jueves, 17 de septiembre de 2020

EPICENTRO O MUERTE, FILMAREMOS

PUEDES LEER MI COLUMNATA SEMANAL EN CIBER-CUBA EN ESTE ENLACE:

https://www.cibercuba.com/noticias/2020-09-16-u191983-e42839-s27068-documental-muerte-filmaremos 


Collage filmaffinity
Cartel del documental Epicentro, dirigido por el austriaco Hubert SauperFoto © Collage filmaffinity

Cuba como epicentro: hasta el documental siempre

Las notas publicitarias de los periódicos repiten los estereotipos que el castrismo académico ha puesto de moda: “una Cuba que parece congelada en el tiempo” (Screen Daily), “una inmersión hipnótica en una cultura y un país embargados durante décadas por la política exterior de nuestro país (The Boston Globe), “una mezcla de análisis histórico-poético y un recorrido entre los ciudadanos de a pie” (Vulture), “una mirada rigurosa pero compasiva de un lugar extraordinario” (The Hollywood Reporter) y, por supuesto, “un ejercicio de pensamiento descolonizador” (POV Magazine).

Los mismos lugares comunes podrían decirse, por ejemplo, de la visita a Cuba del presidente norteamericano Barack Obama, en marzo del 2016. Es así y no hay nada que hacer al respecto: la prensa del mundo libre hace lo mejor que puede para no decir nunca nada. Se imprimen las palabras al por mayor, se repite la misma cantaleta al mejor postor (siempre que sea de izquierdas), lo mismo para acusar a la Casa Blanca de ser la cuna del coronavirus, que para comentar complacientemente, como es el caso, el estreno de un documental sobre Cuba. La cuestión es teclear y reteclear con esa prisa profesional de los analfabetos funcionales, expertos que probablemente no dedicaron más de 1min:48seg dándole Fast-Forward y Rewind a lo largo de la 1h:48min que dura este audiovisual.

Se trata del filme austriaco-francés Epicentro (2020), dirigido por el austriaco Hubert Sauper, y rodado íntegramente en Cuba, gracias a que su director se inventó un contrato en una cátedra de la Escuela de Cine y TV en la Isla. El tema de la película se resume oficialmente así en las carteleras de media internet:

Epicentro es un retrato metafórico inmerso en la Cuba ‘utópica’ poscolonial, donde todavía resuena la explosión del U.S.S. Maine en 1898. Este Big Bang terminó con el dominio colonial español en las Américas y marcó el inicio de la era del Imperio norteamericano. En el mismo tiempo y lugar nacía una poderosa herramienta de conquista: el cine como propaganda. En esta, su más reciente película, el director Hubert Sauper, nominado a los Oscars por La pesadilla de Darwin, explora un siglo de intervencionismo y mitificaciones junto a gente muy excepcional de La Habana, a quienes él llama sus ‘jóvenes profetas’, para así cuestionar las esencias del tiempo, el imperialismo y el cine mismo”.

Por supuesto, ni una sola línea de semejante párrafo panfletario es exacta. Culpen a los productores. Culpen al público. Culpen a las ganancias. Culpen a la corrección política. Culpen a la cultura de cancelar la cultura. Culpen a la culpa de “culpar siempre a los Estados Unidos primero”, como en el famoso discurso de denuncia de Jean Kirkpatrick en 1983. Culpen a la campaña de Biden como seudónimo de Bernie. Culpen a los United Socialisms of America.

Para mí, como toda visión extranjera, de lo que trata en realidad Epicentro es de rescatar, a nombre del arte progresista, a nuestra cárcel Cuba cadáver, la que, para colmo, ahora ha quedado medio viuda y medio huérfana, tras la muerte demasiado tardía del patriarca Fidel, irónicamente anunciada al final del Black Friday de 2016. El caudillo anticapitalista en jefe cayó acaso bajo el peso de las ventas globales de aquel viernes necrológico, más la plusvalía de la elección presidencial de Donald Trump al inicio de ese mismo mes de noviembre.

Epicentro es, pues, entre otras cosas, la crónica de un velorio anunciado, inocente e involuntariamente imaginado en la infancia de sus protagonistas habaneros. Y recortado contra la senectud de fondo de sus escenarios habanémicos. Un fogonazo de solitaria luz nocturna, que es la insolidaridad foránea que, durante décadas de despotismo y decadencia local, ha asfixiado incivilmente a nuestra nación.

