who loses his sugar cane and land. The work is hard and the days are long with little incentives given by the land owners to the workers. Eckstein's article talks briefly about how this unfair relationship between the "peasants" and the land owners was turned around in the post-revolution era. This second unfortunate story follows a plantation worker who loses his land to the United Fruit company. Pointing the finger of blame strictly at capitalism, this scene shows the point of views of the citizens and gives insight as to just how a revolution could be the only solution in the peoples eyes. They saw that this form of government could legally take the mans land through the use of corporate power. This clearly would leave many asking for change even if that change would only come through action and force. In a show of spite for the government that had abandoned him and his best interests, the man burns all of his land leaving nothing but black burnt ground. This is the ultimate sign of scorn and disapproval for a government that has turned there back on the owner of the plantation.
            The plantation owner was a metaphor for all the Cuban's who had been left behind or forgotten by the government. This disapproval for the current government in place led to two dominant philosophies. Nationalism and Marxism were the dominate philosophies held by the Cubans during the time of the Cuban revolution (Chasteen). This way of thinking meant that many Cubans believed that the turmoil they were experiencing was a direct result of American economic system. Leading them to revolt and unite under Castro. This film does a good job of accurately portraying the varying living conditions and many underdeveloped land areas that make up Cuba. It shows the country from an ideological perspective while scattering anti-american themes and metaphors throughout the film. This is done in a tactful manner that still does an adequate job of showing the seriousness of the situation while wrapped up in a symbolic gesture.

Que viva Mexico!

               This film was probably one of the most interesting and unique films so far. Que viva Mexico is an intriguing film that delves deep into the heart of Mexican culture, going back to the times of the pyramids through the Mexican Revolution. Sergei Eisenstein does this in a way that is quite unique and not like many other movies out there today. He goes about this difficult task by using no actors or script, with a simple but straight forward and informative narration explaining Mexico's past up to the present. This gave it the feel of a true Mexican style film. Eisenstein truly wanted to capture the essence and beauty that is Mexico. It took Sergei much longer to collect the film he wanted and settle on a specific idea for the plot. This had to be funded by a small group of investors including Upton Sinclair who together founded the Mexican Film Trust. Running on a smaller budget and behind schedule Eisenstein settled on a four-part film that focused on different key eras in Mexico's history. This ended up being seven different sections in the final product. The idea was to not focus on a central character or story line and instead find the underlying ideals and themes that have occurred time and time again throughout the Country's history. Even though Eisenstein was not able to complete his work, Grigory Alexandrov published the work in 1979. Grigory did his best to follow Eisenteins original planning and theme and did an excellent job of portraying the real story of Mexico and it's rich cultural history.
              The first section of the film focuses on the incredible Aztec temples that were constructed by the ancient ancestors there. This was an incredible feat for any civilization to accomplish, but even more so for the time period it was constructed. The film focuses on the culture and people that inhabited this land, and more specifically on their changing beliefs throughout the course of history. Eisenstein uses camera angles and dramatic backdrops to express his views of societal rank, while moving from one section of film to the next. A good example of this is the man filmed from below sitting on the edge of the pyramid next to a carved face that resembles his features remarkably well. The upward facing camera angles exemplifies the high ranking status of the Aztec man without using any words. It is a perfect reminder of where Mexico came from and where they are going. Much of the culture that was around in the time of the Aztecs was adopted and shaped in with the modern day Catholicism that dominates the area today. As the film moves on to it's latter sections the film focuses on a hacienda complex being run by workers. According to Meyer and Sherman in their writing, The Course of Mexican History, this was a very accurate portrayal of the laborers that would have worked on any hacienda. Meyer goes in depth telling of the mistreatment received by the laborers and virtually intolerable conditions they had to live in day in and day out. He even speaks of "Corporal punishment and sexual violations of young women is common place on the haciendas".
             Unfortunately the film was quite an accurate portrayal of what actually occurred during this period of turmoil in Mexico's past. Eisenstein is ultimately trying to show that the power of the country lies in the individual, not just the elites that have run Mexico ruthlessly in the past. This is done by showing the revolt on the hacienda in the sixth scene, and eventually onto the revolution that took place in Mexico. Ending with the Day of the Dead was a symbolic reminder that the laborers had not lost the battle and would be remembered forever for their heroic actions. The Day of the Dead is a yearly celebration that reminds the current generation of the past struggles and ultimate victory over their former oppressors. The film ends with an inspiring notion that it is up to the people today to share there voice and step up to make Mexico the country they truly want it to be. In the end this film was a very accurate picture of how Mexico has evolved as a whole, and tells how they have come to where they are today. Ending the film by showing the strength and influence that the women and children of the country hold, shows that the future of Mexico is firmly within their own hands. Although Eisenstein did not get to finish the film himself, Grigory did a great job of showing the amazing people and rich history that make up Mexico's story.
      

Camila O'Gorman

The film Camila is set in 1847 and is focused around a young girl named Camila O'Gorman. A well respected socialite, Camila belongs to a family that has close ties with Juan Manuel de Rosas. Rosas is an Argentine dictator in the 19th century running a federalist dictatorship. The film focuses on Camila's longing for a husband who she respects and can truly love. Although she is engaged to Ignacio she is not really in love with him and soon meets a jesuit priest who she falls for quickly. Even though her friends insist that she stay with Ignacio because of his wealth and social status she openly speaks out against this and rebels against her friends and family's wishes. Camila makes the initial advances on Ladislao after hearing him speak about the death squads which he denounced. This is speaking openly about a subject Camila felt passionately about in the film. This also is an issue she was looked down upon by her father for speaking openly about. This was due directly to the close ties of Camila's family and support of Juan Manuel de Rosas.

Although Ladislao tries his best to stay true to the church and not start an affair with Camila, he quickly falls to her advances and they start their affair. He even goes as far as to whip himself in order to punish himself for his feelings, but nothing will stop his persistent longing for her. The underlying storyline focuses around Ladislao's constant struggle between his love for the church and his love for Camila. Even after they escape the hacienda, and Ladislao gets a new profession posing as a school teacher, his feelings for the priesthood did not fade. Eventually his desire to receive penance for his actions and return to Buenos Aires results in the couples arrest. This is where the absolutely atrocious part of the movie plays out. Camila's own father asks Rosas personally to pass on the death penalty to his daughter and Ladislao. Even though Ignacio tries to talk Adolfo out of this decision he is too caught up with her slandering his good name to listen. This is scary to step back and realize that with political power and the church hierarchy behind Adolfo O'Gorman, his actions were backed up one hundred percent. His power was nearly limitless because of his political influence and the church's support. Even after Camila realizes she is pregnant with Ladislao's child, this does not stop her imminent execution. Despite the law that no pregnant women may be executed in Argentina her case was overlooked and swept under the carpet. This is a very scary thought that such an atrocity could occur and even scarier that the word came from her father.

It makes sense that this film was widely successful, and was even nominated for an Oscar for best foreign film. Releasing the film after Argentina had been under a ruthless military dictatorship no doubt added to its mass appeal. Luisa Bemberg brings an element of feminism to the film and questions the patriarchal authority that is commonly practiced throughout Argentina. Patriarchal authority can be practiced and seen openly throughout a few avenues. The main three patriarchal themes that come to mind are in the state, church, and obviously the family perspective. All three of these play a major role in the story line. Ultimately, the family and church corner the state into doing exactly what they want by executing the two lovers. In the end this was an eye opening film that invokes questions of loyalty, family, and right and wrong on a larger scale.