Fidel (2001) User Reviews

A Docmentary not only on the Eyes of the Beholder

[jsegurola · 8/10 · 22 February 2006]

Not everyone's piece of cake, paradoxically,teaches much about the US's own propaganda efforts, by depicting Cuba's attempt at countering it with its own pro-Fidel twist.

Not a movie that will be taken lightly by Cuban exiles, but good documentary sequences by themselves make it worthwhile. And some previously undisclosed information on the USA-Soviet Union accord which lead to the 1963 missile disarmament in Cuba in exchange for the US withdrawal of its Turkey stationed missiles and agreement not to invade Cuba.

Of course, this accord did not cover the numerous attempts at Fidel's assassination by the CIA, as well as the US execution of Chile's democratically elected President Allende, facts now overtly displayed in the CIA's Washington DC museum.

Makes one wonder. There is no Universal good country or bad country. Even visions of the conflicts between cowboys and Indians were much tainted by shining badges under broad white hats imposing justice at a rope's end to the original American savages. Politically incorrect term Natives seems to be much in vogue, deep roots of prejudice, notwithstanding.

Excellent insight into one history's greatest persons

[info-555-795600 · 8/10 · 14 October 2009]

For many who watched this film and thought it was too pro Castro, you have a serious issue.This flick was only about Castro and nothing else. It was not about what he did but simply who he is.

Seamlessly stitched with archived footage, the film was an intimate look into the life of Fidel and his family and friends.

A gentle giant, that has been made to be a monster by Democratic hindsight.

A heartwarming film that has captured its place on the Jamaica World Cinema Showcase as one of its best documentary films. A rare look into the life of one of history's greatest influences.

Lloyd Laing - Jamaica World Cinema Showcase 09

no balance

[info-3514 · 6/10 · 18 April 2005]

Fidel has no balance. It provides the historical view as if manufactured by Fidel's own PR people. The fright in the eyes of the common Cubano while around this dictator tells the unrevealed truth about a man who did the Lord's work with the tools of the Devil.

The "democratic" voting is reminiscent of Sadom Hussain's elections where he got 99% of the vote (and the other 1% were never seen from again) To me, a Documentary reports. It's clear Fidel is a Pro-Castro piece with a definite bent on recreating history with a large blind spot.

I only watched it to see Garbriel Garcia Marquez whose political views do not change my love for his writing. It's obvious to any fair minded viewer that what you're watching has an agenda.

Revealing but overly simplistic

[howard.schumann · 11 August 2003]

Cuba's Fidel Castro is a survivor. Having outlasted nine U.S. Presidents and survived numerous assassination attempts by the CIA, Castro has ruled Cuba for 43 years and, whether you love him or hate him, he must be considered one of the most important political figures of the 20th century. Fidel, a documentary by Cuban-American journalist, Estella Bravo, is a sympathetic portrait of the Cuban leader that was commissioned by Channel 4 in Britain, and won the Distinguished Achievement for Excellence in Documentary Filmmaking from the Urbanworld Film Festival in New York. The film spans a period of 40 years of Castro's rule from his early childhood and college days to his Presidency of Cuba and includes interviews with Harry Belafonte, Nelson Mandela, Alice Walker, Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, Sydney Pollock, and others. Rare footage shows him swimming with his bodyguards, working in the fields cutting sugar cane, visiting his childhood school, hanging out with Ted Turner and Jack Nicholson, and talking with Elian Gonzales, the six-year old boy who became a rallying point for Cuban exiles in Miami.

Released from prison after serving two years of a fifteen-year sentence, Castro took a ragtag army of volunteers and recruited farmers, women, and working people in the mountains to fight a decade-long guerilla war that led to the overthrow of American-backed Fulgencio Batista and his takeover of Cuba in 1959. Unfortunately, Ms. Bravo shows us very little of the war or the reasons behind the popular uprising (better depicted in the Russian film I Am Cuba). Once in power, Castro began a series of agrarian reforms that included nationalizing the foreign refineries, seizing U.S. owned businesses such as Chase Manhattan Bank, United Fruit Company, and Texaco Oil. Added to that, American dismay at the mass trials of those who opposed the revolution led to the establishment of the U.S. embargo in 1960 and Castro's embrace of the Soviet Union, the establishment of a Communist dictatorship, and the suspension of democratic elections.

