Ultima cena

Kenneth,

As a Cuban of African descent, this film IS believable. Just because the Anglos in this country acted ONE WAY, did not mean that Spaniards in another country couldn't possibly act ANOTHER WAY. Open your mind to other people's history. Just because Cuban history isn't comparable to U.S. History does it mean that it is not correct or believable. The world doesn't start and end with U.S. opinions. You exude that typical arrogance ascribed to "Americans"... like it was all about you. It is quite believable given our history as Africans in Latino America whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

Admittedly, it's very likely improbable that a slave owner would do anything to treat his slaves as his equals. But apparently, "La ultima cena" ("The Last Supper" in English) is based on true events, although I don't know whether or not they changed anything. The movie portrays a slave owner in 18th century Cuba reenacting the famous final meal of Jesus, having his slaves play the disciples.

Of course, the movie's main purpose is to show slavery's brutality and the racism that was law of the land at the time. Aside from the total cruelty inflicted on black people - namely what the slave owner does at the end - someone talks about how white has to come before black (I can't remember the exact line, but it was something like that). As it was, this continued through the 1950s: even though Fulgencio Batista was dictator, he was mulatto and got excluded from an all-white club near Havana. It was only after the revolution that blacks achieved equal status.

For the most part, I recommend this movie. We may have read volumes about slavery, but you have to see it depicted; of course, probably no film can make us truly understand how horrible it was to experience slavery. This movie does what it can. Tomas Gutierrez Alea has turned out some good work.

The movie The Last Supper provides audiences an excellent opportunity to truly understand the hardships slaves had to endure. Books can state facts and offer descriptions, however, this movie provides the opportunity to see deeper than what history books and stories can tell. The most profound example of this is when Sebastian is caught after attempting to run away. As his punishment, his ear is cut off. This demonstrates the violation of basic human rights and the cruel treatment slaves had to endure.

At the end, when the slaves' heads are displayed, it is another brief lesson on the white male dominance and the control of the church over everyone. History lessons may teach that the church was extremely powerful during the conquest, but the movie makes it much more obvious on how far people took this power.

Unfortunately, the storyline is not believable, and for some people it is a distraction because it is an impossible situation. I highly doubt a slave owner would invite his slaves to a feast and humble himself infront of them by kissing their feet. However, a movie would not receive much attention if it presented the basics of slavery in a documentary format. The story provided the entertainment, and a history lesson was tucked inside of it.

Aside from a fairly realistic depiction of how a historical slave revolt could have occurred on a sugar plantation, the best part of this film is the interplay between the slave owner and his slaves. The arrogant slave owner, believing himself to be sacrosanct, tries to teach his slaves to accept their lot in life. Not surprisingly, they can't understand his bizarre efforts, which wind up igniting the revolt.

One part I really liked about this movie was the way it showed the different characters of the slaves. Instead of just lumping them together as one downtrodden mass, their individual personalities are displayed.

In the introductory and the ending part, the play is enthralling, but unfortunately the medium part consists of 'the last meal', during which the landowner tries to explain the bible to the uneducated slaves. They react by making jokes about this metaphysics and by replying with their own cultural convictions.

After half an hour of eating, drinking and preaching, the landowner himself falls into sleep, as is the audience inclined to. This is what Hitchcock denounced as 'shooting the faces of people who are talking'.

To sum up: 2 hours is too much for this content, 1 1/2 would have been better.