Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Soderbergh's Che is quietly revolutionary: Two-part epic about the rise and fall of Guevara avoids the obvious"
Here's the headline from MSNBC's review of Steven Soderbergh's four-hour, two-part biopic about everybody's favorite revolutionary murderer. The film, which is being released for a week-long run in New York and Los Angeles so it can be considered for various awards, comprises two parts, The Argentine and Guerrilla:
..."Guerrilla" is somewhat harder to watch, since we know that, unlike "The Argentine," things aren't going to end well for Guevara. His jungle travails are similar to his Cuban experiences, but we see how the U.S.-backed Bolivian government did a better job than Batista at keeping the peasant population from supporting the guerrillas.
Yeah, I'm betting it avoids the obvious about Che. I in no way am interested in assessing art, music, film, video, cartoons, whatever simply through the lens of politics and ideology. I find certain works (Journey to the End of Night, One Hundred Years of Solitude, Manhattan Transfer, Sister Carrie, the movie version of Papillon [written by the execrable Dalton Trumbo], everything by Dashiell Hammett, most of Balzac, the list is nearly endless) captivating and impressive despite their politics or those of their authors. I don't even care about "aesthetics," if by that term you mean a preconceived notion of beauty, symmetry, blah blah blah. A creative work can move its audience for an infinite number of reasons and that effect, however inane or offensive the thought behind it, should always be acknowledged.
But I wince at the coming reaction to Che partly because I'm sure it's a well-wrought urn and hence will be praised as a "serious" movie because of its politics rather than director Soderbergh's craft. He's a good director (who doesn't like The Limey even as we say enough already with the goddamn Ocean's franchise [any of which is more watchable than the dreadful Rat Pack original]?). Every retard in Hollywood is now going to start thinking about doing "serious" political movies now and most of them will be as profound and insightful as, say, Bulworth or Dave.
In any case, as we brace for the coming Hooray for Che wave, keep in mind three reason pieces that went live yesterday:
Dumb Man Talking: Sean Penn stumps for Cuban communism, by Michael C. Moynihan, which highlights the plight of Cuban punk band Porno Para Ricardo and the vapidity of Sean Penn and the Castro-loving useful idiots at The Nation. (Say what you will about America's censorious streak, but Chuck Berry was prosecuted for criminal acts, not inventing the Duck Walk.)
But If You Go Carrying Pictures of Chairman Mao, by Matt Welch, which recalls a clandestine meeting in Cuba in the 1990s (!) where students secretly listened to the Beatles. None of the students, writes Welch, "could understand what kind of evil, micro-managing jerkoff would criminalize "She Loves You" ... well, except for the American woman who was nice enough to bring me there."
And watch Killer Chic: Hollywood's sick love affair with Che Guevara, which hopefully brings some balance to the gauzy, kiss-kiss portraits of the Butcher of La Cabana, the infamous Cuban prison:
Michael Ejercito|12.12.08 @ 9:26AM|#
Apologists for communist Cuba have a lot in common with apologists for the Confederate States of America.
Fluffy|12.12.08 @ 9:29AM|#
What's wrong with Bulworth? I thought it was pretty clever - almost Chayefskian.
|12.12.08 @ 9:32AM|#
Michael,
If only communist Cuba was only a distant historical memory and not
a current reality!
I've mentioned this before, but The National Lampoon did a
funny bit on Che back in the 1970s: "Che Guevara's Bolivian
Diaries". Unfortunately, I can't find the text on-line, but this
book excerpt contains a summary and some passages. ¡Muy
gracioso!
|12.12.08 @ 9:35AM|#
What's wrong with Bulworth? I thought it was pretty clever -
almost Chayefskian.
Are you referring to Network? I witnessed a world class
display of blowhardry, but nothing I would describe as clever in
that horrible piece of oscar bait.
Abdul|12.12.08 @ 9:38AM|#
we see how the U.S.-backed Bolivian government did a better
job than Batista at keeping the peasant population from supporting
the guerrillas.
I like how he implies that Batista wasn't U.S.-backed. The
inference being that the only reason the peasants of Bolivia didn't
support the glorious revolution was because Uncle Sam's dirty
meddling.