Though at times revealing, I found Fidel on the whole to be overly simplistic. Ms. Bravo extols Castro's virtues on almost every front including his support for free health care including surgical procedures unavailable in other Third World Countries, and Cuba's universal education for all its citizens up to the tertiary level. These accomplishments are important, yet many contentious issues are simply ignored. Bravo never mentions that homosexuality was considered counterrevolutionary and subject to imprisonment and forced labor until 1988 nor the Human Rights Watch Report in 2000 that states that Cuba has routinely imprisoned and/or harassed "peaceful opponents of the government". I recognize that many of the well documented abuses have come about because of Castro's desire to protect the revolution, knowing full well that the U.S. has channeled millions of dollars to dissidents in hopes of destroying it, yet these are issues that cry out for fuller examination. While Castro has become a symbol of courage and independence for millions of Third World people, he is neither saint nor demon, but a man of deep contradictions and complexities whose full story waits to be told.

Castro's biography explains why nationalists turn communist. .

[Deusvolt · 9/10 · 7 July 2006]

Loved it. I was 10 years old when Castro kicked out that corrupt dictator Batista. And, this was greeted by elation by the intelligentsia in Manila. After all, the western media lionized him. US educated (New York University?), a lawyer and coming from the landlord class, it was generally assumed that he would be an ally to big business and American strategic interests. The shock came when he confiscated US businesses in Cuba. Then came the media barrage picturing Castro as virtually a reincarnation of Hitler or Stalin. The Philippines then as now, hewed very closely to the US line. But my sympathies were with Castro. What decent Cubans, after all, could accept a Havana dominated by casinos run by American mafia where the nightly entertainment included "fighting fish" (impoverished native Cubans copulating on stage)? Or, having the price of their chief exports - sugar and tobacco - dictated by US banks and trading houses? Worse, to have their country's public utilities like power companies and trains owned and run by foreign corporations? But here it must be clarified that one of Castro's first acts as leader of Cuba was to seek strong economic and strategic ties with the US. It looked like he couldn't get a fair deal which was why he turned to the Soviets who were ever alert to opportunities to undermine US interests.

I didn't know that the fall of the apartheid regime in South Africa was largely caused by Cuban support of revolutionary movements in Angola and Mozambique. Nelson Mandela himself acknowledges this in the film where he greets Castro with a touching song and dance.The Boer government realized that the only way to stem the tide of armed black resistance intruding into South African borders was to accommodate black leaders like Mandela.

But for me, the most enlightening moments of the movie came when I saw and heard the young Castro without the beard. He looked and sounded so kind, honest and sincere. Note how he cried and shed copious tears when he announced the names of the abusive US businesses he was confiscating in the name of the Cuban people. He knew then that the ordinary Americans whom he loved and admired were bound to misunderstand his action and view him as an enemy. I am an excellent judge of character based on looks and demeanor.

Excellent film

[katerina111 · 10/10 · 3 April 2007]

I was truly fascinated by this film. We have always been taught that Fidel Castro was an evil dictator. I remember hearing about him in the 1960's and formed an image in my young mind that never left until I saw this film. What an eye-opener! I think it should be shown in schools and that every adult who cares about this country should see it also. Why does our country teach us to hate? We have this pretentious, hypocritical image of ourselves that we are the "melting pot", and we are generous to other countries and open-minded and all the other garbage we erroneously believe is true. Good grief. What is wrong with the U.S.?

A definitive film on Castro

[Anyanwu · 10/10 · 10 February 2002]

Simply put, whether one is pro Fidel or con Fidel, pro-Cuba or con-Cuba this is the best film on Castro and Cuba done. Without delving into the specific politics of Castro this film demonstrates the impact he has on the political theatre of the Americas, former Soviet Union, the Carribean and Africa. The film goes into his relationship to Che and the alliances he sought with other national leaders that sought their independence, Ho Chi Min, Allende, Bishop, Mandela etc. The only thing this film lacks is an in depth view on just how the revolution overtook Bastista. All those who are interested in history would be best to see this film. Estela Bravo was great in including some of the revolutionary icons of the 60's & 70's, although I question Alice Walker as an interviewer, she really did not add very much to what we might know of Fidel. Contrary to the listing here, Ted Turner and Ali were not really interviews. It would have been better to list Angela Davis who gave more insight.

and there's even more since the documentary came out

[lee_eisenberg · 10/10 · 13 August 2007]

By the time that I saw "Fidel", I had known about the situation between Cuba and the United States for many years (I think that I first became aware of it when I was about ten). But it was quite fascinating to see Fidel Castro - who turns 81 today - just as a regular man, doing things that anyone else does in his/her daily life; some early footage even shows him without a beard! Along with Castro himself, there are also interviews with people like Harry Belafonte and Sydney Pollack putting in their two cents about him. As for the famous people who have gone to Cuba, I wasn't surprised about Jack Lemmon, Jack Nicholson and Muhammad Ali, but it was an eye-opener that Ted Turner has gone there (but then again, Ted Turner isn't Rupert Murdoch). Other famous Americans who have traveled to Cuba include Jimmy Carter, Robert Redford, Jane Fonda and Steven Spielberg.

