Scanning the magazines section of Clemons Library for a photography magazine while on the phone with Omar, one magazine in particular caught my attention. On its cover, the unmistakable image of Commandante Che Guevara, or at least an impersonator for the image of the revolutionary hero has become iconic!
I couldn't believe how coincidental it was for this magazine to fall in my hands since I'd become a flamboyant revolutionary blogger, but I knew one thing was for sure: this was a sign! After picking up the magazine and flipping through it, I realized I was looking through FilmComment, a film critique magazine based in the universe's heart of art and film culture, New York City-specifically the magazine is published by the Lincoln Center Society. I had been anticipating the release of Che, which is compilation of two lengthy film series that document the life of Che Guevara. Luckily, a magazine that shed light on the choreographic art that was put into the documentation of the world's most revered fell into my hands. I've been following the news of this film for quite sometime and have been anticipating its release. I'm glad it hasn't gone mainstream and has remained underground in the independent movie sphere so that Che doesn't become another modern day fad, or even worse, a stigma if the movie movie demonizes him.
Before reading the article this magazine entailed, I was even more concerned that since this movie is an American production, the very essence of which is to generate money, and in a society where he is portrayed as a cold blooded killer, I worry that this may not be an accurate depiction of Che, but I have yet to put it to the test by watching it.
Now, flipping through the article, I happen to find its quite interesting as it takes an artistic approach towards evaluating the movie, i.e. is looks at the movie's film making on an epic scale.
Subsequent to the film's premiere in Cannes, Steven Soderbergh, the director remaks that his fascination with Che was his will. Che's willpower is virtue that I strive everyday accomplish. From the moment I awaken and I see his idealist, visionary eyes stare into the horizon rising outside my window, till the moment I pull the blanket over men and turn off the lights.
Obviously, one must take this film with a pinch of salt considering that Che is meant to live as a dream for all revolutionaries and cannot be holistically captured in some movie or poster. I must admit though, that it was subsequent to watching the Motorcycle Diaries with my father in the winter of 2007, 40 years since Che's death in 1967, I was inspired to pick up a diary of my own and pen my revolutionary ideas, so I can't completely rule out that a good film production does have a life lasting effect on someone. If anything, my readings of Che's biographies, where the like of Anderson truly try to conceptualize Che's supernatural being and drag him back from history to the pages of today are what inspire me to be who I am every day and write so devoutly as I do before your eyes. Just as I imagined myself sitting on a hammock in the jungles of Bolivia reading Che: A Revolutionary Life, just by looking at the amazing photography that the magazine displayed among me, I was captivated and swept off my feet to a far and distant land, where Latin passion for love of life and revolution burns vividly and to a time when the rattling staccato of AK-47s could be heard expressing the cries of revolutionaries worldwide!
Back to the article: halfway through I was quite disappointed with all the cinematography jargon and film industry gossip of how successful the movie was and how its rating was to turn out. I find it detestable to think of rating someone's life story at the expense of a movie. Any mishaps of the movie should not be reflected upon the life of the legend. That's the one thing about such biographical films, the director must meticulously emulate the divine spirit of the life that the subject led or else its a failure. Its all or nothing.
Now the review literally put me to sleep when discussing the financial aspects of the movie. "The definition of what is financial success for us in this country may not be good enough for people who write about movies, but if the movie does $5 million and then sells a couple hundred thousand units on DVD, we'll be very happy with those numbers." There is no doubt that there was no real motive behind the movie's production but sheer capitalism.
What a betrayal to the movie's subject. This contradiction to the Marxist sense of portraying Che truly disgusted me at this point of the article and I felt completely dissuaded from reading on. The only worlds that sprung to mind at this point were Che's own: "I have a fucking repulsion from money; its a fetish." But back to a more lightly spirit of portraying the movie, it is worth noting that the film was based on Che's Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War and Bolivian Diary. The actor is Benicio Del Toro, who I believe would have performed with a true conviction, for anyone who would be put in such a role would.
What pleases me was that the script was written by a contemporary of Che, Terrence Malick, who had been to Bolivia to work on a story about Che's revolutionary struggle as it was happening in 1966. Malick was even involved in directing the movie, which makes it more so true to its part. The movie's script dealt with Che's adventures in Bolivia, Cuba, NYC, and Mexico City and covered the different events that saw Che on the forefront of the political arena to that of the revolutionary and guerrilla one. I find it humorous that the custom-made camera prototype made for filming the guerrilla warfare scenes was dubbed "The Red One." So at least the camera stayed veracious to Che. The film's production also reveals fascinating facts about the guerrilla lifestyle, which is that the guerrillas had lived in the wild for almost two years during the Sierra Maestra Campaign. The movie also goes inside the daily life of the guerrillas by showing daily activity on the ideological and emotional level and not just the historical events that count. Something that I have to rave about was that Che, although the nucleus of the story, was never focused on alone and this was truly veracious to his comradeship attitude where Che's image was one that was one among others representing the true essence of the collective struggle. The director described this motif as "It never occured to me to isolate him the way you would in a normal movie because it felt, frankly, un-Che-like. His attitude was that this is a bigger than any of us individually. And therefore, to isolate him in close-ups is in ideological opposition to his entire set of principles." I love how this loyalty to Che sinks in on those who learn more about his enigmatic character. I sometimes feel the Che-ism has become an ingrained sense of morality and code of life that I have come to live by. Another saying of Che that comes to mind is that, "If you shiver at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine."
In response to a very touchy issue, which is the whole "Che's a murder" bullshit that people spill all over the place, the director cuts out the executions at La Cabana. When asked whether he thought all the people Che executed in the military tribunals were innocent, he says no. The same exact Anderson gives in his biography. This quote really drove the point home: Does every regime when it feels threatened at some point act excessively? Yes. The firebombing of Japan? The dropping of a second atom bomb? I think those are excessive." This springs to memory that I need to write a diary entry on the showing of Dr. Atomic that I attended this weekend at the Charlottesville's very own Paramount Theater, but back to the director's response: "I think those are on a par with the kind of thing we’re talking about. Che says in his speech to the U.N., ‘This was necessary for our survival.’ Would that have fit your definition of due process? Probably not. You could say that in a lot of trials in the United States prior to 1964, due process was something that only applied to white people.”
They omit Congo, but I feel like it is essential to include because one cannot fully fathom the determination that Che underwent to launch another campaign in Bolivia after such a miserable failure of the Congo. Che was self critical and that is what led the director to believe: "His ability to sustain his outrage is what is remarkable to me. We all get outraged about stuff, but to sustain it to the point of putting your ass on the line to change what outrages you, to do it consistently for years and years, and to twice walk away from everything and everybody to do it, it’s not normal." The movie ends with the Jesus-like figure that defines Che's death. Soderbergh's mere conception of Che that brings him back to life once more; I personally like to think of it as the Second Coming, if you will.
No comments:
Post a Comment