**** Classic.
"Nobody is going home on leave. We have only won the war. The revolution has just begun."
Che Guevara's an interesting man. Easily, he's the most revered Marxist revolutionary of all time. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin have had their day but they've strayed away from the philosopher so much that they've fallen out of fashion not only with the anti-Marx camp but with Marxists too. They get some appreciation in a few circles but they've largely lost their appeal. However, I was able to purchase a t-shirt of Che in New York City. Part of the reason I purchased such a t-shirt was because of this film but also because of the irony of participating in capitalism by buying a product glorying a Marxist.
[you can skip!]
The film does not portray Che as a saint, and it's right in doing so. He was very much a flawed individual. However his flaws, in my honest opinion, are more forgivable that some of the hypocrisy committed by our Founding Fathers. Many have said that during the revolution he grew bloodthirsty and almost sadistic at times. But I don't think he was a man of great contradiction. He, like Marx, saw communism as the ultimate form of freedom of democracy. He died with his belief. He was a pure idealist, and I have the utmost respect for such men. And yes, I think it's safe to compare Che to the Founding Fathers because he very much is a Founding Father. He's the founding father of Cuba. Even though Castro will stand as the father of modern Cuba, I personally believe that Che most likely would not have ruled Cuba the way Castro ruled Cuba. The people do enjoy some of the benefits Che fought for. Literacy rates are high, and health care is there for all it's citizens. However, the individual economics of Cuba are lacking. Such matters didn't interest Che. When he was asked to sign the currency he simply wrote, "Che" which clearly showed a lack of respect and distaste for money in general. Doctors are paid very little, yet there is a large supply of them in Cuba.
Back to comparing Che to the Founding Fathers...If the American Revolution was a noble one then Che's revolution was almost sacred. The Founding Fathers revolted against taxation without representation. That was their main reason for quarrel though there were others. The corruption in Cuba under Fulgencio Batista was far more tyrannical. Corporate America kept a firm hand on the necks of Cuba and the American mafia (featured in The Godfather Part II) was also involved. Even President John F. Kennedy, who would later give the go-ahead with the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion after it was organized by President Eisenhower, showed interest and approval of Che's revolution.
In an interview, Kennedy says, "I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear." Che's status as a freedom-fighter is pretty much clearly defined as a man rebelling against Batista.
So now, In our current political environment, one particular group likes to talk about "taking the country back" from the tyrannical democratically elected government that has operated through on a representative democracy that was established by the very noble and wise Founding Fathers of America. Batista, though elected to office before, was in fact a tyrannical dictator. In 1952 he staged a coup and assumed power. What Che and Castro then proceeded to do was in fact what many in America know nothing about; they took their government back and right away, became a symbol of hope for Latin America.
[end of skipping!]
The film portrays Che in unique style. It cuts back and forth in time showing the revolution, Che's personal thoughts, and what also takes place after the revolution. In between action we get some reflection and unlike the second part that succeeds it, it aims to present a big screen, widescreen adaptation of Che. The second film, Part Two, is much more documentary-like. This film is non-chronological, and switches between color, and black and white. Much of it is subtitled because they rarely speak English.
del Toro looks like Che and most of the film is narrated by him, though we receive the translation not through subtitles but through his English translator. The scenes that are interjected like his visits to high class parties, his time at the United Nations are just as fascinating and are handled rather well. The direction here is remarkable. The cinematography is great. In the revolution the camera actually plays a rather stationary role. Even though there's chaos, it barely moves in a lot of parts. It fits. But during interviews, we have a lot of handheld camerawork which is probably from the director himself.
Marxism itself is not a central theme of the film. It does not go into the technical economics of Marxism. It shouldn't. It doesn't even really go into the philosophy of Marxism though it brushes upon it. It does touch upon the historical and social issues of Cuba and the West. These are pivotal to the entire history of Che.
The narrative itself follows the analytical structure and framework of Marx. In his writings, Marx expands upon the philosophy of Hegel. The triad that forms what is to be a proper analysis of philosophy and history is known as the "thesis, and the antithesis." Combining these two forms the synthesis. The synthesis reconciles the two by resolving it, refining their common truths, and then forming a new proposition. Much like the modernism and postmodernism movement, fragments are used to create a new creation. In Marx's triad however, one creation, and the negation of that creation creates a new idea.
This film follows that format. We see the work of the West and then the rejection of it. In it's two parts we get a broader synthesis. In the first film there is an established order. The pattern is a nonlinear chronology, Che has great success, and he is very much a philosopher. In the sequel we get the opposite. The sequel is almost completely chronological and we watch the struggle of a guerilla warrior, not a philosopher. The first film ends, in it's unique narrative, somewhere around the beginning yet the sequel begins at a time far later than the final chronological point of this film. This film does indeed cover a signficant portion of Che's revolutionary voyage but the second is about his fall.
Released in 2008, it was snubbed by the Oscars. "Slumdog Millionaire" won in 2009. It deserved it. However, Che Part One deserved it much more. Sean Penn won Best Actor and deserved to win for "Milk." However, Benicio del Toro deserved to win it as well.
So was he a Revolutionary, philosopher, an angel, a devil, a misguided murderer? All of these things have been used to describe Che and this film does a good job of treating such a character. You get a good impression of an interesting man.
[NOTE]:
The film stands as a landmark in digital cinema. Many films have been filmed with digital cameras (the Red One cameras are used here) but none have had the period-look of "Che". None have had the old replication of 16MM film like "Che". Digital cinema for the most part looks like "Public Enemies," "Collateral," or "Sin City."
"Collateral" was a noirish thriller that felt like a digital film. "Sin City" was also a noirish tale that felt like it was of another world because of the CGI incorporated throughout the film's setting. And the there's "Public Enemies" which is clearly one of the worst uses of digital cinematography. It looks amateurish. The detail of the costumes in the 1930s time period do not compliment the clarity of digital cameras. Even with the period of post-Roaring Twenties crime, Michael Mann decides to film in a style that's more suited for a History Channel special than a James Cagney picture.
The film follows a tradition of cinema that was defined in the 1970s which I view
as a major step in crafting the era of modern cinema. In the 1970s directors adapted. They began to experiment with the camera and some of this can be traced back to the end of the '60s when the camera becomes a character in the story. You will notice this when you watch "The Graduate." The famous shot between Mrs. Robinson's legs is crucial. When Hoffman runs down the stairs we see shots through the banister. The camera is very active in that film. These angles are a youthful take on the Alfred Hitchcock's directing style and can later be seen in the 1970s, particularly in Scorsese's "Mean Streets."
There is also though a strong air of pre-1970s film that comes from European neorealist cinema. This is especially emphasized in "Che" Part Two but it's here as well. An example of European neorealist cinema that probably had an extreme influence on this film, "Che" would be the Italian picture, "Salvatore Guiliano." I'll review that film another day.
