In the first part of the movie, we see the man who is Che in both his wartime persona and as the post-revolutionary idol. The beginning scene of the movie where Che is being interviewed by what seems like an American journalist, her question in regards to American policy towards Latin America and its ramifications to the image of the Cuban revolution. Che’s response of just taking a drag of his cigar and just stares at the camera. This nonchalant attitude towards the what other think of his revolution and his ideas is at times what makes him the image that he is. The movie continues to show us the parallels of the man who Che was during the war, a tough man who much like other fighters he digs himself into the trenches fighting for what he believes. But we also see the intellectual mind which gains him respect from his revolutionary comrades. Although gains his respect from his comrades from both his guerrilla bravery and his intelligence, the guerrilla persona is somewhat lost once the revolution is over and Che becomes a spokesman. Most notably at the point where Che is seen at an American party where he is socializing with Senators and other socialites and such. Once he steps into that world we no longer see the guerrilla fighter but a man transformed by a revolution who now relies on his intelligence rather than his guerrilla prowess. Even though he no longer a true guerrilla he is still fighting a much larger war versus western ideals trying to hinder Cuba’s progress. The climax of this war can be seen as Che steps up in front of the United Nations and calls out different Latin American nations as siding with the United states instead of a fellow Latin country, this war between them and the United States is evident when the United States representative isn’t even there.

This dual reality of what Che was and Che became becomes evident as the movie progresses. Even though he moves away from his guerrilla ways the guerrilla doesn’t die. Although Che no longer fights in the trenches for the moment he continues to fight in the political sphere. Che’s new fight no longer relies on his wartime abilities but you can sense that although he is an intellectual to some he still harbors a guerrilla fighter behind his calm demeanor.

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.

This week’s assigned work was the film Che, by Steven Soderbergh. The film itself is based off Reminiscences of the Cuban Revolutionary War written by Che Guevara and details his exploits during the Cuban Revolution. What I enjoy most about the movie is that it gives the viewer an inside look into the stories of the revolution told through Che’s eyes. We see a more human face to Guevara as opposed to the more tactical view that is portrayed of him in Guerilla Warfare.

One of the key elements of the film that I enjoyed was the juxtaposition of Che in the United States with flashbacks to the war and Che’s time as commander of a column. I enjoyed this mostly because it shows the evolution of Che as a soldier to who we now consider as the embodiment of the revolution. We also see how Che progresses with his confidence. For example, during the start of the film we learn that after regrouping with soldiers of Jorge Soltus group, it was Che who was supposed to lead the men to Fidel. Che however fails to take leadership and is then scolded by Fidel for lack of assuming command. Che’s complacent attitude then is completely changed as shown through the conversation with the U.S. senator where he basically insults the senator by giving thanks to the Bay of Pigs invasion as a means to solidify the Cuban revolution. This transition from follower to leader I think is something that is essential to note and what the film tries to highlight.

The film emulates Che’s ideals and methods of leadership. Che is portrayed as a fiercely loyal soldier who values discipline and order above all. Yet despite his hardline stances the movie shows a softer side of Che that is not so often seen when discussing the figure. We see how Che cares for his soldiers as well as the peasants that he is fighting for. I particularly enjoyed the section of the film where Che unites all the forces rebelling against the Batista. I feel this part of the movie also helps show the charismatic nature that Che emulates. He was able to unite multiple factions who previously aligned against each other through his superior tactics in pushing back the Cuban army.

One of my favorite parts of the film comes when Che addresses the United Nations and gives a fiery speech regarding the right for Cuba to exist as well as bear arms. Che explains that executions have occurred, and will continue to occur, as it is the right of Cuba as a sovereign state. It is through this speech that Che defends the Cuban revolution by proving with absolute certainty that the Cuban people have the right to rebel against dictatorship. Che evens finishes his inspiring speech with a phrase that can still be heard echoed throughout Latin America: Patria O Muerte! (Homeland or Death!).

