Cuban cinema, like Cuba itself, is slipping away. It’s a vague sort of slipping away that crosses all kinds of borders. This prolonged slipping away, which began in 1959, has continued until the current day, becoming especially acute in the last 10 years, during which the mass exodus of filmmakers has created remarkable mutations in the means of production, expressive dialects, and thematic range of our cinema. To understand the dynamics and the development of Cuban cinema, both on the Island and in the diaspora, it is essential that we focus on three aspects that, in my understanding, are central and decisive:

1. The failure of the nation-building project based on the Cuban Revolution: this project has caused the collapse of the economy, society, and culture, obstructing any form of cultural production (or not). The promise of the revolution has fallen apart, leaving behind an aftermath of disillusion and disenchantment that is reflected in every artistic manifestation, including film.
2. Government repression and vertical systems of control: the repression exercised by the Cuban regime is manifested through a complex web of institutions, including the Ministry of the Interior, the State Security Agency, and various cultural bodies, such as the Ministry of Culture, the Cuban film institute (Instituto Cubano del Arte e Industria Cinematográficos – ICAIC), the Latin American film festival (Festival del Nuevo Cine Latinoamericano), and other intermediary and ground-level entities. These agencies not only monitor artists and ensure their loyalty to the regime, they also exercise censorship and other forms of persecution. Creative freedom is severely restricted, and any form of dissent is quickly snuffed out.
3. The humanitarian crisis and the exodus of filmmakers: hunger, in all its forms, is not just the lack of food, but also the deprivation of freedom, resources, and hope within the Island. The economic crisis and the lack of opportunities have led to a massive exodus of filmmakers and other artists. This diaspora is physical as well as symbolic, reflecting a desperate search for places to experience freedom and be able to express oneself. The Cuban filmmakers that have found themselves forced to emigrate take with them not only their stories, but also a yearning for justice and a desire to portray the truth of a people that are struggling for their dignity and fundamental rights.

Dichotomous formulations? 

The traditional dichotomous formulations, whether “institutional cinema” vs. “independent cinema” or “national cinema” vs. “diasporic cinema,” continue to be of use to a certain extent, but they need to be reevaluated to reflect the complexities of the current panorama.

Institutional cinema vs. independent cinema

While this dichotomy remains relevant, the majority of Cuban filmmakers operate outside the margins of official institutions, and we must acknowledge that it is a very small spectrum that exists between both extremes. Fernando Pérez could be one example of a filmmaker that sails on both waters. 

Institutional cinema in Cuba, produced mainly by the ICAIC, has functioned historically as a propaganda tool of the regime. The filmmakers linked to the ICAIC have operated under strict censorship guidelines. In contrast, independent cinema has become increasingly relevant as it takes advantage of new technologies and digital platforms to autonomously produce and distribute content. 

Despite the Cuban government’s efforts to exert its influence and put a stop to the international spread of independent Cuban cinema and limit its showings and visibility abroad, independent filmmakers have managed to gain global recognition.  They have received prizes at international festivals and been praised for their innovation and bravery in telling stories that stand up to the restrictions imposed on them. These achievements underline the importance and impact of independent Cuban cinema as a form of cultural resistance in the midst of the Island’s complicated social reality. 

National cinema vs. diasporic cinema

What does “national” and “diasporic” mean for a country that is slipping away? This is a valid distinction, as well, but globalization and digital technologies have erased some of the lines that separated the two worlds. The same is true of the massive exodus of filmmakers from Cuba. Many filmmakers of the diaspora, myself included, maintain strong ties to Cuban culture and audiences, and their works are consumed both inside and outside the Island.

The Cuban diaspora has taken on a particularly significant role in the cinematographic panorama. Cuban filmmakers that have emigrated continue to produce works that reflect their identity and experiences. These films, although produced outside of Cuba, continue to explore themes related to Cuban culture and reality.

Cinema and the unforeseen

Almost all Cuban independent cinema can be considered “emergency cinema,” characterized by works produced with minimal resources and often in response to urgent and unforeseen situations. This cinema is a manifestation of the resilience and creativity of Cuban filmmakers in the face of adversity. These characteristics can also be observed in Cuban diasporic cinema.

What do we see in contemporary Cuban cinema?

The first thing that stands out is its social and political themes, given that the socioeconomic and political reality in Cuba inspires exploration of issues like emigration, political repression, social inequality, and the struggle for freedom of expression. Furthermore, filmmakers are exploring personal and autobiographical narratives that offer an intimate vision of life in Cuba and in the diaspora, adding a human and emotional dimension. Facing production limitations, many filmmakers adopt experimental and creative approaches when it comes to storytelling, aesthetics, and technology, and they seek out new forms of expression; in addition, more recent works are being made that escape realism, including science fiction films. 

Lastly, international collaboration via co-productions with foreign entities continues to be an unfulfilled goal. Cuba and its diaspora do not have the market to sustain an industry, and independent Cuban cinema, whether it comes out of the Island or the diaspora, will remain marginal for a long time to come. 

Contemporary Cuban cinema is a complex and multifaceted field that defies simple categorizations. The traditional dichotomies continue to be useful, but they must be complemented by a more nuanced understanding of current dynamics. The dominant features of Cuban cinema, such as social and political themes, experimentation with form, and personal narratives, offer a solid basis for creating a theoretical framework for Cuban cinema and studying it in its expanded context. This panorama invites ongoing discussion about the identity and future of Cuban cinema, both inside and outside the Island.

Eliecer Jiménez Almeida is one of the most acclaimed figures in contemporary Cuban nonfiction film, with a filmography that ranges from cinema verité to experimental works. He directed the feature-length films Entropía (Entropy) (2015), Veritas (2021), and Havana Stories. La operación Payret (Havana Stories [The Payret Operation]) (2023, fiction), as well as dozens of short films. He has lived in Miami since 2014.