The Lost City

5.56X45mm

Milforum Mac Daddy
Andy Garcia's Thought Crime
By Humberto Fontova
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 1, 2006

Andy Garcia blew it big-time with his movie The Lost City. He blew it with the mainstream critics that is. Almost unanimously, they're tearing apart a movie 16 years in the making, which Garcia both directed and stars in. In this engaging drama of a middle-class Cuban family crumbling during free Havana's last days, Garcia insisted on depicting some historical truth about Cuba -- a grotesque and unforgivable blunder in his industry. He's now paying the price.

Earlier, many film festivals refused to screen it. Now many Latin American countries refuse to show it. The film's offenses are many and varied. Most unforgivable of all, Che Guevara is shown killing people in cold blood.

"Where did Garcia get this preposterous notion of pre-Castro Cuba as a relatively prosperous but politically troubled place?" ask the critics. All the Cubans he portrays seem to come from the middle class. "Where in his movie is the tsunami of stooped and starving peasants that carried Fidel and Che into Havana on its crest?" they ask. "Where's all those diseased and illiterate laborers and peasants my professors, Dan Rather, CNN and Oliver Stone told me about?" ask the critics.

Garcia has seriously jolted the Mainstream Media's fantasies and hallucinations of pre-Castro Cuba, Che, Fidel, and Cubans in general. In consequence, the critics are unnerved and disoriented and their annoyance and scorn are spewing forth in review after review.

"In a movie about the Cuban revolution, we almost never see any of the working poor for whom the revolution was supposedly fought," sniffs Peter Reiner in The Christian Science Monitor. "The Lost City' misses historical complexity."

Actually what's missing is Mr. Reiner's historical knowledge. Andy Garcia and screenwriter Guillermo Cabrera Infante knew full well that "the working poor" had no role in the stage of the Cuban Revolution shown in the movie. The Anti-Batista rebellion was led and staffed overwhelmingly by Cuba's middle -- and especially, upper -- class. In August of 1957 Castro's rebel movement called for a "National Strike" against the Batista dictatorship -- and threatened to shoot workers who reported to work. The "National Strike" was completely ignored. Another was called for April 9, 1958. And again Cuban workers ignored their "liberators," reporting to work en masse.

"Garcia's tale bemoans the loss of easy wealth for a precious few," harrumphs Michael Atkinson in The Village Voice. "Poor people are absolutely absent; Garcia and Infante seem to have thought that peasant revolutions happen for no particular reason—or at least no reason the moneyed 1 percent should have to worry about."

What's "absolutely absent" is Mr Atkinson's knowledge about the Cuba Garcia depicts in his movie. His crack about that "moneyed 1 per cent," and especially his "peasant revolution" epitomize the clichéd falsehoods still parroted about Cuba.

"The impoverished masses of Cubans who embraced Castro as a liberator appear only in grainy, black-and-white news clips," snorts Stephen Holden in The New York Times. "Political dialogue in the film is strictly of the junior high school variety."

"It fails to focus on the poverty-stricken workers whose plight lit the fires of revolution," complains Rex Reed in the New York Observer.

Here's a UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) report on Cuba circa 1957 that dispels the fantasies of pre-Castro Cuba still cherished by America's most prestigious academics and its most learned film critics: "One feature of the Cuban social structure is a large middle class," it starts. "Cuban workers are more unionized (proportional to the population) than U.S. workers. The average wage for an 8 hour day in Cuba in 1957 is higher than for workers in Belgium, Denmark, France and Germany. Cuban labor receives 66.6 per cent of gross national income. In the U.S. the figure is 70 per cent, in Switzerland 64 per cent. 44 per cent of Cubans are covered by Social legislation, a higher percentage then in the U.S."

In 1958 Cuba had a higher per-capita income than Austria and Japan. Cuban industrial workers had the 8th highest wages in the world. In the 1950's Cuban stevedores earned more per hour than their counterparts in New Orleans and San Francisco. Cuba had established an 8 hour work-day in 1933 -- five years before FDR's New Dealers got around to it. Add to this: one months paid vacation. The much-lauded (by liberals) Social-Democracies of Western Europe didn't manage this until 30 years later.

Cuba, a country 71% white in 1957, was completely desegregated 30 years before Rosa Parks was dragged off that Birmingham bus and handcuffed. In 1958 Cuba had more female college graduates per capita than the U.S.

The Anti-Batista rebellion (not revolution) was staffed and led overwhelmingly by college students and professionals. Here's the makeup of the "peasant revolution's" first cabinet, drawn from the leaders in the Anti-Batista fight: 7 lawyers, 2 University professors, 3 University students, 1 doctor, 1 engineer, 1 architect, 1 former city mayor and Colonel who defected from the Batista Army. A notoriously "bourgeois" bunch as Che himself might have put it.

By 1961, however, workers and campesinos (country folk) made up the overwhelming bulk of the anti-Castroite rebels, especially the guerrillas in the Escambray mountains. And boy, would THAT rebellion make for an action-packed and gut-wrenching movie. If by some miracle it ever got made you can bet these learned critics would pan it too. Whoever heard of poor country-folk fighting against their "benefactors" Fidel and Che?

