496 Che

[Grand Illusion]

Or perhaps you should have questioned the political biases of your friend.

This is where you misunderstand. It's not a political bias when someone is forced out of their home, separated from their family, and has everything they own stolen on their way out. It's a very practical issue.

It's a political bias when people try to discredit criticism of Che because "Class struggle transcends national borders." See? You brought up 'class struggle.' The Cubans that fled aren't concerned with progressive tax versus flat tax or Chomsky quotables, they want to see their families again. You're the one being ideologically blinded, not them.

There's this weird mentality that, if you're using heavy terms like "authoritarian" and "murderer," you must be thinking emotionally, and therefore unreasonably, and therefore you have a limited perspective. Nonsense. One can very rationally, clearly, and widely come to a decision that someone is authoritarian in their leadership style, and is a muderer, in the immoral manner in which they took life or had life taken. Taking a complex or intelligent view of a situation is not predicated on using weak terms, or having weak opinions, or coming to no definite conclusions about things one way or the other.

This.

Thank you. I'm not saying that Che is only an authoritarian murderer. Calling him that doesn't mean that is his totality. He was also a husband, an intellectual, a wonderful speaker, and he thought he was doing the right and good thing. He has these traits and numerous other warm-and-fuzzyisms that he shares with other despots around the globe. Doesn't make his politics any less authoritarian or his actions any less murderous.

Bringing up the fact that American presidents enacted policies that resulted in more deaths is a non sequitur. The inevitable reaction to any criticism by an American given to any other group. I mean, why else bring up Pinochet? The truth is that--surprise--BOTH can be authoritarian and militaristic and result in death.

Left and right wing. If you have a government, it's probably going to lead to "legitimized" force. But we should sure call them on it. As sure as I'll call Bush (and really the people pulling his strings) an authoritarian whose policies resulted in mass murder, I will call Che the same. If you want me to agree that the US Military and CIA have killed and enacted policies that have killed innocents, I'm with you.

adlh, for you to say about the Cubans in Miami that "These are not for the most part happy innocent people that just had to flee a regime." You are not defining "innocent." Maybe they were not "innocent" to Che or Fidel, but what is innocent? If they disagreed with the Revolution, they were not innocent. If these were poets, authors, homosexuals, or *gasp* capitalists, they were not innocent.

You can say, "Well, one group must suffer, so why not the rich folk?" You can say that. "Them or us" worked to stir up the Bolsheviks and it's been used to fight Iraqis on their own ground. If someone's gotta die, might as well be them on their own soil. Personally, I'd prefer to just say that all politicians are corrupt, yes. And there will be winners and losers in politics, yes. That's what politics is. But those like Che that end dissent by killing the dissenters deserve a special place on the list of authoritarian murders.

[Nothing]

It's not a political bias when someone is forced out of their home, separated from their family, and has everything they own stolen on their way out. It's a very practical issue.

The wealth was redestributed, not stolen. And, presumably, your friends could have stayed if they were willing to accept a humbler lifestyle. Somehow... no, I'm afraid I'm not really seeing a parallel to the murder of millions of jews, gays, gipsys, communists... Sorry.

The Cubans that fled aren't concerned with progressive tax versus flat tax or Chomsky quotables.

They're concerned with enforcing a trade embargo against the working people of Cuba, returning Cuba into the hands of big business and, ultimately, reappropriating their wealth and their elite status.

[Gregory]

This is where you misunderstand. It's not a political bias when someone is forced out of their home, separated from their family, and has everything they own stolen on their way out. It's a very practical issue.
... The Cubans that fled aren't concerned with progressive tax versus flat tax or Chomsky quotables, they want to see their families again. You're the one being ideologically blinded, not them.

That's about as far from the truth as possible, and I can't see that anyone with the vaguest familiarity with the issue could really believe this. Obviously the financial changes that the Revolution instigated are very much a part of it. I thought virtually everyone could at least agree on that much. They're only concerned with reuniting their families? I haven't even known all that many Cuban-Americans personally, and yet I've met two who told me that their families disowned them because they wanted to go to Cuba and see things for themselves before deciding whether to just accept everything they'd been told in the exile community about the country and the Castro government. Anyway, I don't mean to suggest that what one knows from one's acquaintances is the absolute best kind of thing to bring into a discussion like this. There are some very good studies of all this, if one cares to look. The point is, of course it's ideological and not just about some earnest desire to bring families together above all else. Does a practical, non-ideologically blinded person say to a sister or teenage daughter, "I never want to talk to you again. You're dead to me because you don't hate Castro like I do"?

