Matt Shea
RubySoho
Morgan Bell
Cibbuano
David O'Connell
Mountain Fog
Che Parts I & II @ The Brisbane International Film Festival
August 13th 2009 16:50
by Matt Shea
It was with a sense of desperation that my BIFF pal and I approached “Che: Parts I & II.” It was the closing days of the festival, and the films we’d managed to check out up to that point read like a trail of sheep’s droppings.
Of course, neither of us were getting our hopes up because how do you tackle a biopic of the almost mythical revolutionary leader, Che Guevara? To some he’s a hero of the political left, to others a maniacal terrorist, and to others still he’s simply a monochromatic print on an expensive T-shirt.
It’s fair to say that most of the people in the line-up for the film were of the first category, the 12pm starting time allowing them the chance to mimic their hero and give the boss the finger as they headed out of the office, ready to suck up four and a half hours worth of rousing revolution. Except for the older lady behind us, that is, who’d apparently come to see the film about a guy named ‘Chi.’
Thankfully, when the introductions had been finished and the lights began to dim, we found ourselves in Mexico City, not Shanghai, as the young Argentinean doctor, Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara (Benicio Del Toro), is recruited by Fidel Castro (the excellent Demian Bichir), agreeing to help overthrow the U.S.-backed Cuban dictator, Fulgencio Batista.
From early on in “Che,” it’s clear that the film’s producers – Steven Soderbergh, Laura Bickford, Benicio Del Toro, and Bill Pohlad – were keen to deal with the miasma that a political conversation about Che Guevara creates by sidestepping the issue altogether, instead opting to simply focus on what the revolutionary experienced as he trooped through the jungles of Cuba (Part I) and then Bolivia (Part II).
It’s a choice that’s leant the two films an engaging verisimilitude and documentary style, but at the same time tends to sell everything a little short. Without Che’s political motivations it’s tough to drill down to a real character, meaning the protagonist is always an arm’s length away from the viewer.
This problem is alleviated somewhat in the first film by the screenwriters’ (Del Toro and Soderbergh once again, along with Peter Buchman) choice to inter-cut the lush scenes from the Cuban jungle with black and white flash forwards depicting Guevara’s 1964 visit to New York and address to the United Nations. The framing for the trip is an extended interview with a U.S. television reporter, and his explanations for the camera offer small slices of valuable context to the action that took place five years earlier.
Indeed, the first film is by far the stronger of the two, the giddy propulsion of revolution lending itself out to the barebones narrative. Che’s leaving behind of family and murky love interest are familiar beats not done justice, but his hairy and hat-loving army’s bracing fraternity and stunning progress tend to enliven the audience. It even makes up for some at times shoddily organised action scenes, with director Soderbergh almost stretching the tone too far when he hides about fifteen revolutionaries behind a Ford Thunderbird that sits not ten metres away from the entrance to the Santa Clara army barracks.
Unfortunately there’s no framing interview and no guiding hand for the audience during “Che: Part II” and it helps sink an already struggling direction change for the narrative. Skipping forward, the film moves the action to Che’s doomed 1967 attempts at revolution in Bolivia. With little support from the local peasantry while fighting a government equipped and trained by the U.S., the Argentinean was always pushing matters uphill in the South American country.
Watching “Part II,” you get the distinct impression the filmmakers had run out of first hand evidence from which to work their narrative, the result being a characterless grind and almost totally redundant viewing experience. It’s disappointing, particularly given the fact that many elements of the first film were so quickly brushed over: surely it would have been better to fill out the Cuban experiences and consign the doomed and eventless Bolivian venture to a pre closing credits roll-up.
Ultimately, the creative decision to not distinctly render the character of Che torpedoes this two part epic, with no amount of Del Toro charisma able to right the ship. There’s so little to grab onto that the viewer is left at an uncomfortable distance from the revolutionary, never given the chance to either sympathise or empathise with his decisions and actions. It’s a flaccid approach to what should be enlivening material, and makes “Che: Parts I & II” difficult to recommend.
| 79 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by David O'Connell
Screen Fanatic
I must admit the subject matter doesn't really appeal to me but I admire Soderbergh for having the audacity to take such a massive project on in the first place.
Is the Motorcycle Diaries better than this?
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
You'll have people tell you its great just because they agree with the film's take on Guevara, but don't believe them!
Motorcycle Diaries is the much better film - because it actually possesses character. There's just nothing in this - a wasted opportunity to tell a story about a barely understood figure of modern history. I know there's conjecture about his true nature, but jeez, have a stab at something. Very disappointing.
Comment by Mountain Fog
it leaves one wanting to hear from the writers and directors mouths why they created it this way, and maybe discover if there was some heavy handed editing...
Che and Cuba are still bugbears for the American establishme, even here in Ozweirdly.
Someone had painted a huge Che on the roller doors of a disused servo, now on private property but facing the Great Western Highway, some nutter in the council had it largely deafced, only then did the idiotic taggers move in on the space.
Anyhoo, it sounds like the barely covert actions of the Americans were largely ignored. Too many South Americans know all about this history, besdies the printed material etc, for the makers to be able to claim they couldn't find anyone with the facts.
cheers
fog
Comment by Matt Shea
20/20 Filmsight
It's strange, because the Bolivian segment does show the US special forces arriving to train the Bolivian army, but then it's dropped. It's not like they took the opportunity to really follow the dogged pursuit of Che, switching back and forth from the rebels to the government. The vast majority is just Che and his troops wandering from one gully to another, with little in the way of relationships etc.
Would love to hear from the writers themselves and discover the reasons for some of the decisions made - thanks for reading!