496 Che

[Fletch F. Fletch]

An excellent interview with Soderbergh in the latest ish of Film Comment.

[Grand Illusion]

There are anti-Che people who would not be satisfied no matter how much barbarity we depicted. Do I think all the people who were executed were guilty? No. Do I think that they were all innocent? No. 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. 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.

Awesome justification. Just awesome.

"The US did bad stuff too, so I can omit all the murder Che committed in my movie about Che."

Thanks for posting that interview. You just saved me 4 hours. I'd honestly be surprised if Soderbergh ever met a Cuban.

[domino harvey]

It actually is an awesome justification though, so your sarcasm is diffused.

[Grand Illusion]

It actually is an awesome justification though, so your sarcasm is diffused.

Um... no. It'd be as relevant as omitting anti-Semitism and murder from Downfall because the Russians didn't always fight fair either.

Two wrongs don't cancel each other out. Explain how the bombing of Hiroshima nullifies any murders Che committed. Or at the very least, how the World War II practice of firebombing means Soderbergh is exempt from showing negative aspects of Che Guevara years later. Seriously, please do.

[domino harvey]

A film isn't indebted to show all sides of a story

[Grand Illusion]

A film isn't indebted to show all sides of a story

It doesn't have to do anything. But that's not what I asked. You said Soderbergh's reasoning was an excellent justification. I'm asking why you think it's a fair reason to leave out that "side" of the story.

Again, the film doesn't have to do anything, but if it's going to omit the huge part of this celebrity's life where he killed all those people and made countless others flee their homes for their lives, then it's certainly open to criticism.

While a flawed film, I'd recommend Lost City, that is if your ideology isn't so fragile as to take a look at the Revolution through the eyes of an actual Cuban, Andy Garcia.

Soderbergh's excuse is neocon revisionism with a different ideology. Why show Che's crimes when the US did worse? That's strangely like, "Why show US military crimes in Iraq when Saddam did worse?"

If this was a right-wing murderer, of which there are plenty, this would be criticized as nothing more than a fascist worship piece. Soderbergh's excuse for omitting a huge part of the failures of both Che's personality and authoritarian ideology is bereft of intellectual honesty.

[Orphic Lycidas]

First of all, Andy Garcia is an idiot. According to his world-view the world would be a much better place is we all kidnapped children and voted Republican.

Second of all, I don't think Soderbergh is justifying anything. By comparing it to other crimes committed during times of crisis he seems to be criticizing the trials and executions or at least questioning them. Thirdly, I am not a fan of Che Guevara by any means. Aside from his trigger-happy purgings, his philosophy of guerrila foco-ism was a dead-end. That doesn't mean I've prejudged the film in any way (though if it ends up being a simply romanticization then obviously I won't be a big fan). I'll watch the flick and then make up my mind.

[Jeff]

It looks like Mark Cuban's Magnolia Pictures is the likely U.S. distributor.

[Gregory]

The way I read it, Soderbergh's point is not that two wrongs make a right. He's simply trying to get us to see them in a broader moral and historical perspective. I think looking at a few examples can show that the standards of justice that many people try to apply across the board are nowhere near as universal as we might wish to suppose. In picking examples that relate to the U.S. rather than other countries that might serve equally well to illustrate his point, Soderbergh might be pointedly suggesting that there is a nationalist double standard underlying the views of "anti-Che people" from the U.S. who have criticized the film -- but that's reading between the lines just a little bit.
As for the discussing what was omitted, I too will withhold judgment until I've seen the films.

[Grand Illusion]

First of all, Andy Garcia is an idiot. According to his world-view the world would be a much better place is we all kidnapped children and voted Republican.

I admit ignorance as to Andy Garcia's larger political stance on anything. All I know is that Lost City showed the lavish corruption of the Batista regime, and it also showed the brutality and totalitarianism of Fidel's and Che's revolution.

I also know that, unlike Soderbergh or Benecio del Toro, for that matter, Garcia is a Cuban. One whose family fled their country, of which Garcia clearly loves if you see the film, because of the Revolution.

The way I read it, Soderbergh's point is not that two wrongs make a right. He's simply trying to get us to see them in a broader moral and historical perspective.

First, I want to say that I think it's very fair and reasonable that you're going to wait to see the film before deciding.

On this point, my problem is that, yes, in this quote, Soderbergh is trying to get us to see something, but that's just in this quote. In the film, however, it's pretty clear just from the time periods being shown -- we know when the films end and begin, respectively -- that Soderbergh is precisely trying to make us not see.

By not seeing at all, we are blind to anything in a moral or historical perspective. And that is exactly the crime of omission.

It's one thing for Motorcycle Diaries to show the genesis of a character. It's a fascinating device. Che as the intellectual. Hitler as the artist. Bush as the frat boy. We can then go on and judge their later actions as well.