This was a long movie. I watched a lot of fighting for this class. That is not my favourite thing to do and I didn’t feel this movie needed to have so much of it, but that’s just me. What was really accentuated for me while watching this was the idea of Che as a symbol that he could not, after a point, control himself. I feel like this was done in a few ways. Black and white scenes were interspersed in the colourful combat narrative. In them, Che was sitting waiting to be interviewed, being interviewed, and attending what looks like a gala of some kind. During the scenes Che talks with a women, who is probably one of many American journalists to interview him. These conversations eventually bleed, as voice-overs, into the combat scenes. We see Che and his comrades risking their lives as we listen to a conversation in which he discusses the Cuban revolution. From this juxtaposition it becomes obvious that nothing fatal will happen to him. (Obviously, we also already knew this if we knew nearly anything about Che before watching the movie,) but it also effectively blends images of Che’s day-to-day life in combat with his voice (and his ideology) that eventually make him an international symbol for revolution. We get to see how this happens. He becomes part of the public imaginary whether he wants to or not. (We see him acting rude while at an event with American politicians, which suggests he doesn’t care for his new reputation, but who knows.)

I think this is encapsulated in the scene where Che talks with one of the soldiers. (Sorry, can’t remember his name.) The soldier says something like: “after the revolution I’ll put you in a cage and tour the country and I’ll get rich.” They both laugh and in this way it’s a joke but it also isn’t. Like we saw in class, eventually Che’s image, (not necessarily his ideologies) is commodified.

We are effectively shown what types of mechanisms can go into the creation and maintenance of a symbol but I was never exactly sure why, or what exactly I was supposed to glean from this. In other words: the director shows us these phenomenon but I am not sure what he (or his film) tell us apart from the fact that they are happening. Perhaps that is all he wanted to make clear, and I appreciate that but I wanted more. I wanted more information generally, but it occurs to me that perhaps it would have been difficult to provide the kind of information I was looking for from such a removed point of view.

I would very much have liked to know what Che thought of his own symbolism (he is asked something along these lines at the end of the film but says very little on the subject.) What he thought of being in New York, at the UN, etc. Perhaps he was a very private person and that is why those things were omitted.

While watching this movie, I noticed a lot of similarities between the movie and the novel we read Guerrilla Warfare. What I particularly liked however, was this narrative shift within the movie from the perspective of Che to the perspective of Fidel while in New York during a UN conference. What this narrative shift accomplishes is it looks at the Cuban Revolution in two, but related, fields. Through the voice of Che we see what the Revolution was like through a local lens, that of the soldiers, recruiting, training, traveling, and fighting. However, the perspective of Fidel in New York offers, or better yet, reminds us of the political implications of the Cuban Revolution. That was something that was not really mentioned in the novel Guerrilla Warfare. The political aspect of the Revolution, I think, is also very important as it addresses other important problems Cuba as a country faced at the time, such as the trade embargo, and the presence of US imperialism. These issues play an important role in the Cuban Revolution as they perpetuated the current problems associated with the Batista regime: mainly hunger, poverty, and agrarian reform.

Now I would like to go deeper and talk about some parts of the movie that I found quite interesting. For example at around the 23:00 minute Che says that he doesn’t plan to retire being a revolutionary, that one can never stop being a revolutionary.  This is quite captivating as I thought that revolutionaries fight a war to bring change, and once the war is over and a new order in in place, the revolution stops. But by affirming that one can never stop being a revolutionary it defies our modern understanding of what a revolution is. Is a revolution simply a war to bring change? This interpretation now seems to be inaccurate since Che believes once a revolutionary, always a revolutionary, there is this sense that a revolution goes on. But what is this “revolution” then? Just before the 23:00 minute Che underlines the importance of the “spirit of the men” in making a revolution successful. And this spirit he claims, is the will to fight and defend one’s values which can never go away. So maybe to Che, a revolution is not about war, or as much about bringing change, but more importantly about the “spirit of the men”; this sense of honor and patriotism, and fighting to protect one’s country and its ideals. Then around the 48:00 minute Che also states that the most fundamental part of a revolutionary is love. And he operationalizes love as love for justice and humanity. Without this quality, a revolutionary cannot exist. In general, I like these quotes about Che because he challenges our notion of revolutions. But I also believe that interpreting revolutions the way Che does, acts as a sort of binding agent. By binding agent I mean he seems to connect people together, creating this sense of fraternity and solidarity. He uses people’s emotions, struggles, to put everyone, no matter social conditions, as equal people undergoing the same problems, and for that reason, this is a collective fight. This collective fight means therefore, that the soldiers are not fighting for themselves, but rather for everyone.