Now, the Bush administration of course does everything in its power to vilify Cuba. But you know something? Cuba has national health care, Cuba has never invaded any other countries, Cuba has no nukes, and Cuba helped the South African people bring down apartheid. How does the Bush administration plan to respond to that? As it is, that last part brings us to some of the things relating to Cuba since the documentary came out. On September 11, 2001, all flights into and out of the US were canceled, so Cuba offered its airspace to planes that couldn't enter the US. When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, Cuba offered medical assistance (but the Bush administration naturally refused to answer). And, as we saw in "Sicko", Michael Moore took 9/11 rescue workers there to get medical treatment, and they got quality treatment.

All in all, I staunchly recommend this documentary. Also appearing in it are Alice Walker, Angela Davis, Elian Gonzalez and Che Guevara.

Necessary for understanding reality

[isisherbs2000 · 10/10 · 20 August 2005]

Estela Bravo's documentary, Fidel, isn't exactly a balanced telling of the Cuban leader's Cuban policies, but it is a wonderfully balanced look at Castro's impact on the world, as well as the factors leading up to the US blockade.

The US does not come out looking good, for sure, as it shouldn't, given our adventures in Latin America in the last century. Although this film is not about US foreign policy, it is a nice door-opening for those who may want to look further into United Fruit, Allende, Batista, etc. I hope, at this point in time, that US and/or Latin American history courses teach the actual history of the 20th century (as opposed to when I went to school in the 1970s), so this aspect of the film will not a surprise to a younger audience. However, even if our educational system is still lagging in this area, it isn't too hard to find rigorous history books on Amazon.com

Two important pieces of history that I came away with, having either never known or forgotten, were: 1) Castro didn't affiliate with the USSR until after the blockade 2) The blockade was the result of 'tit-for-tat' policies that escalated on both sides.

Most importantly, I think this movie shows how the rest of the world - including Western Europe and Canada - views Castro, Cuba and the revolution. Every last friend, associate or mere acquaintance from South of the Rio that I know - all of whom are middle or upper class in their homelands - thinks well of Castro and highly of Cuba, so I was not surprised to see the adoring crowds all over Latin America. I was unaware, however, of Cuba's influence on the fall of apartheid.

Because I learned a few things I didn't realize I didn't know, and because of the way several historical events (outside of Cuba) were depicted accurately (and well), and because, as Sydney Pollack said, 'the man has become so much more than a man that it is hard to know who he is, what he's actually done, or what his imprint on history is/will be', I highly recommend this movie. I intend to learn more about Cuba through trusted sources (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc), but I feel l have a very good start on my understanding, already, thanks to Ms. Bravo.

Oh --- and it was just great film-making, too!

A magicians hand hides the other

[Emideon · 4/10 · 24 July 2008]

To be frank and up front with my position, I am a socialist and I hold little sympathy for Castro and his regime. However I have many questions, the man and the island his politburo rule hold puzzling answers to what I, up to fairly recently cared little about. This documentary was interesting at first, and the one thing I do give it credit for is detailing a sort of time-line of events, events which I would assume very few Americans ever knew about (too complex for a simplistic national myth). That merited 4 (out of 10) stars in my book, and after it was done thats all it garnered from me. This documentary does not pretend to be balanced, its called "The Untold Story", what greater asterisk could be placed on a documentary! So yes from the get-go we know were to hear a positive light on the life and times of the Cuban leader, I and anyone watching this should have known that. However they did so by largely omitting fact and detail, a good documentary representing a position should at the least present the arguments against its position (and explain against them undoubtedly) or leave them out without conclusion by the filmmaker for the audience to mull it over. The fact that the filmmakers didn't feel comfortable enough with the notion of bringing up these issues tells me they had intentions that lay beyond informing the public of the other side of the coin but instead to promote the other side of the coin beyond reasonable means, in other words propaganda.

