Che

DrPepperHorn

DrPepperHorn

100+ Posts
So I saw both parts at the Angelika today. It's a little over four and a half hours with the intermission. Overall, I thought Benicio did a fantastic job. The movie was shot really well. If you are interested in his story, I recommend checking it out if you have the time.


**********SPOILER**********













I was disappointed that the screenwriter chose to leave some well documented details out regarding the time after he was captured in Bolivia including his meeting with the town's school teacher and some of his interactions with his guards.
 
Thats a long movie. Perhaps a reflection of just how important this t-shirt icon is to Hollywood?

In real life, Che was a killer and assasin, among other things. He personally shot people in the back of the head, and ordered/supervised the deaths of thousands, maybe up to 10,000. Possibly even more. The full truth on that probably wont be known until the Cuban government finally implodes. Maybe not even then. Does the film accurately portray this "aspect" of his personality (the psychopathic killer part)?
 
Not even close. He's portrayed in a positive light almost the entire movie. He's portrayed as a great leader of the people, a medic, and a hero. They essentially skip over the time where he is in Cuba after Castro assumes power.
 
I remember the "not so heroic" parts of Che's life being a big tipping point when this movie was first announced. I actually thought that Benicio wasn't going to do the movie due to the treatment, but of course that was wrong
smile.gif
. I don't know enough about Che to really dispute the story, but someone put in his position that achieved what he did could not have done so without being more than a little messed up in the head, and without more than a few situations that aren't exactly "heroic". I knew hollywood wouldn't treat this properly, and from day 1 I have had no desire to see this movie.
 
There is a well-defined dichotomy in how cartain historical figures are treated by Hollywood. Real-life figures seen as "right" are uniformly portrayed negatively -- Hitler/Nazis, Franco/Nationalists, Mousalini/Fascists, Pinochet, etc. However, "leftists" are either ignored (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, N. Vietnamese after US left), treated sympathetically (Popular Front), or even treated heroicly (Fidel, Che).

The truth, of course, is that communists have been the biggest killers in human history. The numbers of those murdered by communists far outweigh those of the Nazis, yet compare the number of movies about Nazi atrosities (several a year) versus those about similair communist action (non-existent). For example, Stalin caused the death of more Ukrainians alone than Hitler's total combined, yet there has never been a single Hollywood movie about it. The forced starvation 8 million within the last century can't get a single film? That is the one certainty about communists no matter the flag -- bodies always pile up. That form of government has never existed without mass killing its own people. Yet all this has somehow escaped Hollywood over the decades.

Hollywood's disparate treatment is sometimes even mimicked by Governments. Conisder the fairly recent actions of the Spainish Government. Straining the meaning extraterritorial jusrisdiction, it arrested Augusto Pinochet for human rights violations in Chile. He was alleged to have had ~3200 people executed in a soccer stadium, among other bad acts. Compare this to Spain's treatment of Fidel Castro. Fidel may have had 10,000 or more executed in one month (Jan 1959) + plus countless tortured/imprisoned without trial (not just a fair trail but any trial). He stole property. And unlike Pinochet, Castro is still doing it. But when he visits Spain, he's a movie star, a celebrity darling. It would seem that fairness, justice, consistency and principle are as lacking in Spain as Hollywood. And perhaps shows a compelling reason not to let these types have the reigns of power.

I say it goes well beyond the simple double-standard that is all too familiar. It's some type of mass psychological disorder. It's like the other side of the holocaust-denier coin, but without the recrmination. Communist-denier syndrome is systemic. Yet here we are at the annual parade of award ceremonies, where all the Hollywood types are themselves on the back -- congratualting themselves for being bold, for being courageous, for taking chances, for challenging stereotype, for speaking truth to power. What a bunch of crap.
 
Incognito, no doubt ... but the portions that allege US complicity (or at least US negligence leading to Pol Pot) are much more ambiguous. And in any case, that picture doesn't get made unless there's some kind of Great White Rescuer (i.e., Sidney Schanberg) at the center of the proceedings. Or at least one of the centers of gravity. If Dith Pran had made one wrong turn and gotten chewed up by the Pol Pot gore machine, we'd have never seen that movie made.

