Well, here's an entry from Wikipedia about his appearance in this film: "One of several films in which a young Fidel Castro appears as an extra, mostly in crowd scenes."
He would have been about 20 at the time, so I suppose it's possible if they filmed some crowd scenes in Havana. (Just because imdb.com doesn't mention a filming site doesn't mean there wasn't one there.) I have seen no mention that Castro ever visited the U.S. at that time, so he wouldn't have been in L.A. (He didn't visit the U.S. until 1959.)
However, I also am a bit skeptical because of this blurb from his Wikipedia bio:
In 1945, Castro began studying law at the University of Havana. Admitting he was "politically illiterate", he became embroiled in student activism, and the violent gangsterismo culture within the university. Passionate about anti-imperialism and opposing U.S. intervention in the Caribbean, he unsuccessfully campaigned for the presidency of the Federation of University Students (Federación Estudiantíl Universitaria - FEU) on a platform of "honesty, decency and justice". Castro became critical of the corruption and violence of President Ramón Grau's government, delivering a public speech on the subject in November 1946 that earned him a place on the front page of several newspapers.
If he was doing all of that sort of activity at that time, I doubt he would have appeared as an extra unless it was to make a few bucks. However, some of those crowd scenes are really huge, and some extras were not visible in any identifiable way. So I suppose it is theoretically possible that appears somewhere there.
It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek
reply
share
dannieboy20906
10 years ago
Wikipedia is often not accepted as a definitive source. It is one of my favorites for a good place to begin research and the people who operate are constantly working to make it more reliable. Still, you can see items in it that are contradictory, or seem to be at least challenging to reconcile, like your example.
I think IMDB is much worse. Some trivia pages list three or four entries that argue back and forth over something that is supposed to be associated with a particular movie, and the seldom provide reference sources. Some posters on these boards do.
I remind myself to read IMDB for entertainment, not for definitive information.
reply
share
pt100
10 years ago
For what it's worth, Wikipedia has been shown by experts to be as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. That's one reason the latter stopped publishing a consumer edition.
It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek
reply
share
dannieboy20906
10 years ago
I am not surprised. Just because Wikipedia has some week pages does not mean that it doesn't have a lot of strongly referenced information.
Wikipedia depends on volunteer contributors for both funding and articles. They work hard to keep encouraging well referenced contributions, but they have a lot of history of well meaning amateurs as well as people with an independent agenda.
The print sources were probably not that much better, but they had age on their side.
reply
share
pt100
10 years ago
They've tightened up Wikipedia a lot in the last few years, enlisting a lot more experts to keep it accurate. Speaking of which, in your first paragraph . . .
Just because Wikipedia has some week pages does not mean that it doesn't have a lot of strongly referenced information.
. . . you misspelled 'weak'. 😉
It is better to be kind than to be clever or good looking. -- Derek
reply
share