Although there is much more to say I would like to address one more part of the movie I quite liked. Around the 57:00 minute Che finds himself more possible recruits. In front of him is a group, with two young brothers 14, and 16 years of age, 1 women, and the rest men. He says, that a joining a war is not just about shooting and winning but that a nation that cannot read or write is easy to deceive. Here Che brings up another very important topic: education. What is interesting is how only the young boys and the lady knew how to read and write. Many people have already said this, but I repeat, education is a powerful tool. With education one can have the possibility to challenge ideas but also to form new ones. Ideas are also powerful as they can bring change. So by having an education, one can bring change.

This movie has a lot of important themes. But more than anything, it is trying, or better yet, Che is trying to help us look at what a revolution truly is; one about ideals. So in this regard, this movies can also be seen as quite different from the novel Guerrilla Warfare as in that book, there is more of an emphasis on actual tactics, and a guide on how to create a revolution. Maybe this week we can talk more about similarities and differences between the two (movie and novel) to help us better understand more about this term “revolution”, which is ultimately what this course is about.

This week we watched Che – part 1. In my opinion, it brought to life some of what the book Guerrilla Warfare outlined. It showed the growth of the revolution, from dinner table talk to small groups marching for days, to taking Santa Clara. Some of their base camps were more developed than I would have imagined them. The movie also showed women among the ranks, and had somewhat of a female supporting character.

Taking a look at Che’s character, he is depicted as a charismatic speaker, who never has outbursts of rage – he is always collected. He delivers punishment to those who do not follow the revolutionary code. This can be seen when someone forgets to assure relief to the night watch, and when some men harass a peasant family. In general the movie helps to create the view of Che as a symbol of revolution. He fights alongside his men, even when he injures his arm. This movie also showed me that Che had bad asthma. Yet he did not complain, marched on, as if it were just a small inconvenience. Amusingly, he still chose to smoke cigars.

Again, in agreement with the book, Che gives the peasants respect. He only allows people to join if they can read or write, and sets up a school to teach the guerrillas, since “a country that can not read or write can easily be deceived.” He even made his men take back a car that they had taken from Santa Clara.

Che held fast to most of the rules, and at first wouldn’t let those join who were too young. This of course was challenged by two boys who were very stubborn and are eventually let in due to their spirit. Some parts of guerrilla warfare I didn’t catch in the movie, one of them being sabotage. No communications seemed to be cut,  although there was some dialogue about blowing up a bridge.

It still blows my mind that Cuba has been fighting for the five points Che mentions in his U.N. for so long, and not much has changed. If any of the points were happening to the U.S. I’m certain that there would be swift military action taken by the States. I’ll link the speech below for anyone interested. One part that absolutely disgusts me is the behaviour of the U.S. around the Cuban boundary line. Che states that there was “commission[s] of acts of sexual exhibitionism by U.S. personnel of both sexes, and verbal insults. It includes others that are more serious, such as shooting off small caliber weapons, aiming weapons at our territory, and offenses against our national flag.” Again, were this to happen to the States, it wouldn’t last long. But Che claims that “only a perfectly disciplined army with a morale such as ours could resist so many hostile acts without losing its self-control.”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1964/12/11.htm

In my opinion the movie very much glorifies Che and helps his status as a revolutionary with a mystic aura. You see Che fighting heroically alongside his guerilla soldiers, shooting bazookas with skilled accuracy, condemning the actions of soldiers who killed and raped innocent people, standing in front of the U.N and challenging imperialism, the list could go on. I felt almost as if Che was superhuman after watching this film, Che is really portrayed as a man who always does what’s right, never diverting from the true revolutionary quality, which is love. In the movie, Che never really acts in bursts of fury or anger; he is always really composed, adding to his overall mystic quality.

I thought that the movie was quite epic, with great shots of the Cuban countryside and filled with action packed scenes as well. I also enjoyed watching the tactical side of the battle, and aspects of guerilla warfare being employed that we had just read about. The movie also reinforced my idea of how strong one has to be in order to be part of a guerilla group. We see the group hiking for hours in hot conditions, carrying their homes on their back, going straight into battle, and also carrying wounded soldiers in hammocks. We also see the fighter’s ideals of saving ammunition and weapons they find being reinforced in the movie. Overall, I liked that the movie Che was straight to the point, as in it went directly to the fighting in the countryside of Cuba, instead of telling the whole upbringing of Che. After having seen part one I will definitely watch part two, to see an opinion and enlighten myself a little on how that campaign in Bolivia was so disastrous.