The lesson I got from Killing Fields was that the US was basically evil for getting into Vietnam, then evil for departing Vietnam without making sure that atrocities wouldn't occur in Cambodia after we'd fully withdrawn our forces - military and diplomatic - from Vietnam. In other words, damned if we do, damned if we don't

There is an unquestionable tendency for Hollywood to marginalize atrocities of the left. And when I say "the left" here, I am referring to the hard-core side, the Ches and Maos and Stalins of the world. We now have two hagiographies of Che Guevara, both of which - at best - provide excuses for his totalitarian and brutal tendencies. There are a few major works of art - literature and film - that suggest that we let Stalin get away with a lot more than we ever should have, but they are pretty thin on the ground. The fact that there's a current and growing nostalgia for Stalin in Russia is pretty ******* heartbreaking.

Contrast that to the fact that we're still getting prestige pictures with big budgets and high-profile ad campaigns for WWII-era pictures, particularly those that deal with Nazis and their atrocities. Nazis and white southerners (particularly men) are the last acceptable human villains left.

The Hard Left definitely has a much better public relations department working for it than the Hard Right does. It kind of goes hand in hand with the Radical Islamists, who are basically left untouched these days for fear of offending the more moderate and liberal members of that community. They (i.e., the radicals) have essentially been removed as possible villains of films, replaced by either Serbians or, when they're mentioned at all, are depicted as pawns of right-wing American machinations. Some of that is genuine sensitivity, but I'd submit that the majority of the feeling is simply fear. Seeing the outrage and violence generated over Salman Rushdie and a handful of mild cartoons has made artists completely aware that the risk of being firebombed or beheaded far outweighs any minor and lightweight rewards that might ensue. Ask Theo van Gogh how much his radical left-wing views and well-regarded art ended up protecting him and existence, much less his reputation.

Even something as mildly right-wing as 24 has to contort itself even further beyond belief to make sure everyone knows that radical Islam - like Marxism - poses no threat to the west.

If - I think more "when" - we're attacked by leftist/Islamist organizations during Obama's time in office, I think a lot of this will change.That's a line not even Hollywood would allow anyone to cross. Soderburgh or Spielberg or Hanks or Howard might even be bothered to make a movie in which they suggest that American/Western ideals are worth defending and preserving, and rightly so. Maybe Hanks and Howard could be persuaded to make a move that's more contemporary than Richard Nixon or Charlie Wilson.

I won't hold my breath on Michael Moore, though.
 
I don't know why Joe fan but I do know the government has it's ear to Hollywood's ground and they step in when needed. Step in, shape, motivate.

cow_rose.gif
 
The ideas of communism and planned economies were much more in favor in western universities during the early 20th century. The popularity of these ideas with the educated elite gave them much more credibility as an alternative to traditional capitalsim, and limited government.

Also, these movements started as counters to despotic governments. Even if there were atrocities committed by the revolutionaries, they could be excused away at first, especially because Stalen, Mao, et. al. were more focused on gaining power than wealth.
 
I watched part one.

I was going to watch part two, but decided on Iron Man instead. Much more entertaining and a more coherent political message.

I will watch part two at some point, but "whitewash" is accurate so far. I don't know if that was an editing decision or the message.
 
My favorite Che story is about when they took over Cuba. They were setting up a government and a fellow comes into a room and asks if there are any economists and Che thinks he says communists and volunteers that he is. He is then appointed head of the Cuban national bank and destroys the economy. What a fun loving bunch the Castro bunch was.

Too bad about the economy.

Maybe the reason he messed up the economy so bad was because he was kept busy murdering people? Just a thought.
 
I admittedly don't know much about Che Guevara, but i would imagine the truth of the man is somewhere in between the two disparate/extreme positions people usually take in regards to his life.
 
You -

Probably not the best movie to find out about him. I still have only watched part one and don't know if I can bring myself to watch part two. Frankly, it was boring as hell. It bypassed the controversial stuff that would make one say - Che is great or Che is a ******* butcher. It was more of a fly on the wall of Che's life, with all the present tense slowness.

For all his ********, Che is a much better character for Oliver Stone rather than Soderbergh.
 
Del Toro apparently grew tired of having to try and answer questions about the movie's positive portrayal of Che, got mad, and stomped out of an interview. Gotta love it. He reportedly became "agitated" when asked about the forced labor camps in Cuba, which were Che's creation, and how they compared to concentration camps:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
When I reread my post, I felt I wasn't hitting the point right on the nose with that sentence. Still, the rest of the post stands up, I think.

To say a dearth of films indicates a favorable attitude towards a subject is somewhat absurd, no? The next step is to ask what would indicate the sort of favoritism Joe Fan claims. The answer would be the making of several studio films whitewashing Pot, Mao and the others. They don't exist.

I skipped a few steps and was unclear. Good catch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top