There is a fine line, a very real one, between an opinionated documentary and "Reafer Madness". The more I watched I felt almost like I was being talked down to, they expect and hope we don't recall the prison camps for homosexuals, they ignore explaining the political structure of Cuba throughout its development, and they omit any voice of dissenter's within the island, one of the interviewed guests had the nerve to say "the most fascinating thing I think about him is...that he cant dance....I read that somewhere". At the end, I learned no more than I already knew or that which someone else could have read from a quick one-page biography. No context, no explanations. I didn't want nor expected a condemnation of him, I wanted details, I wanted to understand Cuba, Fidel and the revolutionary process, I wanted to hear from the horses mouth and have him defend himself, I wanted to hear the guests answer the questions in me, I wanted to see the life of the man juxtaposed with with his reasoning and narrated, rare (or rarely mentioned) documented evidence. I think all of this was within the boundary of my reasonable expectations, none was a part of this film (with a small exception of the rush to hostilities with the US in 1960-61). "Commandante" was much better.

another perspective

[cyn_duncan · 1 November 2003]

There are so many documentaries that talk about how horrible Fidel is, all of the abuses and crimes that Fidel has committed since the Revolution, how the Cubans are so unhappy and mistreated, etc. It's easy for people in the United States to think that no one likes or admires Fidel. This documentary helps explain why he has supporters. Yes, it's a sympathetic look at Fidel and Cuba, and it makes Fidel seem charming. But, there are lots of people in the world who think he IS charming, and don't think of him as a monster. Estela Bravo isn't alone in her admiration. It's interesting to see another perspective and understand that there are two sides to every story. I'm tired of seeing everything slanted from the perspective of Cuban Americans who lost everything in Cuba and hate Fidel with a passion. I think it's healthy to have another perspective, and this film will help you understand the situation between the United States and Cuba more fully.

Sickeningly biased and uninformative film

[Delmare · 3/10 · 2 February 2007]

I am the first to admit that conventional understandings of Fidel Castro in the United States are skewed. Popular ideologies demonize his government, and communism in general. I believe that the true story of the Cuban Revolution, including the part where United States and its beloved trade embargo enter the picture and wreak havoc on all levels of Cuban society, should be made available to each and every one of us, along with all of the other parcels of world history that loudmouths in the American media have grossly oversimplified for the sake of a political agenda. Castro is not what he is typically understood to be, and I'm in favor of any film, book, or discourse that seeks to change that fact.

What I'm less fond of is starry-eyed hero-worship masquerading as reportage, especially when it has an obvious political agenda of its own.

"Fidel" is not a great work by any stretch of the imagination, something the objective viewer becomes aware of very quickly. Bravo, for example, spends more time reminiscing over Fidel's attempts to make amends with Khrushchev after the Cuban Missile Crisis than she does covering the Crisis itself. In fact, if one were to chart out the film and graph what kinds of material get X amount of screen time, the movie would reveal its true nature –a happy-go-lucky Castro home video, where it is more acceptable to have lengthy sections dealing with the dictator's choice of clothing and his relationship with cigars than it is to discuss the Cuban Diaspora and of any of the numerous other controversies that occurred during Castro's reign; a video where not a word is spoken of Castro's political purges, except to say that there were a couple of trials after the revolution regarding Batista's supporters that were "demonized" by the U.S. media; a home video where nothing is said about the suppression of free speech, public dissent, and religious expression; where the narration briefly mentions the so-called U.S. abduction of thousands of Cuban children without explaining when, why, or – most importantly – how this took place . . . a video where, best of all, the word "communist" doesn't appear once in all of ninety minutes, except in an oddball moment where Castro describes himself as a "Fidelist," giving me the distinct impression that Bravo is afraid of turning off certain audience members with the use of stigmatic expressions, a somewhat cowardly act that undermines her intended blast against the hegemonic United States of America.

Yet what the film does say is even more offensive than what it avoids. The Cuban exiles in Miami are dismissed in a sentence or two as a bunch of crock-pots who suck it up to the U.S. media and spread lies about Castro because of personal vendettas (true for some of them, perhaps, but certainly not for all.) The movie makes no attempt to explain why they might feel that way, and never returns to them again. Stupider still, when discussing Cuba's involvement with the Angolan Civil War, Bravo makes the vague assertion that Castro's defeat of the South African-backed UNITA led to the collapse of Apartheid. While I'm certainly willing to concede a connection between those two events, I expect a documentary – supposedly a product of research and analysis – to avoid falling victim to the most common analytical inequity: wedding correlation with causation. Even if we do concede this connection, an important question remains: how much of Apartheid's collapse was Cuba's contribution, and how much resulted from the MPLA at large? Unfounded statements are not acceptable in a documentary, especially when the language of the film makes no attempt whatsoever at disguising them.

