|
March 29, 1998, in the Miami Herald
By JUAN O. TAMAYO
Herald
Staff Writer
It was just a
thumbs-down review of a Cuban movie that poked fun at socialist bloopers. But
the reviewer was President Fidel Castro, and his words sparked both alarm and
defiance among Havana intellectuals.
"Comandante, we're not accustomed to disagreeing with you,'' one writer
was quoted as telling Castro at a stormy meeting with intellectuals early this
month in which each side sought to explain its own views and allay the other's
concerns.
Some writers and artists say the session eased their fears, that its very
turmoil proved that artistic freedom lives. But the spat left the taste of a
crackdown among many more intellectuals who say that Castro's words have already
unleashed a wave of fear and self-doubt in the world of culture.
Castro sparked the row during a seven-hour speech Feb. 24 in which he lashed
out at an "unbalanced'' movie that made "morbid fun'' of the
revolution. He claimed not to remember its title, but it was clearly
Guantanamera, a 1995 comedy about the bureaucratic absurdities encountered by a
woman arranging the funeral of a relative. The film circulated widely outside
Cuba and was very popular with audiences in New York and Miami.
A return to the '70s?
Within days of Castro's speech, the movie was pulled from the schedule of
showings for the 39th anniversary of the Cuban Institute of Cinema Arts and
Industry, known as ICAIC. The institute's chief, Alfredo Guevara, a longtime
defender of the right of artists to cast a critical if respectful eye on
socialism, came under hushed attacks by orthodox Communists.
Guevara told journalists in Havana soon afterward that "my soul is
rent, but I remain firmer than ever in my revolutionary convictions . . . and I
opt for silence.'' His words were published widely abroad, but not in Cuba.
Cuban writers and artists worried that Castro was signaling a return to the
1970s, when the government tried to impose Soviet-style Socialist Realism on
Cuban intellectuals.
"We don't know if this is going to bring an adjustment in the policies
of ICAIC, or if these are just the personal criteria of President Castro,''
movie director and ICAIC member Juan Carlos Tabio was quoted as saying in a
Mexican magazine.
There was concern that the government might shorten the leash on the many
artists and writers who have moved abroad to earn dollars, but who keep their
criticism low-key so they are allowed to return home occasionally.
Amid false reports of firings at the film institute, Castro faced some 200
intellectuals at a closed-door meeting March 2 of the pro-government National
Union of Cuban Writers and Artists.
Eight members of the union defended Guantanamera, Guevara and the duty of
all revolutionary artists to reflect on and criticize society, said one member
who attended.
To Castro's complaint that the artistic elite were attending too many
foreign embassy dinners, one writer replied: "Yes, we go and we eat and we
listen, but there's no problem because our digestion is revolutionary,''
according to one South American writer with good contacts among Cuban
intellectuals.
It was a stormy session in which Guevara briefly became ill and Culture
Minister Abel Prieto, former head of the writers' union, argued heatedly with
Esteban Lazo, member of the Communist Party's inner Political Bureau.
"We don't use the word confrontation. But each side explained its
positions with full frankness,'' said one writers' union member who attended.
When the intellectuals finished venting, Castro asked if any of the members
present disagreed with the ones who spoke out. None did, so he launched into a
defense of his criticisms of Guantanamera.
He had not seen the movie, Castro was quoted as saying, but he would not
take back his words. And while there were "other sectors'' in the party and
government that did not agree with the writers' union, he said, "If you
persuade us, maybe we can change our opinion.''
Members left the session feeling that Castro "had left the door open to
dialogue,'' said the South American writer. Proof, they said, was the fact that
Castro's Feb. 24 speech has never been published in the Cuban media, unlike most
of his speeches.
Guevara seemed to be trying hard to put the issue behind him when he told a
television interviewer March 16 that Castro's comments on Guantanamera were "useful,
because at least he's thinking of us, and that's good.''
Intellectuals, he said, remain "loyal to the revolution, critical like
him [Castro] but not more critical than he.'' They will try to persuade Castro,
he added, but "they still have the capacity to slow down, not to abandon,
our language'' of criticism.
"Everything that is superfluous falls apart, everything that is hard
and authentic survives,'' Guevara had declared soon after the writers' union
meeting, in what was then taken as a sign that the intellectuals had survived
the Castro attack.
Artists feel vulnerable
But other intellectuals were not reassured.
Younger writers and artists who have not yet won entry into the writers'
union feel more vulnerable now to possible pressures from government and party
culture officials.
"Guevara and those people have long histories of work in the revolution
that give them the power to do many things,'' said one young painter. "But
for us, any criticism can bring sanctions.''
One member of the writers' union recalled a similar outburst in March 1996
by Castro's brother, armed forces chief Raul Castro, against a group of
economists who were advocating more daring market reforms.
After the blast sparked fears of a crackdown, Raul Castro insisted there
would be "no witch hunt.'' But half a dozen of the economists were
transferred to less visible jobs and fell into an official silence. Raul
Castro's outburst is now viewed as marking the end of significant economic
reforms in Cuba.
"The government gives assurances and nothing terrible happens,'' said
one Havana journalist. "But the threat of the words remains, floating in
the air, and people know it's time to act in a different manner.''
Copyright © 1998 The Miami Herald |