But, the US backed both Bolivia and Batista. Therefore, the reason
Bolivian peasants didn't support Che was because they didn't
support Che.
|12.12.08 @ 9:39AM|#
He's a good director
No he's not. He's a repackaging hack who has fooled a lot of people
into thinking he has talent. You get a good cinematographer and
find the right things to remake and people think you have
"craft".
Traffic? Remake of the British series. Ocean's
11? Remake of the Rat Pack. Solaris? Remake. Out
of Sight? Based on a book. The list goes on and on.
He's pulled the wool over a lot of people's eyes. It's a shame to
see he did that to you too, Nick.
SIV|12.12.08 @ 9:39AM|#
Perhaps it is my lack of graduate literature classes but I don't find that Dashiell Hammet's literary output reflects his later political activity.
Fluffy|12.12.08 @ 9:43AM|#
Are you referring to Network? I witnessed a world class
display of blowhardry, but nothing I would describe as clever in
that horrible piece of oscar bait.
Wait, are you now saying that Network is also horrible?
Wow.
mr simple|12.12.08 @ 9:44AM|#
Epi-
He's a director. Their job is to put other people's ideas on
screen. This is what director's do. Stanley Kubrick was a brilliant
director, but all of his movie's were based on other people's
books. I'm not making an argument about Soderbergh one way or the
other, but I think your criticism is flawed.
ed|12.12.08 @ 9:45AM|#
so it can be considered for various awards
Ya' think there will be any? If I were a retard I'd add: LOL.
|12.12.08 @ 9:50AM|#
Yes I am. Wall to wall preaching. Not funny, not interesting,
just a lot of dull, blow-hard speech making. The American
Beauty of its time.
Time Out summarises it fairly well:
Washed-up news anchorman (Finch) flips on air, finds God, and is gleefully exploited by his TV company to boost the ratings with his epileptic evangelic revivalism. Network gives a rather old-fashioned plot the '70s treatment: the result is slick, 'adult', self-congratulatory, and almost entirely hollow. Paddy Chayefsky's entrenched but increasingly desperate script parades its middle-aged symptoms to little effect: it's ulcerous, bilious, paranoid about youth, and increasingly susceptible to fantasy. Above all, it's haunted by fear of failing powers; presumably people telling each other what lousy lays they were is to be taken as indication of the film's searing honesty. Lumet's direction does nothing to contain the sprawl, and most of the interest comes in watching such a lavishly mounted vehicle leaving the rails so spectacularly.
|12.12.08 @ 9:50AM|#
Stanley Kubrick was a brilliant director, but all of his
movie's were based on other people's books.
Basing movies on books is fine. But when you remake as many movies
as Soderbergh has, something's wrong there. You're no longer
bringing something to the screen; you are reinterpreting something
that's already been on the screen. Would you respect a band where
the majority of their songs were covers? And their remaining work
was written by others?
|12.12.08 @ 9:56AM|#
I don't hate The 'Bergh but he doesn't do much for me. The marriage of far-left politics and Hollywood always produces ugly children. Ugly children that win awards.
dhex|12.12.08 @ 10:00AM|#
"Would you respect a band where the majority of their songs were
covers? And their remaining work was written by others?"
that would depend on how hard they rock, i suppose. i mean, my
favorite melvins song ever (going blind) is a fucking kiss cover.
if i can live through that terrible knowledge, i can live through
anything.
oh if you enjoy setting off film nerds, mention that tarkovsky is
like valium, but without the finesse or utility. almost as boring
as these continual che posts.
|12.12.08 @ 10:06AM|#
Acid Damage, Tarkovsky is beneath mention. At least Valium is
fun.
Personally, I like going after Resnais and Spike Lee to really chap
some asses.
dhex|12.12.08 @ 10:12AM|#
spike lee is pretty ok, though. i dunno who that other guy
is.
i mean, on the whole, movies are horrendously boring. they're very,
very web 1.0. no interactivity, long drawn out sequences of
landscapes and faces and shit, a lot of dialogue about feelings and
shit (or if it's an indie film, quirky people who don't deserve to
have feelings spend their time talking about feelings and how hard
it is to make simple choices). they're still constructed as though
the audience has nothing better to do with its time.
so i guess movies are more like xanax - leaves you feeling dead
inside, kills several hours without your consent, and are mostly
consumed by self-absorbed neurotics, fratboys, and overweight women
with bluetooth headsets.
