Che (2008)

[Capo]

Feb 22, 2009 9:06:14 GMT Michael said:

I love how some films just stick with me for days and days and days after watching them.

I can't get The Weeping Meadow out of my thoughts.

I feel the same way with Che Part Two, though I only saw it yesterday. It's one of those films so unpretentious in manner and style that it becomes ambitious as an ongoing production. I don't disagree with the ambivalent-negative review in Sight & Sound, for instance, but found the film enthralling for the same reasons Michael Atkinson didn't.

Like Part One, there's something incredibly immersive and confident about the expository rhythm and subtle visuals. I was almost reminded of Aguirre, Wrath of God, in how often Che himself demands our attention but isn't central to the frame. While it may be argued that Benicio Del Toro is a victim of the film, for instance, that he has very little to do because the film doesn't demand of him the usual conventions of a peaks-and-troughs biopic - there's no political pedagogy here or sermonising solliloquys - I wouldn't disagree but say it's a gripping performance of restraint. Del Toro has tremendous presence even when he's cutting up some corn.

I still haven't decided how much I'm going to let the aesthetic overwhelm my story-following confusion (I actually know very little about Che). I'd need to know more of the historical facts before deciding how the viewer may benefit from knowing more or less about certain things.

SPOILERS (for those who like me don't know about Guevara)

Though I knew Guevara was no longer alive, I didn't know how he died. As a result, I found the final third of Part Two incredibly tense: the cuts to the Bolivian machine gun with the guerillas in its sights, that (very Herzogian) shot of the Bolivian Army descending the opposite mountain, the crescendo of ambience as they circle and surround Guevara.

Not sure about Che's POV demise, though; it was well done, but I don't think it was necessary given preceding style.

[Omar]

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT (but if you know anything about Che Guevara, it won't spoil anything)

I absolutely loved both of these films. I feel wrong in approaching them as two separate films, but I think that Soderbergh has made two different films here, with different styles and narrative devices, approaching the same figure and tactical skills from two different historical standpoints: one of victory, and one of failure.

I think Soderbergh has made two giant war epics strictly about guerrilla warfare. He has Guevara here as the genius behind these fighting styles. Part One reveals the campaign through Cuba, the overwhelming odds to the eventual victory. "The war is over; now the revolution begins." It already knows its history, and it assumes the viewer does too, thus the back-and-forth between Che in 1964 addressing the United Nations and an interviewer about their success in Cuba, framing Part One. I love the pseudo-documentary b&w style of these scenes juxtaposed with the brightness and limited dialogue of the scenes in Cuba. The first raid that is shown, with Guevara (or actually his translator) voicing over the fighting and explaining the methods behind such warfare is really well done.

Part Two is very different. For one, it is linear. It opens with Che as a mysterious figure, completely unrecognizable, with methods and motivation that the audience isn't quite sure of, at first (as well Castro and the people around Che). And once his appearance gets back to familiarity, he continues to go by aliases, despite most everyone he is working with knowing who he really is. Part Two is much more dark, in regards to cinematography, as well as content. It is, after all, the end of Che. Unlike Part One, the overwhelming odds just make things worse. The rebels do not get along, the sense of unity is lost, the peasants are unhelpful and unsympathetic to their cause, etc. If Part One is to show the victorious aspect of guerrilla warfare, then Part Two is meant to reveal it's shortcomings, and the unfortunate conclusion that this kind of warfare is obsolete.

Feb 23, 2009 17:56:02 GMT Capo said:

Like Part One, there's something incredibly immersive and confident about the expository rhythm and subtle visuals. I was almost reminded of Aguirre, Wrath of God, in how often Che himself demands our attention but isn't central to the frame. While it may be argued that Benicio Del Toro is a victim of the film, for instance, that he has very little to do because the film doesn't demand of him the usual conventions of a peaks-and-troughs biopic - there's no political pedagogy here or sermonising solliloquys - I wouldn't disagree but say it's a gripping performance of restraint. Del Toro has tremendous presence even when he's cutting up some corn.