Epicentro es, por lo demás, una estocada al corazón cautivo de un país en estampida, donde, paradójicamente, incluso la humanidad ya sólo puede provenir desde afuera, importada de contrabando entre las cámaras y micrófonos de los viajeros filmadores, fornicadores, o ambos.

Este documental con buena dosis de escenificación (es decir, de ficción) ha merecido varios premios cinematográficos en lo que va de año, incluido el del Gran Jurado de Cine Mundial en el archifamoso festival de Sundance, así como el Premio Onion al Mejor Filme del festival MakeDox de Documentales Creativos, en Macedonia del Norte. Y a partir de septiembre de 2020, dada la cerrazón de cines en el mundo occidental, esta obra de Hubert Sauper puede verse íntegra por internet, pagando la módica cuota de $12 en la plataforma digital Kino Marquee.

El crítico cubano Roberto Madrigal, en su artículo Deconstruyendo la utopía, coincide en el papel clave que en este filme tienen, precisamente, los filmes, en tanto “máquina de sueños, que a través de la mentira crea realidades”. De ahí que “la Cuba que surgió en el siglo veinte puede ser el producto de la manipulación cinematográfica”. O sea, “Cuba como fabulación. El destino de la nación como resultado de un sueño”. Pero, en general, Madrigal no percibe en Epicentro mucho más que “una burla sarcástica a la mentalidad esclava de la Cuba de hoy”, resuelta como un “panfleto” que él detesta, incluso “aunque esté de acuerdo con él”.

Yo creo que hay un poquito más que eso dentro de este epicentro sin centro, en el sentido de lo desorganizada que luce su línea argumental, su caótica espontaneidad de iPhone en mano, tal como desorganizada es la caótica continuidad del castrismo sin Castros en Cuba, a pesar del exceso de organizaciones analógicas de masas para vigilar y castigar, las que se notan en Epicentro gracias a los ubicuos policías y chivatos que adornan muchos de los segundos planos de este documental, llegando a interrumpir e intimidar a algunos de los personajes entrevistados.

Tal como lo describió Loren King en el Newport This Week, es cierto que Epicentro a ratos refleja la tontería antipática de una tropa con trapos de “turistas internacionales que quieren visitar a una nación en sus últimos vestigios de comunismo, a la caza de lo ‘auténtico’ de esa experiencia” tercermundista. Y que esa supuesta resistencia algunos la contraponen, por pura complicidad ideológica, con lo que Gary Kramer en Salon definió como “el retrato vibrante de un pueblo y una nación que trata de mantener su propia identidad sin injerencias foráneas”.

A la vez, el propio director contribuye a esta confusión del tipo “lucha de clases” y “arte anticolonial”, casi orgulloso de que Mariela Castro haya alabado en público su filme, en el restringidísimo estreno de La Habana, de paso omitiendo que Cuba es el único país del planeta, junto a Norcorea, donde nadie podrá ver su filme Epicentro en internet pagándolo con sus propios salarios. A la Cuba de la Revolución parece que uno va sólo a representarla. Se le extrae la materia prima, primitiva, que se procesa y empaca en las malvadas metrópolis mercantilizadas. Y entonces uno abandona a su suerte a los representados, revolucionarios y contrarrevolucionarios por igual, como si fuera la elección de los cubanos quedarse embarcados allí, en lugar de luchar a brazo partido por una visa hacia los epicentros de cualquier otro imperio, excepto el de los Castros.

La culpa de que Cuba no tenga vida comercial en línea, ya lo sabemos, la tiene el embargo de los Republicanos contra una Revolución más verde que las palmas. Y, por supuesto, según el evangelio de las entrevistas concedidas por Hubert Sauper, después de culpar primero al imperialismo, habría que culpar entonces a la democracia europea, que “creó un extraño concepto llamado ‘Utopía’, sacado del libro escrito por Thomas More en 1516, justo después de que los europeos ‘descubrieran’ otro mundo. Otro mundo que era, y aún es, un lienzo en blanco para otras tantas proyecciones y fantasías”. En concreto, que “pareciera que las palabras exactas de Thomas More se iban a materializar, cinco siglos más tarde, en el manifiesto de Fidel Castro y Ché Guevara: una isla de justicia, paz, libre de posesiones personales, libre de dioses y emperadores”.