Fluffy|12.12.08 @ 10:18AM|#
Well hey, I guess that makes sense. Bulworth probably
looks execrable to anyone lame enough to not like
Network.
Here's a tip: They're both comedies. That makes just about
all of Time Out's criticisms a bit pointless. They seem to
have believed they were reviewing a drama or a documentary.
Criticizing Network as bilious and prone to fantasy is
like criticizing Heathers by saying that the character of
J.D. does not feel drawn from life.
Lefiti|12.12.08 @ 10:19AM|#
Oh, the communist menace lives on. Those who market Che kitsch and make money on it should be ashamed. Wait...
Kolohe|12.12.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Every retard in Hollywood is now going to start thinking
about doing "serious" political movies now and most of them will be
as profound and insightful as, say, Bulworth or Dave.
His politics are also a bit douchy, but you know what was a decent
movie? - Bob Roberts. (albeit with it's fair share of orthodox
hollywood liberal tropes) And I think it's aged ok, but I haven't
seen it in a while. Specifically, I remember at the time that I
thought it was too cynical of a movie; now, however, I don't think
it was cynical enough.
Mad Max|12.12.08 @ 10:20AM|#
"no interactivity"
What about yelling at the screen?
"No-don't go up that darkened stairway!"
And I hear that the Rocky Horror Picture Show can be very
interactive.
Egosumabbas|12.12.08 @ 10:25AM|#
If you look at other murderous revolutionary assholes like
Robespierre, he gets a very rough treatment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robespierre#Cultural_depictions
Lenin and Mao also don't come off easy.
Why is Che treated differently? Well, he rode around on a
motorcycle and was very photogenic. And he died "tragically"
young.
|12.12.08 @ 10:30AM|#
that would depend on how hard they rock, i suppose. i mean,
my favorite melvins song ever (going blind) is a fucking kiss
cover. if i can live through that terrible knowledge, i can live
through anything.
That's funny because one my favorite Melvins' song is "The Green
Manileeshi" originally done by Fleetwood Mac. Honestly I would pay
for an all covers album by them.
Which brings up my point about Soderbergh. I think he's a pretty
solid director, remakes or not. His work seems to be much different
then the original its based on and clearly his own. I don't find
him an amazing director. But he moves the story along well and
keeps things interesting throughout.
Most directors, and any other artists for that matter, like to
pretend their ideas just sprang out of their head, wholely original
with little influence from other sources. Dig a little deeper into
their "influences" and you'll see many of them just jacked their
material from someone less well known. Not that their is anything
wrong with that. It's part of the creative process. Soderbergh is
just more transparent about it than most.
dhex|12.12.08 @ 10:33AM|#
"Why is Che treated differently? Well, he rode around on a
motorcycle and was very photogenic. And he died "tragically"
young."
so we need to do a movie about milton friedman riding a motorcycle
around the country to end the draft, is what you're saying?
Alan Vanneman|12.12.08 @ 10:35AM|#
"]?)" ? ?? !
{Actually, I'm not sure that "Ocean's 13," which I reviewed at
http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/57/ocean.html, was not less
watchable than the original "Ocean's 11."}
|12.12.08 @ 10:36AM|#
Extremely well done video, very moving. I've always been
confused by Mao and Che ideology myself.
Tip o' the glass to Nick.
|12.12.08 @ 10:42AM|#
so i guess movies are more like xanax - leaves you feeling
dead inside, kills several hours without your consent, and are
mostly consumed by self-absorbed neurotics, fratboys, and
overweight women with bluetooth headsets
You're so negative, dude. Dead Alive doesn't make me feel
dead inside. Tom Hanks movies are another story, though.
Dig a little deeper into their "influences" and you'll see many
of them just jacked their material from someone less well
known
To a certain degree. Soderbergh's choices of ripoffs are pretty
fucking dull, which makes him a shitty ripoff artist too.
|12.12.08 @ 11:00AM|#
Che chic reminds me of the Brady Bunch episode when Bobby idolizes Jesse James.
Egosumabbas|12.12.08 @ 11:02AM|#
@Daze
There's this jazz bar in Chicago called the Green Mill that has a
shrine set up for Al Capone.
|12.12.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Here's a tip: They're both comedies.
