Ocaña is a typical "Barcelonés" character. And Ventura Pons' picture is a film centered exclusively on Ocaña. Nevertheless, watch it! The fact that Ocaña is a definitely Barcelonés character and the film tends to underline this Barcelonism up to the last second does not mean that we have before us a cinematographic product limited both geographically and socially. Let's try to explain it without having to resort to the distasteful topic of universal Barcelonism.

Ocaña is one of those qualified protagonists living in a Barcelona that is dying, a Barcelona that contains very expressive clues as to what the industrial and progressive bourgeoisie was and what it meant. In this sense, Barcelona, the Barcelona that can still be grasped from Ocaña, possesses far-reaching validity in the understanding of all of a specific time and all of a sociological way of conceiving existence. There are very Parisien things that possessed and continue to possess a facet which is beyond París and even beyond France. Italian things with a very external native aspect also provide us with hints that lead to a more generalized understanding. This also occurs with things from London and from New York.

What is attractive in this picture about Ocaña is that it conveys us to general horizons through very "local" human anecdote which is what gives that anedote -through its tenderness- a profound reaching. To see Ocaña in the Ramblas or in the Plaza Real brings us close to a world which, paradoxically, does not terminate in the Ramblas or in the Plaza Real. But what is stupendous about this picture is that the story is a story which is formally charming and which is well told. It has that appeal, that zest. The anecdote is then converted into something delightful for the spectator and it fastens us down tight until Ventura Pons finishes the story of this character o locks himself in the drama brought out by his homosexuality until interrupted by the intellectual game which he must give in to each day in order to make it to sundown.

Ventura Pons has made a simple, straightforward film; but only after having achieved two initial feats: having known what character had to be explained and who had to explain him, both in concert with what the spectator wanted to know.