I am sure that all of us have heard, read and in
case you are a fellow movie blogger, in many cases, even wrote about Steven
Soderbergh and his alleged retirement from film making after Side Effects(2013) earlier this year and a HBO movie, Behind the Candelabra(2013). I have seen few of his movies and I really like some of
them like Traffic(2000) and Sex, Lies and Videotape(1989).
Moreover I really appreciate the way he goes from genre to genre, never
confining himself to any particular type of films. However I am also aware that
there is a whole lot of his work that I haven’t seen yet. While reading all the
retrospective or top 10 posts about him, two films that I had not seen then
jumped out to me – Out of Sight(1998) and Che(2008).
Che is a biopic of Earnesto ‘Che’ Guevara, an
Argentine by birth who went on to become one of the closest people to Fidel
Castro and one of his generals in his fight that eventually deposed the
US-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. It consists of two feature-length
films in which Part One talks exclusively about the Cuban revolution starting
with the very first time he meets Fidel Castro in Mexico till the climactic
battle of the two forces in Santa Clara where two armies go against each other
for one last time. Impressed by Castro’s ideology and vision, Guevara joins Castro's 26th
of July movement and travels to Cuba with him on a yacht. As a learned man
himself with his own ideology and a medical student before joining the revolution,
Che quickly finds his footing in the organization and makes himself useful wherever he is needed. Shortly, he begins his steady ascent
to become one of the most important and trusted people around Fidel Castro. He also plays a pivotal role in the final battle against Batists's forces in Santa Clara and after that in various roles in Fidel Castro's government
Guevara was an expert in Guerrilla warfare on which
he went on to write many books. Various battles that we see throughout this
film are a great example of this Guerrilla style, giving whole film some more
authenticity. Narration of the film works on two fronts, first the revolution
and second, his interview with Lisa Howard in 1964 while he was in US, for addressing
the UN.. Their conversations give us a chance to know him better, to give his
character more depth. We learn about his personality, his ideology and his work
while he held many important positions in Castro’s government. While
answering one of her questions, Guevara talks about his idea of a real or ideal
revolutionary. He says an ideal revolutionary is the one that never stops, that
always keeps on working. He probably thought of himself as one. So after Cuba
settled under Castro’s leadership, he thought it was his duty to go and help
others who might need it. Part Two concentrates on his efforts to bring
about similar revolution in Bolivia.
In 1965, Guevara lands in Bolivia under a false
name to help the Bolivian revolutionaries to take over the government. Right
from the start, he faces opposition not only from the government but also from
his own organization as they don’t want to take the arms and he feels it
necessary for any coup to be followed by an armed insurgence if you want to
stay in control. Slowly he starts to lose all his resources that made them
successful in Cuba and government, once again with CIA help, tightens their
grip around him. In comparison to first, Part Two is rather slow, grim and
maybe even uneventful. But it also had something that kind of validated the
existence of both these films for me.
After watching Part One, most important question
I had in my mind was what’s so great about Che Guevara that he warrants a 4+
hour biopic? All I knew about him then was what we see in the film. Of course,
there is no rule that decides whether a person is worthy of making a biopic or
not. But still, there must be something about him that must have caught
Soderbergh’s attention, something that made him important enough to be made a
biopic of. In part one; he is one of the most trusted people of Castro, one of
the top generals that fought with him from start and even the person who gives
him that all important final victory. But when he went to Bolivia, in a spirit
of a true revolutionary by his own definition, that act certified him ‘biopic
worthy’ to me. Unfortunately, all his efforts elsewhere did not produce the desired efforts anywhere after Cuba but the fact that he left everything behind just to lend his expertise, reflected him in another light to me. Now I wanted to know as much as I can about this guy.
As I said earlier, Out of Sight and Che
were two movies from Soderbergh’s line of work that caught my attention and
both for different reasons. Out of Sight is a movie that almost everyone
I know has praised. People seem to love this movie. On the other hand, Che
had a curiously polarizing reaction. People either love it or hate it but what
attracted me more towards it was the political background of this movie. After
having seen it, I can understand why people might not like this film. It is a
long, in many cases slow and over analytical film, especially second one, and
if you are not interested in the political side of it, it might bore you. However
I went over some of the Netflix reviews for the film and a lot of people seem
to think this is an undeserving biopic because Guevara was a communist. I don’t
agree with this reasoning, even resent it but I do understand where it comes
from. As I tried to learn more and more about this guy, I observed that it is
not just film that it’s not just the film that divides people but the man
himself. He seems to be as respected, loved as he is hated. Given the kind of
life he led, I wouldn’t expect any other outcome.
The only problem I had with the film was the
lack of real relatable character other than Guevara. There are hundreds of characters
that come and go during the span of two movies but except for Che, none of them
left any kind of mark on me. Not even his wife who, before getting married,
fights alongside him as his guide in Cuban revolution or even Fidel Castro,
played by Damien Bichir, who probably had the second most screen time but has
just a fleeting presence. Che, however, was brought brilliantly to life by
Benicio Del Toro. It was an absolute delight watching him in that role. From meeting Castro till the end in Bolivia, Guevara goes
through a lot during the course of the two movies and majority of credit for making him
believable or mildly interesting even in the dullest parts of story goes to his
constrained but powerful performance. Apparently Soderbergh spent a lot of time
researching before he took this project on and it pays off handsomely as the
authenticity of the film can be seen right from the word go. Perfect locations,
settings and decision of shooting in Spanish go a long way to help as well. Second
part does suffer from pacing issues and could also have benefited from some trimming.
However for anyone with any interest in the politics, ideology behind it, this
should serve as a great reference.
Rating(out of 5) for both Part I and II:
Great review here. I do think that Che as a whole is a great film, but it certainly is difficult to appreciate. For detractors, it could be seen as long bordering on meandering, and not much to invest in beyond Del Toro's performance. Fair enough. But I really appreciate everything about it.
ReplyDeleteThanks! Once again, I agree with everything you said.
DeleteNice review. I was a little disappointed with the film as a whole, but Benicio del Toro is fantastic.
ReplyDeleteThanks! As I said, I can easily see where you are coming from. I think it worked little better for me. Del Toro was truly fantastic.
Delete