Ah, but to qualify as comedy it actually has to be funny. It
generally helps if the movie doesn't consist solely of long, dull
speeches that shout "THIS FILM IS BRILLIANT SATIRE" at the
audience.
cunnivore|12.12.08 @ 11:10AM|#
Apologists for communist Cuba have a lot in common with
apologists for the Confederate States of America.
Indeed. joe's audacity to mock us for making such a big deal out of
t-shirts, just weeks after he was arguing that anyone flying a
confederate flag is a racist boor, was mind-boggling.
cunnivore|12.12.08 @ 11:15AM|#
Criticizing Network as bilious and prone to fantasy is like
criticizing Heathers by saying that the character of J.D. does not
feel drawn from life.
The problem is that there are a lot of people who claim Network was
a "prophetic" insightful social commentary. I tend to think such
people are insane, but the criticism above is the inevitable
backlash.
|12.12.08 @ 11:28AM|#
criticizing Heathers by saying that the character of J.D.
does not feel drawn from life
Well, seeing as J.D.'s delivery was modeled after Jack Nicholson,
that would be an especially dumb criticism.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.12.08 @ 11:28AM|#
The thing I don't get about guys like Sean Penn is that if his
world was Castro's world he wouldn't get terminally bored spending
his piles of money and then turn to flapping his fat mouth. There'd
be no piles of money and he'd be shot for shooting off his mouth
(see Daffy Duck).
I suspect that he just figures he'd be on the correct side of the
barricades and wouldn't have to live like the rest of the
populace.
Either way he's an idiot.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.12.08 @ 11:36AM|#
....was not less watchable than the original "Ocean's
11...
Amen, which is not to say Clooney's Ocean's 11 was worth two hours
you'll never get back neither.
If movie patrons had recourse. IE, if you could get a refund every
time you hated a movie, the quality would improve.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.12.08 @ 11:36AM|#
I tend to think such people are insane, but the criticism
above is the inevitable backlash.
Yes.
cunnivore|12.12.08 @ 11:37AM|#
I'm not too concerned about the opinions of a guy who married
Madonna.
As long as A-Rod remains just a fuck buddy, he still has my
respect, though.
Citizen Nothing|12.12.08 @ 11:44AM|#
"i mean, on the whole, movies are horrendously boring. they're
very, very web 1.0. no interactivity...:
Is dhex some kind of hyperactive robotic chipmonk?
The Wine Commonsewer|12.12.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Lenin and Mao also don't come off easy
That's now, but in the day every Boomer college student worth his
salt had a tattered copy of Mao's Little Red Book stuffed in the
hip pocket of his jeans.
He wasn't quite as socially popular as Che was, but somebody made a
pile of money printing Little Red Books.
On a slightly different note, it appears to me that Che has
actually made a resurgence this century. I don't recall hearing
much about him since the early seventies and now, whoa, he's back.
In Black!
|12.12.08 @ 11:46AM|#
Not a Soderbergh fan, though I liked The Limey. Of
course, it had Zod in it, which makes it ipso facto good.
I disliked Bulworth quite a bit, by the way. I'm surprised
anyone liked it.
|12.12.08 @ 12:22PM|#
A.O. Scott in the NYT is more circumspect.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/movies/12che.html
"More dogmatic than thou (and certainly than Walter Salles's 2004
"Motorcycle Diaries," a vivid and sympathetic picture of the young
Ernesto Guevara), "Che" not only participates in the worship of its
subject but also spares no effort to insulate him from
skepticism."
. . .
""Che," in other words, is epic hagiography. Its second half,
recreating Guevara's failed attempt to reproduce the Cuban
revolution in Bolivia, might be called "The Passion of the Che," in
honor of the fanatical fidelity with which it walks its sanctified
hero through the stations of his martyrdom."
. . .
"This self-absorption - the extent to which "Che" is a movie about
itself - saves it from becoming too dull and allows you, at least
temporarily, to overlook its naïve and fuzzy politics. But the
film's formal sophistication is ultimately an evasion of the moral
reckoning that Ernesto Guevara, more than 40 years and several
million T-shirts after his death, surely deserves."
MNG|12.12.08 @ 12:22PM|#
I liked Solaris and the Good German and the first Oceans.
Che is, btw, an immoral murdering bastard.
"Would you respect a band where the majority of their songs were
covers? And their remaining work was written by others?"