But in this film, which is intended to be viewed as one, there are two parts and the HUGE ELLIPSIS in the middle of them is when all the non-heroic totalitarianism and wanton murdering goes on. I see no artistic excuse for this redaction, only an ideological one.

[Gregory]

Thanks for posting that interview. You just saved me 4 hours

First, I want to say that I think it's very fair and reasonable that you're going to wait to see the film before deciding.

Hmmm, thanks.

On this point, my problem is that, yes, in this quote, Soderbergh is trying to get us to see something, but that's just in this quote.

But your response to the quote was what we were discussing. You have views on what we can conclude about what was artistically excusable prior to having seen the film; I do not. So there's nothing more I can really add. However, I was going to ask what motive there could be for such a calculated act of deception on Soderbergh's part. I'm just curious because I've seen most of his films and it seems to me he's pretty far from being a political firebrand. Even with Erin Brockovich, he didn't write the screenplay, and I don't know of any reason to think he put his own political stamp on it. And I think he's probably equal to the task of doing a complex, non-whitewashed portrayal, so I doubt it would be artistic laziness.
edit: typo

[domino harvey]

It seems like Grand Illusion has some sort of ties, familial or otherwise, to the victims of the regime portrayed in the film, and as such I'm not really comfortable arguing against someone coming to a filmed portrayal from such a sensitive place. I rarely judge films ideologically and given Soderbergh's track record, I have no reason to worry about the final product. Beyond that, I'm not entering into a debate over a film none of us have seen, and I'm not getting roped into an argument over the director's choice of words either.

[Grand Illusion]

Having grown up in Miami, several of my closest friends were/are indeed Cubans/Cuban-Americans, whose families were separated (in the best cases) because of the Revolution. Even my most left-wing Cuban friends have such an automatic gut reaction to just seeing a Che t-shirt that they get emotional. I was raised Jewish with a family originated from Eastern Europe, and a friend of mine told me to imagine Goebbels becoming a pop icon, and that was all it took for me to instantly understand what he was going through.

I just see a huge amount of evidence piling up that this is another idolatry piece for the man. Soderbergh's (what I view as) justification, the obvious time periods shown, and even Benecio del Toro's false statement that Che only fought soldiers. I'm not giving you a bio, just saying so you know where I'm coming from. I won't really argue anymore. Sorry if I came off as trolling or something. I didn't mean that.

[accatone]

Che = Goebbels?

#-o

[adlh]

Having grown up in Miami, several of my closest friends were/are indeed Cubans/Cuban-Americans, whose families were separated (in the best cases) because of the Revolution. Even my most left-wing Cuban friends have such an automatic gut reaction to just seeing a Che t-shirt that they get emotional. I was raised Jewish with a family originated from Eastern Europe, and a friend of mine told me to imagine Goebbels becoming a pop icon, and that was all it took for me to instantly understand what he was going through.

First of all, you're being tremendously naive if you think the average Cuban expatriate in any way represents the average Cuban. Situations always have to take into account the human element, and it is understandable that people who suffered under the revolutionary government see it very negatively, but in no way does that suddenly turn a reasonable assessment of reality into "Che is Goebbels". That's complete ahistorical stupidity, and just because someone is Cuban doesn't mean they are right/wrong about a specific event in any meaningful way. Let's ask an Israeli what they think about Palestinians now, I'm sure it'll be the most objective view possible.

From what I understand of these two films, the reason there is some tremendously offensive gap (to you) is because the films are both about guerilla warfare and about two revolutionary conflicts, one being the triumphant one and the other one being the failed one. What's the problem there? Is the director not allowed to present a totally positive view of Che's fight against the Cuban government? Why not? I don't understand what's so ideologically bankrupt or intellectual dishonest about it, about that specific fight. Che did a bunch of things in his life. Some good, some bad. You don't have to add "but he did some bad things too" whenever you want to discuss his good acts, much like you don't have to add "but at least he did such and such" when discussing his bad acts.

Is "The Battle of Algiers" a bad movie because it doesn't deal with how shitty Algerian governments ended up being? Please. There is no crime of omission here because the things that aren't shown in the movie don't actually invalidate the revolutionary struggle.

[Grand Illusion]

First of all, you're being tremendously naive if you think the average cuban expatriate in any way represents the average Cuban. Situations always have to take into account the human element, and it is understandable that people who suffered under the revolutionary government see it very negatively, but in no way does that suddenly turn a reasonable assessment of reality into "Che is Goebbels". That's complete ahistorical stupidity, and just because someone is Cuban doesn't mean they are right/wrong about a specific event in any meaningful way. Let's ask an Israeli what they think about Palestinians now, I'm sure it'll be the most objective view possible.

