Ryan McNeil
Note: Review is condensed down from usual length – RM
The best thing about CHE is how dis-interested it is in being a typical bio-pic. Indeed, during much of Stephen Soderbergh’s four-hour/two-part opus, Che Guevara seems like a bystander in his own life story. The first half of the film, originally titled THE ARGENTINE, focuses on his role in the Cuban Revolution in the late 1950’s. The second half, originally titled GUERILLA, focuses on his guerilla warefare tactics in Bolivia. Neither film gives us a stirring monologue, a sweeping score, or a godlike moment. The story chooses to show what Che did, rather than stand back and listen to him tell us what he is going to do.
What’s interesting is that telling CHE’s story in this manner has destined the film to stay under the radar. You would think that for a man whose face has been plastered on a zillion tee shirts, that a bio-pic of his life would be huge. Not so. The avant garde style to the whole feature has turned this four hour epic into an indie art film, and with that the smaller profile that many such films achieve. However, I believe that telling Che’s story in any other way would dishonour his legacy. After all this was a man who believed in true communism and simplicity. Had his legend unfolded in the same manner as, say William Wallace, he wouldn’t care much for it.
The film has been touring North America as a Roadshow Edition, where both halves play back-to-back, with a merciful intermission between the two halves. If possible, I reccomend seeing the film presented this way (they even give you a program!). For many, it may seem like a fossil from a bygone era, it may even seem like the sort of experience many don’t have the attention span for. But there are many subtleties to the complete picture that may be lost if a viewer lets a few days or weeks pass in between the two volumes.
This was the first film I saw in 2009, actually on the first day of 2009! Interesting to think I was watching the events (towards the end of part one) fifty years to the day after they were set. My local cinema showed the two films back to back on new years day several months before it came out on general release. I enjoyed part one more than part two as I felt it worked better as a film with the flash forwards to the UN. It helped with the documentary style of the way it was shot. Having said that part two was interesting because it told a less well known story. All in all I thought they were really good films. I suspect they didn’t get the attention they deserved in The USA as Cuba is a bit of a sensitive subject.
@ Fandango… You are a rare animal for attending a showing of these two films back-to-back. I do believe that's the best way to see them, but so few people would choose to do so.
I kinda like how the second half strays away from the usual bio-pic formula. I also like how Soderbergh filmed pt. 2 in a different ratio to echo Che's feeling of claustrophobia in his final mission.
Both films were rather vanguard…I think they flew under the radar for that reason, not so much for subject matter.
That said, I can't wait for that Criterion release of 'em both next year 🙂