Yes, if they did it regularly competently or if they put new twists
on it that were artistically interesting, which I think he
does.
MNG|12.12.08 @ 12:24PM|#
But of course he is no Kubrick. Kubrick would have never done "Clockwork Orange 3"
Fluffy|12.12.08 @ 12:30PM|#
Well, seeing as J.D.'s delivery was modeled after Jack
Nicholson, that would be an especially dumb criticism.
Right, but it's shtick. A critic watching the film might
decide to say, "This character doesn't feel like a genuine teenager
to me." That criticism would be dumb because shtick is appropriate
in a comedy, where it might not be appropriate in
Elephant.
Ah, but to qualify as comedy it actually has to be
funny.
It helps if you have a sense of humor.
BTW, the other problem with the Time Out summary is that
the movie is not, strictly speaking, "about" Howard Beale. The
protagonist is the William Holden character, and the antagonists
are the Faye Dunaway and Robert Duvall characters. Beale is a plot
point, an incident. The movie is about the twilight of a generation
that saw itself upholding noble values [like "the news" and "the
public interest"] and the rise of a generation that cynically
exploits everything for entertainment. I don't think the movie is
intended to be "prophetic" since by the movie's terms it's just
describing a process that's already underway, and applying
hyperbole and humor to it.
I disliked Bulworth quite a bit, by the way. I'm surprised
anyone liked it.
I think a lot of people can't see past the "evil insurance company"
politics and Warren Beatty's ego to see the film for what it is: A
depiction of a protagonist who, in a fit of extreme despair and
hopelessness, decides he no longer gives a shit about anything -
and in the catharsis of throwing off his old cares, and the lies
and false persona he invented to protect those cares, he stumbles
on to the solutions to all of his problems. I thought it was a nice
twist on the "guy goes over the edge" film. It's also got some
parts that are effective "comedy of manners" bits - when Beatty
transgresses the rules of various political set pieces [the fund
raising breakfast, the CSPAN ridealong, the televised debate, etc.]
it made me laugh. Some people laugh at Borat, I laughed at
Bulworth.
Kolohe|12.12.08 @ 1:03PM|#
Well, seeing as J.D.'s delivery was modeled after Jack
Nicholson, that would be an especially dumb criticism.
Christian Slater's delivery in everything he's done is modelled
after Jack Nicolson. I don't think it's entirely deliberate, they
just happen to have the same timbre and diction.
|12.12.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Fluffy,
I think I got the point of the movie, I just thought it was poorly
executed. De gustibus non est disputandum.
Joel|12.12.08 @ 3:07PM|#
Palin's gone from us, so now we're gonna talk about Che every
day?
Shoot me.
dhex|12.12.08 @ 3:17PM|#
"Is dhex some kind of hyperactive robotic chipmonk?"
yes. i am a overactive cyborg rodent who took monastic vows.
ha ha ha get it?
"You're so negative, dude. Dead Alive doesn't make me feel dead
inside. Tom Hanks movies are another story, though."
dead alive is cool. i kick ass for the lord, etc.
to be fair, my favorite movie of the last five years was tokyo
drift. it is sublime. amazing. not a second wasted on plot or even
making the slightest bit of sense. just DRIFTUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU until
you puke out of joy.
alan|12.12.08 @ 4:27PM|#
cunnivore | December 12, 2008, 11:37am | #
I'm not too concerned about the opinions of a guy who married
Madonna.
As long as A-Rod remains just a fuck buddy, he still has my
respect, though.
Dude, he plays for the Yankees That cuts into the coolness
of even someone as infinitely awesome as Jeter, a mere mortal like
A-Rod can't take that kind of hit and also been in
physical proximity of Madonna's rancid uterian hole without coming
out a grotesquery of inhuman proportions. I could not shake his
hand, even if he is a nicer guy than what is reported.
Asharak|12.12.08 @ 4:49PM|#
Here's a good left-wing criticism of Che Guevara, just to break
the false dichotomy on Hit & Run.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-should-che-be-an-icon-no-394336.html
tango and cache|12.18.08 @ 12:48AM|#
I agree,
Bring back Fulgencio Batista and Meyer Lanski.
At least the people could have the Beatles and Jazz while they were
waiting for the bullet.
Perhaps you would be as outraged if people walked around with
Batista or Somosa or Baby Doc on a tee shirt?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245