About people being "separated from their family," it's revealing that you write this passively. Who do you think separated all the families following the Revolution? Che? A lot of them separated just because certain members insisted on leaving even though their relatives were intent on staying. You're blaming one person for one set of outcomes (i.e. just the bad things that occurred after the Revolution) when a much bigger historical context needs to figure in.

What bothers me about this and many conversations like it not the blaming of Che* but the willingness of the most influential opponents of the Revolution to make all Cubans (and allies of various kinds) pay a price. Anyone quick to denounce the crimes of someone who died decades ago but who will not countenance the sickness and suffering caused by policies that exist today in our country, which we can do something about, is not worth listening to on these issues.

*An assessment of his actions would matter in a real historical discussion but it doesn't matter much in an ethical/political one, which is primarily what this has turned into, because it's too late for us to do anything about what Che did or didn't do. The discussion concerned with historical memory, on the other hand, would have to involve some actual evidence, scholarship, or even the Soderbergh films.

I'm sorry to add to this off-topic discussion. It would have been much better if Grand Illusion had waited to launch the polemic until the release date so that we could at least try to keep bringing the discussion back to the films.

[Grand Illusion]

The wealth was redestributed, not stolen.

1. I am referring to those that chose to leave the country. Like any good authoritarian regime, the Fidel government took everything from those that fled. Even the poor ones.

2. Redistribution is a political euphemism. I'm using "stolen" as defined by Merriam-Webster's English language dictionary.

And, presumably, your friends could have stayed if they were willing to accept a humbler lifestyle.

Yes, like behind bars for their political beliefs, or perhaps dead.

The point is, of course it's ideological and not just about some earnest desire to bring families together above all else.

What's disingenuous about saying it's all ideological is it reduces everything to an ideological difference. Your belongings aren't being stolen, just redistributed. You're in prison because of ideological differences. Che purged homosexuals because... um... ideology? It's not a one size fits all.

I've never met a Cuban-American that was disowned, but I have met a couple that have grandparents that didn't want to uproot. Those that feared prison or death fled. Sure, you could say that people who've lived in their home country for generations could've just left. Or you could be more intellectually honest and say that these so-called "passive" separations happened as a direct result of the Revolution's authoritarian rule.

It would have been much better if Grand Illusion had waited to launch the polemic until the release date so that we could at least try to keep bringing the discussion back to the films.

I was initially responding to an interview posted and the act of omission committed by the film, which we know about from the time periods portrayed. But you're right; this is better left for the release of the film.

[Mr Sausage]

Taking a complex or intelligent view of a situation is not predicated on using weak terms, or having weak opinions, or coming to no definite conclusions about things one way or the other.

I don't see where we disagree. I'm arguing against the mentality that sees "authoritarian murderer" (or any similarly strong label) without a well-rounded analysis and stops there before such an analysis has occurred. It has nothing to do with weak terms, weak opinions, or ambiguous conclusions.

Well I think we both would argue against any mentality that stops short of well-rounded analysis. But anyway, I perceive that people (not you specifically) often conclude that that is exactly what's occurred--a judgement lacking well-rounded analysis--whenever someone characterizes something else using very strong words, when there is no reason to suppose that is the case.

[Gregory]

The point is, of course it's ideological and not just about some earnest desire to bring families together above all else.

What's disingenuous about saying it´s all ideological is it reduces everything to an ideological difference. Your belongings aren't being stolen, just redistributed. You're in prison because of ideological differences. Che purged homosexuals because... um... ideology? It's not a one size fits all.

You´ll notice I did not say that everything about the exiles´ views are ideological. I was responding to your claim that they´re not ideological, that it´s just about wanting to "see their families again." Apart from the words you´re trying to put in my mouth, I maintain that it is mostly ideological. The regime´s earlier repression of gays was very ideological. It had to do with a cultural ideology about who represented the ideal male revolutionary Cuban. But that´s not really relevant to the points I was making, which you´ve mostly ignored.
It´s also funny how you seem to think your word choices, "murder," "stolen," etc., are value-neutral whereas common political terms like economic redistribution, expropriation, and the like are ideologically motivated euphemisms. I certainly don´t think talking about murder and stealing should be barred from political discussions, but it´s interesting the way you´re dismissing other terminology out of hand. I´m curious, have you given a fair reading to viewpoints on Cuba aside from those published in the Miami Herald and things like that?