Yo, sin embargo, sí recomiendo que todo cubano sin Cuba pague sus respectivos 12 apostólicos dólares y disfrute en silencio de las casi dos horas de Epicentro. El documental es mucho mejor que su documentalista. La obra rezuma piedad por los siervos del socialismo real. Son las últimas imágenes de un naufragio terminal que nunca termina de terminar. También, en medio de lo siniestro de ver cuán infantilizados e idiotas están hoy por hoy los cubanos de Cuba, el filme es un vistazo brutalmente bello a un futuro donde Fidel ya es un fósil, donde ninguno de los cubanos va a ser contemporáneo de los Castros, sobreviva o sobremuera el castrismo.

Por eso, filmar niños en la Isla debiera ser punible por la Seguridad del Estado cubana como si de pornografía infantil se tratase. En el brillo de esos ojitos brilla de rebote una generación al margen del ruido y la retórica original de la Revolución, a pesar de los eslóganes que por inercia aún se les inculca en las escuelas. Porque tampoco queda ya otra cosa que inculcar. Rimitas de estudio, trabajo, fusil, al ritmo del culiperreo de un reguetón. En la luz salivable de esas sonrisas se anuncia sensualmente el suicidio del militariado cubano. Precisamente porque ya todo es una pésima parodia, ahora sí que los niños por fin serán la esperanza del mundo: porque los niños son los que no sabrán querer a la gloria que ellos ignoran que se ha vivido. Porque los niños ya eligieron que sea la Revolución, y no ellos, la que se hunda para el carajo en el mar que sirve de epígrafe y epitafio a este documental.

Por último, Epicentro será apreciado mejor cuando concluya el segundo término de la administración Trump. Cuando el Partido Demócrata regrese triunfal a pedir perdón en ese otro Monte Rushmore que es la Plaza de la Revolución, entonces les revelaré en una columna escrita acaso desde La Habana, el porqué.

sábado, 12 de septiembre de 2020

Blame America First or Blame Democrats First?



In 1981, a Georgetown professor, Jeane Kirkpatrick, remaining a Democrat, became Ronald Reagan's Ambassador to the United Nations. Reagan brought Kirkpatrick, as he did with many Democratic hawks who were dismayed with the dovish position of mainstream Democrats.
Kirkpatrick had worked closely with Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson. As an increasingly influential public intellectual in the 1970s, she criticized not only what she saw as President Jimmy Carter's soft and naive stance on communism, but also the Nixon-Ford-Kissinger "detente" policy of accommodating to the Soviet expansion.
And so for the first time since 1952, the 1984 Republican National Convention chose a keynote speaker who was not a Republican. Kirkpatrick delivered a blistering speech, dealing exclusively with foreign policy. She was appealing to large segment of Reagan Democrats who were terrified Progressive and Democratic Establishment did not understand the mortal danger of the Soviet threat.
Kirkpatrick ran through a litany of recent foreign policy controversies: Grenada, Lebanon, the Soviet walk-out from arms negotiations, and Central America. On every topic, said Kirkpatrick, the San Francisco Democrats "always blame America first."
For example: "When Marxist dictators shoot their way into power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don't blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies. They blame United States policies of one hundred years ago. But then they always blame America first."




Jeane Kirkpatrick - 'Blame America First', GOP Convention speech - 1984

20 August 1984, Republcan Party Convention, Dallas, Texas, USA

Thank you very much for that warm welcome.

Thank you for inviting me.

This is the first Republican Convention I have ever attended.

I am grateful that you should invite me, a lifelong Democrat. On the other hand, I realize that you are inviting many lifelong Democrats to join this common cause.

I want to begin tonight by quoting the speech of the president whom I very greatly admire, Harry Truman, who once said to the Congress:

"The United States has become great because we, as a people, have been able to work together for great objectives even while differing about details."

He continued:

"The elements of our strength are many. They include our democratic government, our economic system, our great natural resources. But, the basic source of our strength is spiritual. We believe in the dignity of man."

That's the way Democratic presidents and presidential candidates used to talk about America.

These were the men who developed NATO, who developed the Marshall Plan, who devised the Alliance for Progress.

They were not afraid to be resolute nor ashamed to speak of America as a great nation. They didn't doubt that we must be strong enough to protect ourselves and to help others.

They didn't imagine that America should depend for its very survival on the promises of its adversaries.