The New York Times' Stephen Holden also sneers at Garcia's implication that "life sure was peachy before Fidel Castro came to town and ruined everything."

In fact, Mr Holden, before Castro "came to town," Cuba took in more immigrants (primarily from Europe) as a percentage of population than the U.S. And more Americans lived in Cuba than Cubans in the U.S. Furthermore, inner tubes were used in truck tires, oil drums for oil, and styrofoam for insulation. None were cherished black market items for use as flotation devices to flee the glorious liberation while fighting off Hammerheads and Tiger Sharks.

The learned Mr Holden is also annoyed by "buffoonish parodies of sour Communist apparatchiks barking orders." Apparently, Communist apparatchiks should be properly depicted as somewhat misguided social workers, or as slightly overzealous Howard Dean campaign staffers.

It's no "parody," Mr Holden, that the "apparatchiks" Garcia depicts in his movie incarcerated and executed a higher percentage of their countrymen in their first three months in power than Hitler and his apparatchiks jailed and executed in their first three years.

Andy Garcia shows it precisely right. In 1958 Cuba was undergoing a rebellion not a revolution. Cubans expected political change not a socio-economic cataclysm and catastrophe. But I fully realize such distinctions are too "complex" for a film critic to grasp. They prefer clichés and fantasies of revolution. Garcia might have followed the laudable examples of "historical complexity" and "accuracy" shown in previous movies on Cuba. Take two that these critics compare (favorably) to The Lost City, Havana and Godfather II.

In Havana, the brilliant director Sydney Pollack casts Fulgencio Batista with blond hair and blue eyes. In fact, Batista was black. In Godfather II, Francis Ford Coppola, to show Havana streets on New Years Eve 1958, casts more people than marched in Los Angeles last week and depicts them in a battle scene right out of Braveheart. In fact, Havana streets were deathly quiet that night.

I don't presume to the exalted position of a film critic. So I don't comment on the dramatic and cinematic criticisms made by these august critics. I'm not saying, or even implying, that The Lost City is a better movie than the Godfather II. I'm simply criticizing the critics on their criticism of The Lost City's historical accuracy. In these reviews we see -- in all their splendor -- the Mainstream Media's thundering and apparently incurable ignorance on all matters Cuban.



I just saw this film, it is a true masterwork of what my family and thousands of other have gone through in Cuba and in the United States of America.

The mainstream of hollywood have all said that this movie is wrong. I say they're wrong. This movie got a standing ovation during the ending credits. And I am proud to say that I was part of that standing ovation.

The Liberals in Hollywood fail to see the truth of one of their heroes. Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. The leftest of America see Cuba as a Third World Nation that was freed from oppression by the communist revolution. Expect that isn't the truth.

Cuba wasn't a third world country. The revolution that Castro took over changed Cuba to a third world country.

Watch this film and you will see what happened to the Land that I once loved. The land of my family and my blood. But Thank God that the United States of America is the land that it is.

Watch "The Lost City", it's worth it and it's not the crap that the hollywood liberals say it is.
 
I reckon that you can write this away under the famous quote: opinions are just like a**-holes, everybody has got one!" Movie critics should write about the movie, screenplay, photography, etc. Who are they to, suddenly, analyse contemporary history and pass judgement? It is that reporter story all over, where they feed us their opinion and not facts. You and I will, inevitably, have different views on what went on during that time. But I do not need critics to tell me what moved teh wheels of time!

P.s. Does Hollywood liberal equal movie-critic?
 
5.56X45mm said:
90% of Hollywood equals LIBERAL.

Critic, Director, Actor, and others.

Not only liberal, they're liberal activists. They want to keep their wealth and fame and give YOUR money to the government to pay for all the failed givaway programs. I think some reporter said of President Johnson, "he's liberal with our money and conservative with his."
 
Missileer said:
Not only liberal, they're liberal activists. They want to keep their wealth and fame and give YOUR money to the government to pay for all the failed givaway programs. I think some reporter said of President Johnson, "he's liberal with our money and conservative with his."

True! and they almost have no clue about the rest of the world either

LoL
 
They're trying to make money that's why. You want to know why there's so much liberl bias in hollywood movies, look at their audiences. A lot of revenue comes from major cities and cities tend to be liberal places compared to small towns and rural areas which don't rake in the money. Believe me, if this cities were conservative, we would be complaining that hollywood caters to the right.
 
You have got to believe that most of this crap is coming from the Hollywood that thought that this movie would never be made. Thus, they have to bash it because they did not have anything to do with it!
 
Its gotta feel good Luis to see something that accurately presented the story hey? I'll be on the lookout for this one and give it a watch. If it shows Che in a bad light you can be guaranteed it will not make it to the "official" movie theatres in China but the blackmarket will have it.

As for Hollywood since when are a bunch of morons who can't make a marriage last more than a year the arbiters of truth in the world??
 
bulldogg said:
As for Hollywood since when are a bunch of morons who can't make a marriage last more than a year the arbiters of truth in the world??

Hahahahaha, I forgot what funny man you actually are Bulldogg! Keep them remarks coming so I won't forget and have a good day too! :)
 
If Hollywood critics pan a movie, that's good enough for me. I'm going to see it for sure. :smile:
 
Back
Top