I've never met a Cuban-American that was disowned, but I have met a couple that have grandparents that didn't want to uproot.

Well, I have. It´s a personal, family matter that most people in situations like this might be hesitant to discuss. People confided in me and others about this kind of thing in the past because in each situation they were in the company of people who are either critics of U.S. policy toward Cuba and allies of the Cuban people, or supporters of Fidel (I´m in the first category, not that this is at all relevant). Most people who have views on Cuba that differ from the mainstream media and the political establishment probably don´t just go around talking about this stuff, especially if they feel vulnerable about it.

Sure, you could say that people who've lived in their home country for generations could've just left. Or you could be more intellectually honest and say that these so-called "passive" separations happened as a direct result of the Revolution's authoritarian rule.

I also never said that people "could´ve just left," which sounds like minimizing the difficulty of choosing between leaving their home behind or saying goodbye to people in their family who were intent on leaving. I was talking about the people who did leave, pointing out that they made a decision, even though it might have felt to them that they had no choice. The reality was different from what you seemed to be suggesting earlier, which is that the regime expelled all the exiles by force.

I was initially responding to an interview posted and the act of omission committed by the film, which we know about from the time periods portrayed.

Yeah, and when I tried to engage you about your reaction to the interview and your claims about what Soderbergh was trying to say, you just said, "well that´s just in this quote. In the film, however, blah blah blah." It looks to me like you´re jumping all over the place giving opinions about dozens of things related to Soderbergh, the supposed omissions of the film, and Cuban history, and being extremely evasive when anyone poses counterarguments to you, so I give up here. I might return when I´ve seen The Argentine, but that´ll be a totally different discussion, I hope.

[adlh]

I wonder if you realize that you haven't pointed out any intellectual dishonesty. That "every American President since Eisenhower" 'killed' more people than Che Guevarra does not, in fact, prevent Che from being either authoritarian or a murderer (I'm not claiming these are true, personally). What you've said is the equivalent of saying "it's intellectually dishonest to call the Zodiac killer a serial killer because he killed far, far less people than Jeffrey Dahmer." The epithets "authoritarian" and "murderer" are true by virtue of their appropriateness to the actions of the person alone, not from judging them on a rising scale of atrocity. That you are not the worst does not mean you are at all good.

I don't think you "got it"

No, this is still wrong.

You are simplying an entire man's political life to "he killed some people". This is dishonest. How about the fact that he helped free Cubaoc? The good things that have happened since the Revolution? Where in the phrase "authoritarian murderer" are those things contained? That's an omission as powerful as ommitting the shitty phases from the movie.

[Mr Sausage]

You are simplying an entire man's political life to "he killed some people".

I did nothing of the sort. In fact, I haven't said a single thing about Che Guevarra personally, politically, or otherwise. Care to account for your accusations? Would you also care to account for your shoddy translation of "authoritarian murderer" into "he killed some people"?

This is dishonest.

Unless of course he did kill some people.

How about the fact that he helped free Cubaoc? The good things that have happened since the Revolution?

The only thing I know about Che Guevarra is that people like to wear his shirts.

Where in the phrase "authoritarian murderer" are those things contained? That's an omission as powerful as ommitting the shitty phases from the movie.

A phrase doesn't have to contain much, so long as it contains something important.

I don't think you "got it"

No, this is still wrong.

Whatever.

[Zumpano]

When does the movie come out?

What should be required reading before I see it?

Should someone have to be informed on the subject in order to enjoy the film?

[cinemartin]

Looks like IFC just picked this up. Good news.

[domino harvey]

Looks like IFC just picked this up. Good news.

Great, so we'll get to wait six months longer for it to work its way through Blockbuster!

[Tom Hagen]

Not a problem if you're like me and you have a friend who works at a Blockbuster. I haven't personally rented a thing from Blockbuster in over three years, but I do manage to get my hands on most of their exclusive DVDs, free of charge and often a week early. \:D/

By the way, IFC and Blockbuster should do a promotional tie-in with the Onion for this product.

