Havana

I love it for its ...flavor. For Lena Olin and Robert Redford. For the clash between romance and politic. For the old image of people in the womb of bad times. And for a Cuba who was so easy lost. And that is all.

How does a cool professional gambler show passion? He gives up the Big Game to rescue his beloved. How can a passionate woman reconcile the two loves of her life--the noble hero and his cause and the man who makes her feel most like a woman? Yes, it's Casablanca revisited. And Lena Olin portrays her ambivalence as ably as her Swedish compatriot, Ingrid Bergman. Fault the script for not delivering the depth of Casablanca, the humor--Alan Arkin could have been the equal of Claude Rains but didn't get the lines. But the cinematography makes pre-revolutionary Havana palpable, in its glamour and seaminess, its whiff of a bygone era. Who wouldn't want to drive a Cadillac convertible onto the ferry at Key West and debark in Havana?

Havana is a favorite of mine. Sure it's a slick Hollywood movie but I thought Redford and Olin were marvelous together and fit their roles perfectly. Doesn't it seem natural to find Redford in exotic Havana playing cards on the eve of the revolution? And doesn't Olin's intelligence , charm, and beauty fit her role ? The supporting cast were flawless and the intriguing plot stood on it's own merit. The sentimental ending was superb and the musical score which received an academy award nomination was brilliant. Better than mediocre.

Many will claim that Sydney Pollack and Robert Redford were on auto-pilot while making this film. Based on their previous collaborative efforts, the well-received Three Days of the Condor, The Way We Were, The Electric Horseman, and Out of Africa, which swept the Academy Awards, people wanted to see their movies. They could make any movie they wanted. They made Havana, and NOBODY wanted to see it.

Maybe Pollack, brilliant in his own right, set his watch according to Redford's schedule at this time, and history shows that, subsequent to Havana, and its box office failure Sydney Pollack basically quit directing. His influence in film is still served, and may be better served as a producer, witness Sliding Doors, Sense and Sensibility, Fabulous Baker Boys, and Searching For Bobby Fischer, all of which he helped bring to the screen.

But, back to the matter at hand-Redford as a gambler, Lena Olin, his distraction (and what a distraction)--the film feels good, looks good, and gives us some perspective on Cuba in the waning hours of Batista.

Olin (pre-Romeo is Bleeding, post Unbearable Lightness of Being) is properly introduced to American audiences, and is not inappropriate as leading lady to one of Hollywood's leading stars, Redford, who, even on auto-pilot, delivers a strong, engaging performance.

I understand this film was heavily maligned at release, and failed dismally at the box office, but I enjoyed it. It is a beautiful film to watch with attractive leads - and that alone stands it well ahead of many of the alternatives out there today.

I just saw this one again on DVD and was surprised at how good it was. The acting, story and environment made it very easy to follow what was going on. I fail to see big holes in the plot: the characters are very well developed. What is created is a very sweet romantic thriller in a historical setting - the viewer knows that the revolution will take place so that part is anti-climatic.

The film didn't attempt to make the revolutionaries into the good guys - Batista's forces did come across as corrupt and arrogant though.

One mistake: Redford's character convinces the security chief he works for the CIA which is implausible since he's supposedly on assignment in Cuba and doesn't speak Spanish.