They happily assumed the responsibilities of freedom.

I am not alone in noticing that the San Francisco Democrats took a very different approach.

Foreign Affairs

A recent article in The New York Times noted that "the foreign policy line that emerged from the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco is a distinct shift from the policies of such [Democratic] presidents as Harry S Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson."

I agree.

I shall speak tonight of foreign affairs even though the other party's convention barely touched the subject.

When the San Francisco Democrats treat foreign affairs as an afterthought, as they did, they behaved less like a dove or a hawk than like an ostrich - convinced it would shut out the world by hiding its head in the sand.

Today, foreign policy is central to the security, to the freedom, to the prosperity, even to the survival of the United States.

And our strength, for which we make many sacrifices, is essential to the independence and freedom of our allies and our friends.

Ask yourself:

What would become of Europe if the United States withdrew?

What would become of Africa if Europe fell under Soviet domination?

What would become of Europe if the Middle East came under Soviet control?

What would become of Israel, if surrounded by Soviet client states?

What would become of Asia if the Philippines or Japan fell under Soviet domination?

What would become of Mexico if Central America became a Soviet satellite?

What then could the United States do?

These are questions the San Francisco Democrats have not answered. These are questions they haven't even asked.

Carter Administration

The United States cannot remain an open, democratic society if we are left alone - a garrison state in a hostile world.

We need independent nations with whom to trade, to consult and cooperate.

We need friends and allies with whom to share the pleasures and the protection of our civilization.

We cannot, therefore, be indifferent to the subversion of others' independence or to the development of new weapons by our adversaries or of new vulnerabilities by our friends.

The last Democratic administration did not seem to notice much, or care much or do much about these matters.

And at home and abroad, our country slid into real deep trouble.

North and South, East and West, our relations deteriorated.

The Carter administration's motives were good, but their policies were inadequate, uninformed and mistaken.

They made things worse, not better.

Those who had least, suffered most.

Poor countries grew poorer.

Rich countries grew poorer, too.

The United States grew weaker.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union grew stronger.

The Carter administration's unilateral "restraint" in developing and deploying weapon systems was accompanied by an unprecedented Soviet buildup, military and political.

The Soviets, working on the margins and through the loopholes of SALT I, developed missiles of stunning speed and accuracy and targeted the cities of our friends in Europe.

They produced weapons capable of wiping out our land-based missiles.

And then, feeling strong, the Soviet leaders moved with boldness and skill to exploit their new advantages.

Facilities were completed in Cuba during those years that permit Soviet nuclear submarines to roam our coasts, that permit planes to fly reconnaissance missions over the eastern United States, and that permit Soviet electronic surveillance to monitor our telephone calls and our telegrams.

Those were the years the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran, while in Nicaragua and Sandanista developed a one-party dictatorship based on the Cuban model.

From the fall of Saigon in 1975 'til January 1981, Soviet influence expanded dramatically into Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, South Yemen, Libya, Syria, Aden, Congo, Madagascar, Seychelles, Nicaragua, and Grenada.

Soviet block forces and advisers sought to guarantee what they called the "irreversibility" of their newfound influence and to stimulate insurgencies in a dozen other places.

During this period, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, murdered its president and began a ghastly war against the Afghan people.

The American people were shocked by these events.

We were greatly surprised to learn of our diminished economic and military strength.

We were demoralized by the treatment of our hostages in Iran.

And we were outraged by harsh attacks on the United States in the United Nations.

As a result, we lost confidence in ourselves and in our government.

Jimmy Carter looked for an explanation for all these problems and thought he found it in the American people.

But the people knew better.

It wasn't malaise we suffered from; it was Jimmy Carter - and Walter Mondale.

Election of Ronald Reagan

And so, in 1980, the American people elected a very different president.

The election of Ronald Reagan marked an end to the dismal period of retreat and decline.

His inauguration, blessed by the simultaneous release of our hostages, signaled an end to the most humiliating episode in our national history.

The inauguration of President Reagan signaled a reaffirmation of historic American ideals.

Ronald Reagan brought to the presidency confidence in the American experience.

Confidence in the legitimacy and success of American institutions.

Confidence in the decency of the American people.

And confidence in the relevance of our experience to the rest of the world.

That confidence has proved contagious.

Our nation's subsequent recovery in domestic and foreign affairs, the restoration of military and economic strength has silenced the talk of inevitable American decline and reminded the world of the advantages of freedom.