Something that left me thinking was the part when Che says that the biggest revolutionary quality is to have love of humanity. In my opinion if you have love of humanity you don’t kill. I understand that Che saw armed warfare as a means to an end, to reach his goal of toppling Batista and making Cuba for the people. But I think that if one has love for humanity one would believe in non-violence/passive resistance, and not take up arms and kill fellow human beings. Obviously, there’s the whole” there is no such thing as a peaceful revolution, and that history is written with bullets and not a pen”. But I think that to say that you have love of humanity and choose to kill is contradictory and hypocritical. One last thing I’ll write is that I was surprised to not hear Che say “Hasta la victoria siempre!” since this is one of the quotes I most associate with Che.

Reflections and Lesson Plan

This is the lesson plan we used for class on Thursday 11^th of February:

Introduction song:

El Vals del Obrero by Ska-p

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65qjU0gEXX4

Section 1: Pretext For Armed Struggle

When is violence justified?

Concerning nonviolence, it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks.”— Malcolm X

What conditions existed in Latin America that allowed for guerilla warfare to be viable (or popular)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdo6FwAPyng (Che’s speech on imperialism)

Che says that minimum requirements must be met before a country can successfully engage in armed struggle, what are these?

You don’t have a peaceful revolution. You don’t have a turn-the-cheek revolution. There’s no such thing as a nonviolent revolution.

Section 2: Revolutionaries and Armed Struggle

What are important qualities should a revolutionary have? Can a revolutionary truly be “ideal”?

What differences are there between a revolutionary and a normal conscripted soldier?

Who does armed struggle serve?

Are indigenous peoples central to revolutionary struggles?

How can a small band of guerilla fighters take on a much larger army?

• Psychological warfare
• Guerillas becoming feared (come from nowhere, fight with the enemy and then disappears again).

Section 3: Guerilla Warfare in a Modern World

What is the value of this text in today’s world? Is guerilla warfare still practical?

Why did some guerilla groups fail? Did they fail? FARC, Shining Path

How relevant is armed struggle in today’s world?

Does armed struggle lead to “change” or does it just replace one political faction with another?

Guerrilla leaders win wars by being paranoid and ruthless. Once they take power, they are expected to abandon those qualities and embrace opposite ones: tolerance, compromise and humility. Almost none manages to do so- Stephen Kinzer

Reflections on leading class, Guerilla Warfare

Dacyn Holinda :

This past week Thomas and I presented Che Guevara’s Guerilla Warfareto the class. Overall I feel that everything went well and it was interesting to see how some of our questions were able to stimulate some really good topic. There was however some comments that indicated our questions were quite long and at times hard to follow. I think going forward I will have to remember this, as I can definitely see how some of our question might be strenuous and hard to answer. I also felt that it was interesting because I kept thinking that our questions were too broad and I was worried that since we didn’t reference the text a whole lot that the class might stray off topic. I suppose though, with a text like Guerilla Warfare it is easier to talk about the books context and general ideas as opposed to specific quotations from the text. It was enjoyable to see everyone participating as well, because usually I feel like I talk a lot, so I liked being able to sit back (a little, I still talked a lot) and hear solely from other students and their opinions. Overall I feel that we did a good job and I am happy with the outcome of the class.

Thomas:

I think the class went well. People discussed the questions on the computer with relative ease most of the time, not too many “passes” throughout. I enjoyed being at the front and proposing questions and hearing people’s ideas. I think the quotes that we chose helped the class discussion as a starting point for the questions. I would have wanted to hear people’s ideas on the value of the text today a little more, that was the one question I think I was most looking forward to hearing. I also would have liked to hear more on the parallel state, if revolutions just replicate the state they have overthrown after they are successful. If we had more time, I think a great discussion would have centered on indigenous groups and armed struggle and what the future holds. After the experience, I prefer splitting the group into small discussions rather than proposing a question and then going around the class asking for opinions. I know it is voluntary, and you can “pass”, but the round circle form can sometimes feel a little forced upon people. You have little time to come up with what to say, and feel like you have to say something just for the sake of it. When we split into groups and then keep the discussion open for anyone rather than going in an order, I felt we got a more diverse discussion of ideas. The going around the circle felt like we hear one opinion and then that’s that and we go over onto the next. It is something I felt after leading the class, and hadn’t really thought about it when I was the audience, so to say. Overall, I think the whole deal was satisfactory.

