citrin@soglio.Colorado.EDU (Wayne V. Citrin) (12/27/90)
HAVANA
A film review by Wayne V. Citrin
Copyright 1990 Wayne V. Citrin
It's December 1958, and a gambler (Robert Redford) is on his way to
Havana to earn some money playing high-stakes poker, as he regularly
does. On the boat, he does a favor for a beautiful woman (Lena Olin -
THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING, ENEMIES, A LOVE STORY). Their paths
cross again in Havana, and Redford spends the rest of the film pursuing
both Olin and the big score. But the Batista government is on its last
legs, the rebels are about to win, and the revolution ultimately upsets
Redford's plans for both Olin and the score.
HAVANA starts off encouragingly, with a beautifully edited montage
of scenes designed to make Havana seem sensual, exciting, and dangerous.
This atmosphere is sustained for about an hour into the film, and then
the love story takes over and things fall flat. Apart, Redford and Olin
are fine. Redford (looking much older than I've ever seen him) is a
convincing man of the world, and Olin's performance has considerable
depth, giving the feeling that her character's political convictions are
genuine. But when they get together, the chemistry isn't there. This
is unfortunate, because it becomes obvious fairly early on that HAVANA
is a remake of CASABLANCA, with Redford and Olin in the Bogart and
Bergman roles. In the scenes without Olin, Redford pulls this off
fairly well, but when he has to be tender with Olin it just seems lame
and out of character. It's no spoiler to say that the film develops in
much the same way CASABLANCA does, although the price that Redford is
forced to pay at the end is much less than Bogart ultimately had to pay,
which I felt trivialized the ending. The conclusion contains some
rather incoherent events relating to the CIA's involvement in Batista's
government, which I felt blunted the impact of the film (the
incoherence, that is, not the presence of the CIA itself).
HAVANA does a very good job of presenting what the atmosphere and
feel of the city must have been like at that time, at least to a
visiting American. There's not much discussion of how the city must
have seemed to poor Cubans and rebels, although that wasn't the point of
the film and could be excused. The film does a good job of contrasting
the decadence of the city with the war in the countryside and the
brutality of the secret police that underlies everyday life.
The film was shot in Santo Domingo, and the filmmakers were
impressively successful in reproducing the feeling of familiarity and
strangeness that Havana must have presented to Americans of the late
1950s. Americans don't think much about Havana anymore; we're reminded
here that the city was a (long) ferry ride away, and that Americans once
considered the place not entirely foreign soil.
The supporting cast is good. Alan Arkin does an excellent job as
Redford's friend, a casino manager with no illusions about what's
coming. (This is the Claude Rains part.) The husband of the Olin
character, played by Raul Julia in an uncredited role (due to a dispute
over the billing to which Julia was entitled) is good in the Paul
Henried part, and the actor who plays the chief of police (whose name I
didn't catch) is also good.
In short, the film is not bad, but it's no CASABLANCA (although
there's no shame in that). It needed a more convincing love story, and
the ending should have both hurt more and been more exhilarating, in
the manner of CASABLANCA.
I'd give it two-and-a-half stars (out of four).
Wayneleeper@mtgzy.att.com (Mark R. Leeper) (12/27/90)
HAVANA
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1990 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: CUBABLANCA. A victory of detailed
setting over a much weaker political thriller plot and a love
story of little interest. Rating: 0 (-4 to +4).
Gambler Jack Weil (played by Robert Redford) has a piece of advice for
revolutionary Bobby Duran (played by Lena Olin) about how to play roulette.
You should not put all your money on one number. You go for a more modest
bet, like betting on black. "You still lose you money, but you lose it more
slowly." Or another example: Hollywood should bet on a bankable combination
like Sidney Pollack directing Robert Redford in films like THE WAY WE WERE,
THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR, ELECTRIC HORSEMAN, and OUT OF AFRICA. Eventually
you will come up double-zero on a $45 million spectacle, but it will take
longer. Double-zero is essentially what Universal has with HAVANA. One of
the zeroes is a political thriller that pits the pre-revolutionary scummy
government of Batista against the idealistic supporters of Fidel Castro,
most of whom we know are destined to have a rude awakening in the years to
come. The other zero is a love story in which the lovers have all the
chemistry of champagne and Miracle Whip*.
Redford plays Jack Weil, a wise-cracking gambler who sticks to
business, but might have more going on below the surface, much like Rick
Blaine in CASABLANCA. He becomes the third side of a triangle in which the
other two sides are a married couple of revolutionaries (Lena Olin and Raul
Julia) living a dangerous life, much like Ilsa Lund and Victor Laszlo in
CASABLANCA. Weil must decide if he will do nothing and let events take
their course, try to steal the woman, or become committed to the cause, much
as Rick does in CASABLANCA. Now it seems to me that some film other than
HAVANA has used this plot before. It's on the tip of my mind, but ... oh,
well. Seriously, one reason that this film does not engage the audience
like CASABLANCA did is that Bogart was an actor who could show pain.
Redford can wince a little.
Of the love story, the political thriller, and the setting, the setting
wins by default. Much of that humungous budget went into creating the look
and feel of Havana of 1958. Others have vouched for its accuracy; I can
vouch only for its believability. Not that pre-revolutionary Havana was
that interesting a city but, filming in the Dominican Republic, Pollack has
captured at least a believable look. And at nearly two and a half hours in
length, the film lets you get a long look. And you might as well look at
the background; you are not missing much in the foreground. I give this
film a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzy!leeper
leeper@mtgzy.att.com
* Miracle Whip is a trademark of Kraft Foods Co.