President Reagan faced a stunning challenge and he met it.

In the 3 1/2 years since his inauguration, the United States has grown stronger, safer, more confident, and we are at peace.

The Reagan administration has restored the American economy.

It is restoring our military strength.

It has liberated the people of Grenada from terror and tyranny.

With NATO, it has installed missiles to defend the cities of Europe.

The Reagan administration has prevented the expulsion of Israel from the United Nations.

It has developed flexible new forms of international cooperation with which to deal with new threats to world order.

The Reagan administration has given more economic assistance to developing countries than any other administration or any other government, and has encouraged the economic freedom needed to promote self-sustaining economic growth.

The Reagan administration has helped to sustain democracy and encourage its development elsewhere.

And at each step of the way, the same people who were responsible for America's decline have insisted that the president's policies would fail.

They said we could never deploy missiles to protect Europe's cities.

But today Europe's cities enjoy that protection.

They said it would never be possible to hold an election in El Salvador because the people were too frightened and the country too disorganized.

But the people of El Salvador proved them wrong, and today President Napoleon Duarte has impressed the democratic world with his skillful, principled leadership.

They said we could not use America's strength to help others - Sudan, Chad, Central America, the Gulf states, the Caribbean nations - without being drawn into war.

But we have helped others resist Soviet, Libyan, Cuban subversion, and we are at peace.

Blame America First

They said that saving Grenada from terror and totalitarianism was the wrong thing to do - they didn't blame Cuba or the communists for threatening American students and murdering Grenadians - they blamed the United States instead.

But then, somehow, they always blame America first.

When our Marines, sent to Lebanon on a multinational peacekeeping mission with the consent of the United States Congress, were murdered in their sleep, the "blame America first crowd" didn't blame the terrorists who murdered the Marines, they blamed the United States.

But then, they always blame America first.

When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn't blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States.

But then, they always blame America first.

When Marxist dictators shoot their way to power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don't blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies, they blame United States policies of 100 years ago.

But then, they always blame America first.

The American people know better.

They know that Ronald Reagan and the United States didn't cause Marxist dictatorship in Nicaragua, or the repression in Poland, or the brutal new offensives in Afghanistan, or the destruction of the Korean airliner, or the new attacks on religious and ethnic groups in the Soviet Union, or the jamming of western broadcasts, or the denial of Jewish emigration, or the brutal imprisonment of Anatoly Shcharansky and Ida Nudel, or the obscene treatment of Andrei Sakharov and Yelena Bonner, or the re-Stalinization of the Soviet Union.

The American people know that it's dangerous to blame ourselves for terrible problems that we did not cause.

They understand just as the distinguished French writer, Jean Francois Revel, understands the dangers of endless self- criticism and self-denigration.

He wrote: "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."

With the election of Ronald Reagan, the American people declared to the world that we have the necessary energy and conviction to defend ourselves, and that we have as well a deep commitment to peace.

And now, the American people, proud of our country, proud of our freedom, proud of ourselves, will reject the San Francisco Democrats and send Ronald Reagan back to the White House.

Thank you very much.

LA HABANA DE MI AMOR

Compra mi pulóver de ESPANTADO DE TODO ME REFUGIO EN TRUMP





https://www.bonfire.com/espantado-de-todo-me-refugio-en-trump/

jueves, 10 de septiembre de 2020

Compra un T-shirt de mi libro ESPANTADO DE TODO ME REFUGIO EN TRUMP

 

ESPANTADO DE TODO ME REFUGIO EN TRUMP...


Unisex – $24.99

Cubanitos sin Cuba: están listos para tener un pulover con el título más nobiliario de la literatura cubana...?

Are you ready to buy the T-shirt that every single free Cuban was waitng for?

Do it now! Don't let November surprise you with nothing cool to wear on!

Click here:

¿Estás listo para adquirir el T-shirt que los cubanos libres estábamos esperando? ¡No dejes que las elecciones de noviembre te sorprendan sin este diseño, que es también el título de mi libro!

Pincha aquí:

Pulover con el slogan: "Espantado de todo me refugio en Trump"
El T-shirt que los cubanos libres estábamos esperando.

AVAILABLE SIZES: XS S M L XL 2XL 3XL

Cómprate uno ahora en septiembre, que en octubre ya será muy tarde para noviembre!