Well, we could get reports from the broken families staying there, from the political dissidents in Cuba that sit in prisons, and from their incredibly free press, but those reports are hard to come by. Just because someone is Cuban doesn't inherently make them right or wrong. But someone that is Cuban and also has experienced the policies and wrongdoings of a government has a valuable point of view.

I'm not saying that Che is the same as Goebbels. But that is exactly how many Cubans feel who had to flee the country and leave their families (and everything they own) behind.

Is the director not allowed to present a totally positive view of Che's fight against the Cuban government?

Emphasis mine.

I said before that he's allowed to do anything. But a film that presents a totally positive view of ANYTHING is being intellectually dishonest. Now if you want to make a totally positive view about birthday cake without regarding its caloric disadvantages, that's pretty tame. But to make a totally positive view about a Revolution that caused suffering and imprisonment to people, especially people still alive, is going to be wide open to valid criticism.

People on this board cry "fascist" and "imperialist" from anything to 300 to Indiana Jones, and here's a film about an authoritarian murderer, by all historical accounts, and we're falling back on the soft excuse that the filmmaker is "allowed" to do anything? Sure, he's allowed. But it's intellectually dishonest.

[Orphic Lycidas]

People on this board cry "fascist" and "imperialist" from anything to 300 to Indiana Jones, and here's a film about an authoritarian murderer, by all historical accounts, and we're falling back on the soft excuse that the filmmaker is "allowed" to do anything? Sure, he's allowed. But it's intellectually dishonest.

Not to mention artistically lazy. There are few filmmakers out there capable of bringing to life the complexity and contradictions of the Cuban Revolution, though, or of a figure like Che. That said, I'm still willing to give Soderbergh a chance.

[Antoine Doinel]

There are few filmmakers out there capable of bringing to life the complexity and contradictions of the Cuban Revolution, though, or of a figure like Che. That said, I'm still willing to give Soderbergh a chance.

...and even fewer filmmakers who would dedicate a four-hour film to the subject.....

[Polybius]

But to make a totally positive view about a Revolution that caused suffering and imprisonment to people, especially people still alive, is going to be wide open to valid criticism.

How are you so sure he doesn't at least allude to the things you mention? You seem to be assuming that because he doesn't spend a great deal of screentime depicting a particular time frame that anything that happened in that period won't factor in to the overall picture. That's certainly possible, but I think you're assuming that too easily beforehand.

Is your problem with the revolution or with the regime it gave birth to? If it's the former, the revolution itself, then I think adlh's point about The Battle of Algeirs is very valid. Similarly, are Schnabel and Bardem (and Arenas, for that matter) complicit when the depict the early days as a time of joy and liberation? Sure, they show the aftermath, but there is no blinking graphic warning us that it's all about to turn rough while we see those trucks and all the banners.

I'm not unsympathetic to your main thrust, but the Goebbels thing was a major pisser for me, too.

[Nothing]

"The US did bad stuff too, so I can omit all the murder Che committed in my movie about Che.".

Er... that's not what he's saying at all.

a friend of mine told me to imagine Goebbels becoming a pop icon, and that was all it took for me to instantly understand what he was going through

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

just because someone is Cuban doesn't mean they are right/wrong about a specific event in any meaningful way.

Indeed. Class struggle transcends national borders.

[adlh]

Well, we could get reports from the broken families staying there, from the political dissidents in Cuba that sit in prisons, and from their incredibly free press, but those reports are hard to come by. Just because someone is Cuban doesn't inherently make them right or wrong. But someone that is Cuban and also has experienced the policies and wrongdoings of a government has a valuable point of view. I'm not saying that Che is the same as Goebbels. But that is exactly how many Cubans feel who had to flee the country and leave their families (and everything they own) behind.

The problem with this is Latin American history and social dynamics are much more complicated than this. There is no big, all-encompassing group of people that are Cubans that were assaulted or something of the sort. There's different groups of people, most of them in conflict with each other. Cubans outside of Cuba, living in Miami, are one of these groups (especially ones that left early, newer dissidents and people who escaped not so much). These are not for the most part happy innocent people that just had to flee a regime. They lobby and support an embargo that causes misery and despair to Cubans living on the island. They supported and pay tribute to Bay of Pigs invaders who wanted to roll back to the old days. They are a powerful force among U.S. Latinos, since many of them had money.

The same issues plague the history of any other Latin American country. Augusto Pinochet got a bunch of supporters protesting for his release, and chanting for him at his funeral. Every asshole dictator has a considerable part of the population truly believing that "National Security" (ie murdering scores of peasants and raping their children) had to be preserved. If Cuba goes back to a capitalist system or opens up, there's no doubt many people will eagerly return to "reclaim what's theirs". My point, I guess, is that the way these third world countries work is such that for a group to be happy, another group must suffer. Not "might" suffer, must.

