Fidel - La storia di un mito

I am confused as to the role of Mr John Sacksteder from this site. My understanding was that he was supposed to summarise the film, whereas what he did was attack the film for not portraying Fidel Castro the way he feels he should be portrayed. I suggest that Mr Sacksteder sticks to summarising the piece of work before him rather than politically attacking the real life character. He may wish to be informed that Cuba is superior to the United Kingdom and the United States with regard to health, education and true democracy. All Cubans elect locally in the provinces local people from the province to represent their views at the General Council. Stick to being a film critic, Mr Sacksteder, rather than a mouthpiece for the anti Cuban lobby.

It is certainly very difficult for someone to prepare well a film about Fidel Castro and Cuban Revolution. One lengthy film is not enough, may be some sequels are the best way to show something consistent. The director and producers should be obviously people neutral trying to show good and bad of this process. The film from historical point of view has a lot of incoherences, persons like Fidel and Raúl Castro as well as Che Guevara are badly played. Fidel Castro is not so sweet talking as you can see him in this film, while Guevara was a man with culture and deep in his arguments, Gael García Bernal played a role far to be Che Guevara. There are also some doubtful scenes and assertions, e.g. young Fidel Castro arguing with the American Ambassador after the American marines raped the monument of José Martí. Historically there is no evidence that Castro had such a discussion with the ambassador. Raúl Castro was never sympathetic to the leader of Orthodox party, Eduardo Chivas. Raúl was a member of the youth of the so-called Partido Socialista Popular (Communist), and this party had no good relationship with Orthodox party, so the scene of Raúl running together with Fidel at the time Chivas shot himself is not real. Celia Sánchez died several years after the revolutionary offensive, which happened in 1967. Che Guevara resigned as Minister and went first to Congo, then came back to Cuba in order to prepare the guerrilla for Bolivia. Thus the film was wrong showing that Guevara resigned and went directly to Bolivia. Any film about Cuban Revolution should give some space to Camilo Cienfuegos' life, a real hero of the Cuban Revolution, who was badly shown in the film. The figure of Dr. Osvaldo Dorticos, the second president during the Revolution, who killed himself, is absent in the film. Hubert Matos' problem was touched superficially, the same is applicable to the case of General Ochoa, just mentioned slightly at the end of the film and mixed with Mariel exodus, the latter happened in 1980 while Ochoa was arrested and processed in 1989. The relationship between Cuba and USSR was historically very complicated, and shifting from time to time. I can make a longer list of historical shortcomings of this film, but it also has the Mexican accent of the actors talking in Spanish plus some extras that do not look at all as Cubans. To prepare a good material about Cuba you must have more mulatos and black people (no less than 40% of Cuban population) participating in the film.

This film is as if aliens who know or care nothing about either leftist or rightist politics came from another planet and catalogued Fidel's rise to power in Cuba. It very objectively chronicles the good and bad about the regime and pulls no punches.

Undoubtedly, there is a considerable amount more bad than good about Castro (note: to those of you whose demonize Pinochet, Castro was worse) but we get the point just the same without having to catharticly dwell on the killed, tortured, exiled, and imprisoned souls of Cuba. Just gives us the facts... nice one.

I was pleasantly surprised at this film. Given the anti-Cuban bias of most things we see in the media, I thought this movie did a decent job of presenting Cuban history from a neutral position. It explains why the Revolution was needed, why people supported Fidel, and what some of the challenges were after the Revolution (Bay of Pigs invasion, etc.) For people who know nothing about Cuban history, it gives a good overview and makes for a dramatic story. It relies too heavily at times on melodrama, and Gael García Bernal as Che is ridiculous. The Mexican actors who play the lead roles are ok in general, but there are times when it looks more like a soap opera than a film (not a coincidence that the stars are well known soap opera stars). Still, for this kind of bio- pic, it's fine for what it is. The ending is a little over the top. I think the director is trying too hard to show that Fidel has become isolated from the people. If you follow news, you know that this isn't true. But the parts that deal with the early stages of the Revolution are especially good, and it's fun to see the costumes, old cars and settings of pre-revolutionary Cuba. I also liked the parts that deal with the Revolutionary battles. It gives a good idea of what the Cubans were fighting for, and the dramatic scenes between Fidel and Celia Sánchez are good.

This film was well done technically, although the bias was so prevalent toward posing Castro as a monster with a gentleman's intellect that it felt fictional to anyone who understands modern Cuban history, not necessarily even sypathizes with Castro.

So, one can put this film on top of the pile of disinformation concerning Cuba and Castro that has been building devotedly in Miami by the displaced Cuban business class who fled Cuba long ago.

Castro is a controversial figure that inspires ideas and debate, not two-dimensional character assassination. His greatest friend in the world is Gabriel Garcia Marquez afterall.

I noticed another reviewer said Castro was worse than Saddam. This should prove my point quite clearly.