4 ms·
>Then in the early 1990s it transpired there was a copy in Cuba, a fact confirmed by the Cinemateca de Cuba in Havana. Still, it took four meetings – the UCLA F
by Daho0n 6y ago
>Then in the early 1990s it transpired there was a copy in Cuba, a fact confirmed by the Cinemateca de Cuba in Havana. Still, it took four meetings – the UCLA Film and Television Archive had to fly out to take part in negotiations – to arrange a temporary loan. As of 2015, the film sits in the US Library of Congress
So, they made a deal and Library of Congress broke it? Or is it still on loan or is it a copy?
- tomcam 6y agoYeah, the most important news about this extraordinary piece of history is omitted!
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- karaterobot 6y agoCuba should charge them $.10 a day in overdue fines.
- monocasa 6y agoCuba interestingly enough already has a policy of not accepting money from the US for stolen property. The US writes a check each month for the rent of Guantanamo Bay that the Cuban government then doesn't cash in protest.
- joshuaissac 6y agoI was wondering the same thing when I read that. According to https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/movies-news-reviews/article41628312.html https://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/movies-news-review... (2015), the loan was made by 1995, and it does not mention anything about it not being returned, so it seems somewhat unlikely that the US Library of Congress version (which was added in 2015) is the original.
- wearsshoes 6y agoProbably they made new prints from the Havana copy, or digitized it and returned the original.
- toyg 6y agoThis sort of diplomatic “loan” with extensive negotiations is typically done with the expectation from both sides that, in practice, it will never be returned. I expect (and hope) that Cubans got something in return.