My comments having just seen this movie last night

For some reason, I don't want to apply the term 'cinematography' to the art of this film. I suppose that is because the term seems too conventional. Here are just five scenes I really liked:

* A door opens, bringing with it a flood of light.
* The coupling of the flight of birds with the sound of trains. Through out there has been careful attention to wedding sound with image, in a sort of cross-sensory way where the visual suggests the auditory, as in hearing the sight, or seeing the sound.
* The superb shot following the subject walking from room to room with the camera outside the building, looking through one window then another
* The slicing of the onion, so precisely; and the beads of moisture on the outside of the onion.
* The fan shots.

Of course that just scratches the surface of the richness. The attention to detaiI and artistry lends a lot to the story, but I don't know how. It just does, which is why it is such good art. It is all wrapped up in the human experience portrayed.

I was terribly moved by this movie, as were my friends. We held our own impromtu movie discussion afterward until being politely told the theater was closing. The writer of the review remarks how strange it is to have so much silence, when indeed there would be quite a bustle of conversation, especially in Cuba, around dinner, for example. This is true, but so are the quiet times, and it is precisely the contrast that makes the films so effective. It is a device, exaggerated for sure.

I used the term 'sullen'. My friend used the term 'solemn'.