Che / Counter-Che

CHE (PARTS ONE AND TWO). My comments shouldn't be as long as yours; I agree with you to a large extent, so that would be redundant. These'll just be some thoughts and reactions.

First off, I definitely know what you're talking about in terms of the venue. I don't think I've ever seen a four-hour movie at Cinema 21, but even a two-hour movie there can be a sitting endurance test. It's a shame that so many of those great, old-timey neighborhood theaters—Cinema 21, the Hollywood Theater, the Clinton Street Theater—feel like they still have the same seats that they had five decades ago. Maybe serving beer will boost their popularity (I know the Clinton Street started serving a few years ago), so they can afford some updated seating. I saw it at the E Street Cinema in Penn Quarter, which is pretty new and a lot more comfortable.

On the other hand, I didn't get to see Soderbergh. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a filmmaker at a major release. Werner Herzog didn't show at that advance screening of Rescue Dawn we went to, and I didn't find out about an appearance by Aronofsky at a screening of The Wrestler here in DC until it was too late. Though it wasn't a "major release," I did go with my dad to a screening of Bill Plympton's Hair High attended by Plympton and Keith Carradine (my favorite Carradine, and star of my favorite Ridley Scott film, The Duellists), who voiced a role in the movie; Plympton and my dad were friends back in the day, both part (though to different degrees) of Portland's '70s art/animation scene.

Uh oh, this post is turning into one big digression. Now, as for the film itself. I agree with a lot of the points you made. The movie (or movies) is strengthened artistically by Soderbergh's decision to focus only on two specific periods of Che's life, the successful revolution on Cuba and the unsuccessful revolution in Bolivia. When it comes to biopics, the hedgehog approach (focusing on one thing, and knowing and understanding it very well) generally works better than the fox approach (showing a wide range of things without really fleshing any one of them out). This can, however, lead to problems, which I'll discuss a couple paragraphs down.

I also agree that it was magnificently shot and stunningly acted. Though I honestly can't say I know what Che was really like, I nevertheless got a sense that del Toro really lost himself in the role; partly due to his fantastic performance, partly due to his physical resemblance, and partly due to great filmmaking on Soderbergh's part, it seemed like I was watching Che himself and not just an actor doing a Che impression (a failing of a lot of, it not most, biopics).

A strange choice (it was in the version I saw about six weeks ago, but maybe they've change it since then) was the little geography lesson at the beginning of each part, first for Cuba and then for South America. Now, I very much believe that it's important to provide context for movies dealing with historical subjects, but that context should be necessary or relevant. Do we really need to know the provinces of Cuba (only one or two are mentioned in the film) or each and every country in South America? Maybe they were supposed to be like the overtures at the beginning of some of the '60s epics, like Lawrence of Arabia and Cleopatra. If they were there solely to convey information, then I think that's just about the most self-important thing they could possibly have done, essentially annoucing from the beginning, "This isn't mere entertainment! This is agitprop! We're educating and enlightening you!"

That brings me to another problem with the film, one you already mentioned, its hagiographical aspect. If Soderbergh intended to present a well rounded depiction of Che, he clearly failed. He's presented as dedicated, courageous, morally incorruptible, and limited only by his own physical weaknesses (namely his asthma) and the failures of those around him. To bring up Lawrence of Arabia again, Soderbergh's treatment of Che starkly contrasts with Lean's treatment of T.E. Lawrence. Lean's Lawrence is a realistic mixture of good and bad; his heroism and magnetism are balanced by his inconstancy and egoism. By depicting the good almost exclusively—despite Che's mention of "executions," the U.N. portions seemed to show his underdog-like defiance and determination rather than his failings—Soderbergh ends up showing us only half a man.

I wonder if this one-sidedness is a result of the decision, otherwise a good one, to depict only two relatively short periods in Che's life. The first part shows us his David-like victory against seemingly insurmountable odds over the Goliath of the Batista regime and, by proxy, the United States, ending with the revolutionaries' moment of triumph. The second part shows us his Christ-like struggles, suffering, and martyrdom in the face of even greater odds in Bolivia. (We even see a "sanhedrin" of sorts in the Bolivian and American officials conspiring against him.) However, most of the things for which people criticize and condemn Che happened between these two periods, namely his overseeing the trial and execution of the new regime's enemies in 1959 and his prominent role in turning the regime from a coalition of anti-Batista groups into a one-party Marxist-Leninist state. So focusing the film only on Che's glorious rise and tragic fall ends up not telling us enough of his story.

Just a couple more points. Though a lot of the scenes of Che and his comrades doing revolution in the jungle (especially in the second part) don't necessarily move the plot forward, I don't think I'd call that "indulgent filmmaking." The film shows us the repetitive, day-to-day trials and turmoil in creating a revolution, probably only one percent of which involves dramatic battles or clashes of personality. Soderbergh said he "was interested in making a procedural about guerrilla warfare," and I think that's exactly what he made.

And finally, if we're going to be pitting Che biopics against each other, I think The Motorcycle Diaries was the better film. Though no less hagiographical than Che, it wasn't as hampered by that, maybe because it depicted a less world-historic period of Che's life. It's one thing to depict some middle-class roadtripping teenager as passionate, humane, and idealistic; it's another to depict him that way once he's become one of the most significant figures in the twentieth century, and has already begun to fail to live up to some of those ideals. The Motorcycle Diaries makes less of a claim to being a definitive telling of his life than Che does, so its positive depiction of him is more understandable (or at least more excusable). That, in addition to its breath-taking cinematography and outstanding performances (maybe Gael García Bernal's best), pulls it into the lead. On the other hand, I'm just glad Soderbergh's making something other than another Ocean's Whatever movie.

And finally, I was awake and comfortable through the whole four hours. Though I probably have to give as much credit to the E Street Cinema's seats as to the film's quality and my own stamina.