[Antoine Doinel]

Looks like IFC just picked this up. Good news.

Great, so we'll get to wait six months longer for it to work its way through Blockbuster!

....let's just hope they keep the right aspect ratio.

[flyonthewall2983]

Cool, this means there's a good chance we can watch it On Demand for those of us who don't have art houses :/

[mfunk9786]

It's actually been picked up by Magnolia.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

It's actually been picked up by Magnolia.

That source is wrong and out-of-date.

Here's the scoop from Variety today.

[mfunk9786]

D'oh. Sorry about that.

[aox]

So, the film has been recut and it now 4 1/2 hours long. played at Toronto.

I personally can't wait to see it.

AICN gave it a rave review, but as we should all know, take that with a bucket of salt.

[Cronenfly]

(***SPOILERS AHEAD***) I saw the two-parts-back-to-back version of Che at TIFF this morning, and I can say pretty confidently that you should indeed avoid the film, Grand Illusion; it's a celebration of Che from start to finish, with minimal references to any negative facets of the man (the sole exception that I could see being the Cuban soldier who hunts down Che and co. in Bolivia revealing that he had a relative executed under Che's orders [no further context is given, though, so even this is debatable]).

Che is shown numerous times to release any soldiers wishing to leave his ranks (more so in Cuba, but also in Bolivia, even when things get rough there); a Batista police officer, on the other hand, executes on the spot one of his own who wishes to surrender. Che takes crops from a farmer in Bolivia but leaves money behind; Bolivian army members steal chickens from that same farmer without any reparations, and pressure him into informing on Che and his band should they come by again.

These are just two examples of the (relatively) glowing light with which Che is portrayed in the films; I think that the whole thing might have been more interesting (to me at least, as someone who knew relatively little of Che going in) had it portayed Che a little (or a lot) less positively, but I can also see that Soderbergh clearly did not intend the project as such. The films are an epic (in form, size, scope, etc, and in a more traditional way than I had expected) exploration of what has made Che the legendary figure he is, with the more negative/notorious bits left out, for better or worse, right or wrong.

I was rarely bored during the four hours plus, but I must say that in my opinion (though I'm sure there will be others who will disagree once they've seen the films), the second half was repititious of the first, the latter film being a dark mirror version of the one that came before, as outlined in the AICN review (and without the New York cutaways of the first installment, which do help break things up quite nicely). Some may think the dual narratives are absolutely essential in complementing/completing one another, but to me that just isn't enough to justify a whole second feature, and was probably my biggest problem with the project.

[Grand Illusion]

(***SPOILERS AHEAD***) I saw the two-parts-back-to-back version of Che at TIFF this morning, and I can say pretty confidently that you should indeed avoid the film, Grand Illusion; it's a celebration of Che from start to finish, with minimal references to any negative facets of the man (the sole exception that I could see being the Cuban soldier who hunts down Che and co. in Bolivia revealing that he had a relative executed under Che's orders [no further context is given, though, so even this is debatable]).

Thanks for the heads up. Pretty much what I was expecting.

By the way, love the username.

[GaryC]

Che is playing the London Film Festival next month. both parts together on 25 October, separately on the 27th and 29th. According to the programme booklet, Optimum is the British distributor.

[Gregory]

What should be required reading before I see it?

Since no one answered this, I'll recommend the Jon Lee Anderson biography of Che. It is authoritative even though it's not by a professional historian and is worth reading despite its length. When this appeared in 1997 the literature on Che was really spotty, and this book added a huge amount to our understanding of the man. He gained exclusive access to a lot of archival sources and traveled the globe interviewing Che's surviving allies and enemies.
He presents a fairly good understanding of Che's ideas even though he does not always agree with them, and he looks at the Revolution in the last few decades with a critical eye.
I'm also recommending it because it's an easy book to find and also a pretty inexpensive one.

[Nothing]

So has anyone seen both the Cannes cut and the new cut? Which is better? Were these 'New York interludes' in the Cannes version?

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Here's a favorable review from the Toronto Film Festival screening.

Premiere interviews Benicio Del Toro.

[rohmerin]

Number 1 in boxoffice here.

Tele 5 (the crappy tv channle that produces this) publicity machine always works.