Initially, I was surprised that the first part of Steven Soderbergh’s Che showed so little of Guevara`s life before the Cuban Revolution, with only a couple of brief scenes showing him meeting the Castro brothers and looking pensive on the deck of the Granma. However, the point of the film is clearly to depict Che the revolutionary, rather than to show how he got to that point in the first place, so it`s actually quite a smart move on Soderbergh’s part. His film certainly compares well to Kazan`s Viva Zapata!, at least in terms of its portrayal of its central revolutionary protagonist.
Aside from Benicio del Toro’s excellent performance and the choice to shoot almost all of the film in Spanish – something Viva Zapata could really have benefitted from – I was impressed by how Che stayed relatively nuanced in its depiction of Guevara. We get to see Che as the romantic figure of the revolutionary, fraternising with the local peasants and willing to give his life in combat to defend the revolution. On the other hand, we are also shown a darker side to him, as he defends the executions of members of Batista`s old military in front of the United Nations; and comes across as a strict, sexist and homophobic disciplinarian with the troops in his guerrilla column. The scenes in New York also bring attention to how polarising Che was – and still is – as a public figure, supporting the questionable idea that “One man’s terrorist in another man’s freedom fighter”. However one feels about Che, it is difficult to deny that Soderbergh’s film aims for neutrality on the subject. Che also doesn’t shy away from portraying guerrilla warfare as brutal, physically exhausting, and for the most part fairly tedious. The film follows Che’s Guerrilla Warfare quite closely in emphasising the importance of preparation, although this in turn does mean the film feels quite sluggish during a lot of the sequences in Cuba.
Another aspect of the film that really struck me was the stark visual and stylistic contrast between the scenes set during the Cuban Revolution and those where Che is in New York in 1964. The way the latter were shot really conveyed the idea that Che was completely outside of his element, finding himself in what he must have perceived as the capital of capitalism and Western imperialism, and speaking in front of career politicians at the United Nations. In fact, he seems much more comfortable fighting Batista’s forces and living with the rest of his army in the Cuban Sierra Maestra. All of this was probably intended to show why Che abandoned international diplomacy as a means of spreading revolution throughout the Third World, and instead returned to fighting guerrillas. It also reinforces the idea that Che, even when appearing on American national television, was a revolutionary first and foremost.
Would just like to say I like how you are able to make connections with this movie Che, with others like Viva Zapata and Guerrilla Warfare.
Two things I would like to say. The first is in regard to your description of Che as this polarizing character. Another student also made a similar comment, where he found it contradictory that Che, a man who is fighting the revolution to defend people’s lives, is at the same time promoting violence as a means to achieve that goal. Furthermore, he also shows no pity on those that betray him. I think this could be something we could bring up in class, this double-side of Che
The second point I would like to mention is about Che and him being at the UN. I also found it very interesting, (and good of the movie), to show this, as it shows us a different side of Che, other than the typical revolutionary soldier. It shows that the Cuban Revolution was not just about soldiers, and fighting. Rather, it is also politically based. However, I would like to add to what you said about him leaving international diplomacy. I think he left because he realized he was not going to get support from Western countries with liberalist ideals. They saw him and Cuba as a communist country, and hence, a threat. But at the same time, Che also saw them as a threat to his country as they were imperialistic. So these negotiations would never have worked out. I would also like to talk about the politics behind the revolution in class. But great blog!
I agree with you that Viva Zapata would have definitely benefitted from being in Spanish. I must have missed something in the movie, what scenes depict his homophobia?
At one point – I think it’s in the scene where Che is inviting his men to leave his column if they wish to – he calls one of the soldiers a “maricón”. It’s more of a detail than anything else, but it does depict Che’s machismo quite bluntly.
In my opinion, I feel that the scenes of Che in New York show a man who isn’t concerned with fraternizing with the country which has brought so much strife to him and the people he has fought for. The movie depicts Che as being unconcerned with the opinions of U.S. senators and ambassadors in an attempt to show his unfaltering despise for american imperalism. I see Che in those scenes as doing whatever he can to not conform to western standards in an attempt to “silently rebel” if you will. I think its not that he is out of his element, as much as Che is refusing to submit to the customs and ideals of a society that contradicts everything he stands for.