"Strawberry and Chocolate"

"Strawberry and Chocolate" is a story about hope and change despite radically different political views. The film takes place in Cuba and follows the lives of David and Diego, two very unlikely friends. David is a university student studying political science. David feels that it is important to study something that can be of use to Cuba while Diego feels that he can speak through his art. The power of the forbidden draws David into Diego's world as he allows himself to open up to his artistic side as well. Political arguments and beliefs serve as a backdrop to bringing David and Diego to better understanding and eventual acceptance of each other. This is a film to watch and enjoy as two men come together in friendship despite the political views that would otherwise keep them apart.


Review of "Strawberry and Chocolate"

‘Strawberry and Chocolate’ (R)By Desson HoweWashington Post Staff Writer February 10, 1995
In Tomas Gutierrez Alea's "Strawberry and Chocolate," set in 1979, Cuban life is so ingrained with politics, you're implicated no matter what you do. Raising a glass of Johnny Walker, for instance, is sampling the drink of the enemy. Not reporting suspicious goings-on to the authorities is grounds for arrest. As for being gay, it's taboo politically and culturally.
So when David (Vladimor Cruz), a student-ideologue, and Diego (Jorge Perrugoria), a homosexual art aficionado, encounter each other at an outdoor cafe, their differences couldn't be more dramatically drawn. Their flowering friendship amounts to humanistic subversion.
It is precisely this tension that filmmaker Alea and scriptwriter Senel Paz (who adapted his short story, "The Wolf, the Forest and the New Man") take charming, ticklish delight in. Their mood is infectious and vital.
Most of the vitality comes from Perrugoria as the gay Diego, who slakes the eye-rolling flamboyance of his character with subtle, poignant moments. Disgusted at Castro's government and the way Havana is deteriorating literally and figuratively, he's clearly the voice and spirit of the movie.
When Diego lures humorless, extremely wary David into his apartment on a pretext, it's clearly an attempted seduction. What David discovers -- beyond Diego's obvious, initial intentions -- is a sight for repressive eyes: photographs of artists, books by Dostoevski and Cervantes, music by Callas -- the whole cultural gateway to the free/bourgeois world. Diego's place is also crowded with religious statues, the work of a friend, which he wants to exhibit at a gallery. Unfortunately, he tells David, he is encountering resistance from the authorities.
Convinced he has uncovered a dangerous subversive, David informs party member and fellow student Miguel (Francisco Gatorno). Miguel immediately dispatches David to find out more. Diego is quite surprised, but delighted, to see that David has returned. Feigning friendship, David starts to hang out with Diego. Neither is prepared for the surprises about each other that follow.
The second half, which chronicles David's dawning consciousness (sexual and political), and his growing relationship with Diego's neighbor Nancy (Mirta Ibarra), slows the movie's earlier momentum. But even at its most narratively lethargic, "Strawberry and Chocolate" is never less than amiable. What the movie shows best is the direct connection between politics and private life. This is a world where you turn up the music in your apartment to say anything confidential, where everyone depends on American dollars and where little jokes are laced with leaden seriousness. Offering David a glass of American whiskey to toast their new friendship, Diego teases, "Couldn't this affect you ideologically?"

"The Official Story"

As a child Gaby had a wisdom beyond her years. Even as a young girl she knew that there was unrest around her. Gaby was taken from her mother and father soon after the truth came out that she was indeed taken from her parents and sold as a baby. Gaby went to live with her biological grandmother, but remained close to her adopted mother as well. Alicia left her husband and became close friends with Gaby's grandmother. Gaby grew up with the knowledge of where she had come from and lost touch with her father after learning that he had paid to take her from her parents. She became an activist like her grandmother and worked to educate the public on the "Dirty War". She also started a non-profit organization for children like herself who were looking for their lost families. The organization is called "Finding your way home".

"Missing"

As an attorney for the Horman family bringing a case against the US government for its alleged role or complicity in the death of Charles Horman in Chile in 1973, I would argue that it was the responsibility of the US government to be aware of what was going on as well as to protect its citizens. The US stated that they weren't aware of what happened to Charlie, yet witnesses placed Charlie with US officials who stated that he needed to be "taken care of " because he knew too much. Officials were unable to give the Horman family leads or information as to where Charlie may be or if he is alive. They stated that they had good reason to believe that he was alive and safe, however, had no means of backing up their statements. It took little time for other people to learn the true story. If ordinary people were able to find clues and track down potential witnesses then it would be reasonable to believe that government level officials would have been aware of exactly what had happened before others would. The government felt that the the sensitive nature of what Charlie knew was more important to protect than saving the life of an American citizen. This that got too close had to be killed to protect the larger issue. My main focus in representing the Horman family would be to use every reliable source to testify about the interactions that took place between government officials and Charlie when he was arrested.

"Paradise Now"

I can undertand both of the viewpoints for and against the removal of "Paradise Now" from the Academy Awards nomination list. Terrorism is somthing that effects most people at some point in their life. Palestinians and Israeli's especially are forced to live with terrorism on a daily basis. When it comes to filmmaking, however, I have to agree that "Paradise Now" did not need to be removed from award contention. According to the Petition against the removal, "Remember, there are always two sides to every story. It is only fair to hear the other side as well. The side that does not get any press coverage. The side you will never see on the evening news". This is one of the great things about film. Stories can be told from perspectives that wouldn't normally be seen in the outside world. The News shows the things that are going to make the most impact on viewers and is an extremely biased source. This film shows the other side of the story. Part of the beauty of film as well as other forms of art is that it is usually most effective when it causes a lot of controversy. People have very strong opinions and are going to either agree or disagree with something based on their personal views and experiences. Whether I agree with this film or not is not the issue. Every side of every story should be able to be shown and as it was said in the counter-petition, people can then come to their own conclusions. I don't believe that this film was intending to make the suicide bombers into victims. People understand what terrorism is and that these men were still killers. I believe that this film was making an attempt to show viewers that there is another side to the story and whether right or wrong, the story still exists.

"Earth"

I agree with Zarminae Ansari's review "Unforgettable". She describes the film as, "a romance, a tragedy, a history, and a comment on the human heart: its tenderness and the beast that hides within"(http://tech.mit.edu/V119/N50?eartha.50a.html). I think that this quote sums up the entire film. Friendship and laughter lead to hatred and betrayal. Lenny posses a childlike innocence in the film which keeps the human side alive. Her attempts at understanding what is going on allows the audience to learn about the struggles occurring as well. Beneath the anger lies the love between two of the main characters. This brings a lighter side to the film and shows that love can overcome differences and can bridge the gap between something as strong as religion. Ansari also states," A voyeuristic quality runs throughout the film and draws the audience in". This was an important part of the movie as well because it allowed the audience to see what went on that allowed love to flourish between some and hatred between others. Lenny and the "Ice Candy Man" were privy to something that they shouldn't have seen in the love scene between two of the main characters. Something that should have been private caused the plot to change dramatically. Lenny, whether she recognized it or not lost some of her innocence in what she saw. She may not have understood what she was watching, but saw another side of what love can bring. The "Ice Candy Man" however, turned into a different person in that moment. He no longer felt the need to hide who he was and let his anger come out in an extremely dramatic way. He went from being a loving and funny person to one consumed by extreme hatred to the point of killing over jealousy. I agree that despite the sadness and hatred that dominated the storyline, the love that weaved its way through created a beautiful story.