Reflections and Lesson Plan

This is the lesson plan we used for class on Thursday 11^th of February:

Introduction song:

El Vals del Obrero by Ska-p

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65qjU0gEXX4

Section 1: Pretext For Armed Struggle

When is violence justified?

Concerning nonviolence, it is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks.”— Malcolm X

What conditions existed in Latin America that allowed for guerilla warfare to be viable (or popular)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdo6FwAPyng (Che’s speech on imperialism)

Che says that minimum requirements must be met before a country can successfully engage in armed struggle, what are these?

You don’t have a peaceful revolution. You don’t have a turn-the-cheek revolution. There’s no such thing as a nonviolent revolution.

Section 2: Revolutionaries and Armed Struggle

What are important qualities should a revolutionary have? Can a revolutionary truly be “ideal”?

What differences are there between a revolutionary and a normal conscripted soldier?

Who does armed struggle serve?

Are indigenous peoples central to revolutionary struggles?

How can a small band of guerilla fighters take on a much larger army?

• Psychological warfare
• Guerillas becoming feared (come from nowhere, fight with the enemy and then disappears again).

Section 3: Guerilla Warfare in a Modern World

What is the value of this text in today’s world? Is guerilla warfare still practical?

Why did some guerilla groups fail? Did they fail? FARC, Shining Path

How relevant is armed struggle in today’s world?

Does armed struggle lead to “change” or does it just replace one political faction with another?

Guerrilla leaders win wars by being paranoid and ruthless. Once they take power, they are expected to abandon those qualities and embrace opposite ones: tolerance, compromise and humility. Almost none manages to do so- Stephen Kinzer

Reflections on leading class, Guerilla Warfare

Dacyn Holinda :

This past week Thomas and I presented Che Guevara’s Guerilla Warfare to the class. Overall I feel that everything went well and it was interesting to see how some of our questions were able to stimulate some really good topic. There was however some comments that indicated our questions were quite long and at times hard to follow. I think going forward I will have to remember this, as I can definitely see how some of our question might be strenuous and hard to answer. I also felt that it was interesting because I kept thinking that our questions were too broad and I was worried that since we didn’t reference the text a whole lot that the class might stray off topic. I suppose though, with a text like Guerilla Warfare it is easier to talk about the books context and general ideas as opposed to specific quotations from the text. It was enjoyable to see everyone participating as well, because usually I feel like I talk a lot, so I liked being able to sit back (a little, I still talked a lot) and hear solely from other students and their opinions. Overall I feel that we did a good job and I am happy with the outcome of the class.

Thomas:

I think the class went well. People discussed the questions on the computer with relative ease most of the time, not too many “passes” throughout. I enjoyed being at the front and proposing questions and hearing people’s ideas. I think the quotes that we chose helped the class discussion as a starting point for the questions. I would have wanted to hear people’s ideas on the value of the text today a little more, that was the one question I think I was most looking forward to hearing. I also would have liked to hear more on the parallel state, if revolutions just replicate the state they have overthrown after they are successful. If we had more time, I think a great discussion would have centered on indigenous groups and armed struggle and what the future holds. After the experience, I prefer splitting the group into small discussions rather than proposing a question and then going around the class asking for opinions. I know it is voluntary, and you can “pass”, but the round circle form can sometimes feel a little forced upon people. You have little time to come up with what to say, and feel like you have to say something just for the sake of it. When we split into groups and then keep the discussion open for anyone rather than going in an order, I felt we got a more diverse discussion of ideas. The going around the circle felt like we hear one opinion and then that’s that and we go over onto the next. It is something I felt after leading the class, and hadn’t really thought about it when I was the audience, so to say. Overall, I think the whole ordeal was satisfactory.