It is interesting that you note this. I read somewhere that Soderbergh, based on Guevara's politics, chose not to show him as above anyone else. No closeups, very little single shots. The whole point to this kind of warfare and what they were fighting for was the group, not one man. Therefore, onscreen, he appears little by himself and mostly among the group. One review I read considered this emotionally distant. I think that is a poor criticism considering the directorial choice behind it. Plus, Che is represented as a friendly person throughout, shaking hands and introducing himself to strangers and onlookers. Soderbergh said that he wanted the viewer to feel like he was there fighting with them, and I think it works to perfection. And you are right about the presence of Del Toro!

Feb 23, 2009 17:56:02 GMT Capo said:

SPOILERS (for those who like me don't know about Guevara)

Though I knew Guevara was no longer alive, I didn't know how he died. As a result, I found the final third of Part Two incredibly tense: the cuts to the Bolivian machine gun with the guerillas in its sights, that (very Herzogian) shot of the Bolivian Army descending the opposite mountain, the crescendo of ambience as they circle and surround Guevara.

Not sure about Che's POV demise, though; it was well done, but I don't think it was necessary given preceding style.

I knew the history of Che (though am by no means an expert), so I was aware that the Bolivia campaign would be a failure ending in Che's death. Even so, it was incredibly tense.

"the cuts to the Bolivian machine gun with the guerillas in its sights": This reminded me quite a bit of "The Battle of Algiers". On the Criterion DVD, Soderbergh is among those interviewed for the bonus features. I think his love for that film showed through with both of these films, and those shots you mention. And the "Herzogian" (cool!) shot you mention is superb.

As far as his POV demise, I really liked it when I saw it, but afterward, like you, feel that it contradicts the earlier presentation of the character. Think back to Part One where they execute two soldiers for deserting in the jungle. The matter-of-fact wide angle presentation of this was very cold and distant. Perhaps Soderbergh wanted to give the title character a little bit more than that for a demise?

[ronnierocketago]

So to ask an obvious question....which "Part" is better?

[arkadyrenko]

"for those who like me don't know about Guevara"

Well, i think everybody can do that claim as well. Even his closest friends and family didn't seem to know him that well. The man will always remain a mystery, i'm affraid.

Capo, there's soemthing you said in your review that i liekd a lot, and warmed my cinephile heart: that there ae moments in the CHE movie that are Herzog-like. Well, i can't get enough of Herzog-like movies, if you know what i mean

[Omar]

Feb 24, 2009 7:36:28 GMT ronnierocketago said:

So to ask an obvious question....which "Part" is better?

I preferred Part Two. Not by much.

[Capo]

Moi aussi.

[arkadyrenko]

Omar and Capo, what made you guys prefer the second part?

[Omar]

Feb 24, 2009 20:20:57 GMT arkadyrenko said:

Omar and Capo, what made you guys prefer the second part?

SPOILERS

Well, for me, I think the overall sense of foreboding that the film suggests. The last year of his life is perfectly captured with the failure of this campaign. I suppose for critics who considered these films emotionally distant (ANYTHING can be emotionally distant), I found that not the case at all for the second film. The color tones used help bring these feelings to the forefront.

The first film is more ambitious, cutting back and forth between two different periods in time, and is stylistically more in your face. Both are masterpieces, but the subtle sense of death around every corner (wonderfully summarized by Mick in the Herzogian shot) and the end getting closer and closer even though the day count continues to rise, it's a menacing mood. For me, at least.

[Capo]

Yeah, I liked the hopelessness of the second. A revolutionary disaster by all accounts. And the final moments, from the Bolivians photographing Che, are still haunting me.

I like this, what Omar said:

I absolutely loved both of these films. I feel wrong in approaching them as two separate films, but I think that Soderbergh has made two different films here, with different styles and narrative devices, approaching the same figure and tactical skills from two different historical standpoints: one of victory, and one of failure.

I guess I'm more interested in why things fail.

[arkadyrenko]

Omar, i agree with you on the puzzlement you get when certain movies are called emotionally distant. Truly, that's one of the things that i find puzzling and of difficult understanding. I mean, what's this "emotionally distant" goes agaisnt, melodramatic hystronics? If that's the case, i rather have emotional distance any day of the week, if you know what i mean.

If you ask me, "emotionally distant" is an excuse that people with little imagination and no real deep feelings use when they don't get their drama spood-fed and hammered to them.