Talk:I Am Cuba

Old talk

Whew! I did my best to clean this up - I'm kind of interested in the film now however! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:36, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry Tabu, I forgot to pass it throught the officce spell checker, as I usualy do. I know my written english is worthless... --Alexandre 18:13, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, not at all! This is an excellent article and the beauty of Wikipedia is that an expert can dump all their knowledge onto the wiki, then lots of people can assist with copyediting. Please, keep up the good work. Only one thing: could I ask where you got your sources of information from? We'll then add this to a references section. See Cite your sources for the sort of information we need. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well most of the things I got from watching the film. The rest from random pieces of information (an article in a local newspaper, small blogs, talking) wich cannot be cited.. Thanks, but something I am not is an expert. I am very glad to see how the article grew up a bit. I suggest you to see it, you'll probably love it...

--Alexandre Van de Sande 21:59, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Capitalization of title

Typically verbs, even short verbs such as "am," are capitalized in titles, so this article should probably be called I Am Cuba. However, if the film or its promotional materials specifically uses this capitalization, then it is still acceptable. Is this the case? Derrick Coetzee 04:18, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't know! I didn't realise this, and moved the article beforehand as Cuba had not been capitalised... anyone else know? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:58, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed this. I'll move it back upon any reasonable protest. Derrick Coetzee 16:08, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Coffin tracking shot

It said that the camera was passed from person to person, but this would have been imposible for the last pard where it leaves the window and continues through mid air. Prehaps wires were used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. Finn (talk • contribs) 12:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Siberian Mammoth documentary includes a still showing the camera rig suspended on a pair of wires in the section discussing this shot. The crew used video-assist on some of the remote shots in the film but probably not this (due to the cable lengths required). Delverie (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyrighted status

The copyright to this movie was restored to Rigma America Corporation, under the GATT treaty. http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/1998/63fr5141.html (see under title "Ya--Kuba") 69.110.235.152 (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

IR scenes

There is no sentences about scenes that was shot on the infrared film. Why? Soy Cuba is partially IR movie. 87.236.41.183 (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I had not heard of the use of infrared in Soy Cuba. I'm wondering if you're referring in particular to the dark skies in the sugar cane scenes. I assumed this effect was accomplished with a polarizing filter. 68.6.191.80 (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Some of the stills I have seen (looking like sugar cane and/or palm trees) definitely have the distinctive look of infrared film. Even a deep red filter with a polariser wouldn't do that and in any case panchromatic movie film's sensitivity to deep red would be limited. I will do some further digging as this would make the film significant in this centenary year (of infrared photography). I doubt if the film makers had access to any of the American infrared movie stock (Kodak, Agfa and DuPont) and, to be honest, I'm not sure how widely this was still being used by the 60s. By the 1980s export of Kodak's 16mm infrared stock was restricted because it was considered 'militarily sensitive' and I couldn't even get some in the UK so I suspect supply of infrared movie film was quite tightly controlled in the 1960s. However, there was certainly Russian infrared film available (or possibly from someone like one of the now-Croatian chemical companies ... were Fotokemika around at the time?), in both black and white and colour formats, so the likely scenario is that some of this was used. Someone with access to the neg would be able to tell from the marking in the frame-blanking. Delverie (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I finally viewed the DVD and there are scenes that are definitely at least 'extended red' if not infrared. The Wood Effect is clearly visible but the infrared effects on haze, people's faces and clothing are not so pronounced, which leads me towards extended red film. I will amend my note once I've seen the documentary ... assuming it sheds some light on this. Delverie (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The documentary confirms use of infrared film, obtained from the Soviet military. I have amended the entry to reflect this. Delverie (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Language

I watched it today and the language was mostly Spanish with some English in the cabaret scenes of the first story. When is Russian spoken? --Error (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I have a version taped from TV that has Russian and English subtitles~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opusv5 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC) I actually re-viewed this tape last night, and there is Russian dialogue: it's a semi-dubbing spoken immediately after the English or Spanish dialogue. There are some subtitles too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Opusv5 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

American Presence

What does this article mean that the american presence cannot somehow be described as anti-american. They are represented as the epitome of capitalist excess and vice, a degradation of the country. When the narrator continues to speak of Cuba as a land of tears and anguish it is directly insinuated that this is a result of actions in the narrative, implicating directly American's, American companies, American modernity, or the global political elite (dominated by American). Besides it isn't cited... I'll come back to this... Adrianturcato (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)