Admittedly, "Fidel" is not without a couple of high-points, namely the quality of the footage and Bravo's obvious fluency with editing, yet these strengths serve to make the end product even more excruciating by beating into our heads how great this movie could have been had biases not compromised its integrity. Not to mention the fact that every good shot comes with three or four others ranging from needless to pathetic: Fidel hunting with Khrushchev, Fidel blowing out birthday candles, or (my favorite) Fidel posing and smiling with Hollywood stars, a sequence that was doubtless included in the hopes of stoking American sentiment.

And how about the fact that only five or six people are interviewed in the entire course of the film, and most of their statements are obviously taken out of context? How about the scarcity of Cuban perspective – that is, the perspective of Cubans who don't know Castro personally and aren't die-hard fans – that runs rampant throughout the entire film? The faults are too numerous to name.

"Fidel" is, in effect, no different from America's politically driven bashing of those who stand in the way of its agenda. It simply hails from the opposite end of the spectrum: the glowing "I love you," versus the Anglican damnation. A sad, sad excuse for a movie.

P.S. To the reviewer who said that leftists will probably love this film, I'm as left as they come, and I agree with you: it's garbage.

An interesting work on one of the most controversial people of our time

[oyason · 12 September 2005]

Love him or hate him, it can scarcely be denied that Fidel Castro was one of the most significant political figures of the 20th century, and he will be spoken of well into the twenty-first and beyond. Estela Bravo's documentary FIDEL, THE UNTOLD STORY, is unabashedly pro-Castro, but in a country which features political discourse of such diminished level men like George W. Bush can become president of the United States, perhaps it is a fortunate thing that a film maker has produced a work that offers insight not only into Castroism, but to the appeal it has long held in different corners of the Americas and the world. For better or worse, Fidel Castro for much of his life has walked much of his talk as regards the creation of a world in which nations on the periphery no longer have to exchange their resource on terms favorable to the most powerful countries. For millions of people in the so-called Third World, he is a hero, and it is ironic that in the United States- which claims the most open exchange of ideas and information of any civilization anywhere in the history of the world- there is so very little understanding of Castro, or the Cuban phenomenon. Well, Estela Bravo offers us a film that provides a little clarity on the question. As a high school teacher, I can appreciate the discussion this work will spark, and I recommend it highly. Sympathetic though Bravo's work is, she picks up on a truth about Casro that George Orwell once spoke of Gandhi: there are a great many politicians in this era, in our world who will leave behind them nowhere near so clean a smell as will Fidel. And that's pretty sad, but it's true.

The movie George Bush doesn't want you to see

[reid49 · 29 May 2002]

An illuminating documentary on Fidel Castro and his accomplishments: his overthrow of the ruthless dictator Batista, his accomplishment in providing universal health care and education for the Cuban people (a population largely illiterate before the Revolution), his fights against racism and tyranny both at home and abroad (2000 Cubans died fighting apartheid in S Africa). Commentary by Castro supporters such as Nelson Mandela, Alice Walker, Sydney Pollack, Muhammad Ali, and others.

Whether you love or hate the man, the documentary provides us with a perspective that US government and the Miami exiles do not want us to see. Look for it on Ebay!

Superb documentary -- required viewing.

[WendyG · 23 June 2002]

This film is a must-see for anyone with any interest in the history and realities of Latin America, not just Cuba. It cuts through the packaged press we have always been fed and shows us why the Cuban experience of the last 40 or so years has been what it is. It clarifies the role of the USA in Cuba in a way we have not been permitted to see in the past. Bravo, Estela Bravo!

Pure Puff

[mdginzo · 30 October 2003]

This film is nothing but a puff piece for Castro. It was obviously produced and written by leftists. I kept waiting for some sign of non-biased reporting of Castro, but it never came. It made no mention of any of Castro's atrocities, murders and crimes against humanity. There was no mention of his murder of two Americans over international waters, no mention of the lack of voting rights in Cuba or absence of the right to protest. The film shows interviews with a number of leftists and Castro sympathizers, but no serious comment on the damage Castro's revolution has done to the island and its people. I am sure that if you are a leftist you will like the movie. I personally thought it was garbage.