Essentially in most countries other than Cuba, what has happened after all of these dictators like Batista lose power is that they get off with impunity, do not dismantle their organizations (a power-hungry and ultra right-wing military operating outside of government's control, instead of in service of the government), and the landowners prevent any meaningful reform, not to mention foreign policy. In other words, complete failure to achieve anything, and "national reconciliation". The poor go back to suffering obscenely, and nothing changes.

That didn't happen in Cuba. It's made the people that had to flee Cuba angry. Surely, many of them are innocent. This is unfortunate, and the government should certainly act in a much more conciliatory manner. But it is hard, and it was hard at the time. The mood of "revolutionary justice" was too big. It is also hard to be conciliatory when your opponent keeps proposing embargoes, keeps lobbying for your assassination, and tries to invade your country with the aid of the U.S. government and a ragtag group of rebels.

This isn't just Che and Fidel randomly killing everyone much to society's horror. Ordinary Cubans assaulted embassies where people connected to the old regime were hiding and killed people / set the embassies on fire. For better or worse, the mood at the time was of removal of the elements of society that had done the oppression, either explicitly or they'd tacitly condoned it. I can't approve of this behavior in every specific instance, but I can't blame them for feeling that way, just as I can't blame someone for feeling angry at the regime if they lost family members in it. If I had lost someone there, I probably wouldn't be very happy about the whole ordeal. This was never a situation where all parties could be happy. For one party to be happy, the country had to be oppressed under extreme poverty and abuse. For another party to be happy, a sizable amount of people had to be forcibly removed and their possessions seized. I'm going to have to side with the islanders.

Is the director not allowed to present a totally positive view

I said before that he's allowed to do anything. But a film that presents a totally positive view of ANYTHING is being intellectually dishonest. Now if you want to make a totally positive view about birthday cake without regarding its caloric disadvantages, that's pretty tame. But to make a totally positive view about a Revolution that caused suffering and imprisonment to people, especially people still alive, is going to be wide open to valid criticism.

Everything I've read about the film tells me this isn't as valid criticism as you think it is. The film seems to be focused mostly on warfare. It's about a man at his peak (the Cuban Revolution) and at his lowest point (falling in Bolivia). I don't see the dishonesty about that. You think it's dishonest because you can't stand someone not thinking Che is a murderer or something, not because it's more "objective".

People on this board cry "fascist" and "imperialist" from anything to 300 to Indiana Jones, and here's a film about an authoritarian murderer, by all historical accounts, and we're falling back on the soft excuse that the filmmaker is "allowed" to do anything? Sure, he's allowed. But it's intellectually dishonest.

"Che Guevara is an authoritarian murderer", which is what you've been presenting here, is intellectually dishonest. It might be honest if you're still living in the Cold War, but we moved on years ago. I'm sorry, but every single American President since Eisenhower has been responsible for infinitely more deaths, infinitely more human rights abuses, infinitely more funding for right-wing death squads who rape peasants and set them on fire, infinitely more wars without justification, than Che. Yet for the most part, who is going to refer to them as "imperialist war criminals"? Mostly no one. And it's not because "America did it so that excuses me", it's because it's excessive, cartoonish, and does nothing other than fan flames unnecessarily.

[Mr Sausage]

"Che Guevara is an authoritarian murderer", which is what you've been presenting here, is intellectually dishonest. It might be honest if you're still living in the Cold War, but we moved on years ago. I'm sorry, but every single American President since Eisenhower has been responsible for infinitely more deaths, infinitely more human rights abuses, infinitely more funding for right-wing death squads who rape peasants and set them on fire, infinitely more wars withd out justification, than Che. Yet for the most part, who is going to refer to them as "imperialist war criminals"? Mostly no one. And it's not because "America did it so that excuses me", it's because it's excessive, cartoonish, and does nothing other than fan flames unnecessarily.

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.

[Kirkinson]

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.

I don't think that's the argument he was making. What I got out of adlh's last paragraph is that it's unhelpful to label Che an "authoritarian murderer" and simply have that be the totality of one's view. The point of the comparison to American presidents was to show another case where political leaders have been responsible for even more mass deaths and people don't use a single label to form their entire conception of them. The post was about forming perspectives based on the complexity of these situations rather than sticking with one-sided simplistic emotional appeals.

[Mr Sausage]

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.

I don't think that's the argument he was making. What I got out of adlh's last paragraph is that it's unhelpful to label Che an "authoritarian murderer" and simply have that be the totality of one's view. The point of the comparison to American presidents was to show another case where political leaders have been responsible for even more mass deaths and people don't use a single label to form their entire conception of them. The post was about forming perspectives based on the complexity of these situations rather than sticking with one-sided simplistic emotional appeals.

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.

[Kirkinson]

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.