Andrew Sullivan found an interesting article by Arthur Miller on his 2000 trip to Cuba. The quote is selections from Miller's article.
Having had a certain amount of experience with Soviet and Eastern European officialdom in the arts, particularly as head of International PEN for four years, I expected to have to do a lot of agreeable nodding in silence to statements manifestly silly if not at times idiotic. Unelected leaders and their outriders are unusually sensitive to contradiction, and the experience of their company can be miserably boring. However, Castro was mythic by this time, and the prospect of an hour or two with him was something to look forward to.
Having protested for years the government's jailing and silencing of writers and dissidents, I wondered whether despite everything, including the system's economic failure, a heartening species of human solidarity had been created, possibly out of the relative symmetry of poverty and the uniform futility inherent in the system from which few could raise their heads short of sailing away.
We entered an anteroom leading into the dining room and suddenly there was Castro, not in uniform as one always sees him in photographs but in a blue pencil-striped suit that, unpressed as it was, must not have been worn very often. Despite the suit, my quick impression was that had he not been a revolutionary politician he might well have been a movie star. He had that utterly total self-involvement, that need for love and agreement and the overwhelming thirst for the power that comes with total approval. In this crowded antechamber his retinue, as with most leaders everywhere, were supremely agreeable and one sensed immediately their absolute submission to the Leader. Whatever else he is, Castro is an exciting person and could probably have had a career on the screen.
Miller is quick to remind us of the repression of artists under Castro, but what struck me is how he was more than willing to pal around with the guy anyway. Is this the same Arthur Miller who defiantly refused to testify before HUAC because of their “repression” of the first amendment? Is this the same Arthur Miller who never forgave Elia Kazan for his testimony?
You’ll remember that ten people were sent to prison not for their beliefs but for the refusal to come clean about the communist organizations that have since been proven to be arms of Stalin. In 2003, Castro sent people for prison just for believing the wrong things.
Miller has some criticisms for Cuba but they pale compared to his known hate of HUAC. He assigns the impoverished Cubans nobility that is somehow supposed to make up for their repression. After all, the Batista government had ties to the mafia.
Maybe Miller doesn’t really care about repression at all, but has had a soft spot for communism couched in first amendment rhetoric. It’s the only explanation that reconciles the apparent contradiction.
No comments:
Post a Comment