For a better experience on MUBI, update your browser.

NYFF08: "Che" (Soderbergh, USA)

Benicio Del Toro might have been just right for the lead in Terence Malick’s long-gestating Che Guevara project. It’s all in the eyes: Del Toro, like all of Malick’s protagonists, doesn’t see what is right in front of him, the material present, and instead has the look of one always seeing the unobtainable, something deep within himself and beyond the present moment. But Steven Soderbergh—who ended up getting to Che first via his two-part film written by Peter Buchman and Benjamin A. van der Veen—is more after the actor’s physical presence and his posture, rarely mining the faraway depth of the eyes. Benicio Del Toro’s removed, bodily performance as Che goes hand in hand with Soderbergh’s approach in general: a distance from the subject—both Che as a person and “Che” as an idea, or a phenomena. Che takes the form of pseudo-journalism, the illusion of neutral detachment and accurate reporting.
This pseudo-journalism is not the same as objectivity. In fact, apropos of Paul Newman’s recent death, the main point of reference for the first half of Che, titled The Argentine and shot digitally in very wide screen and on location, is Otto Preminger’s mega-production, Exodus (1960). The two films share a great deal in common superficially, from their road-show like expanses (Soderbergh’s film being a four hour, twenty minute two-part total), to their underscoring of unique on-location realism (Preminger in Israel, Soderbergh in a variety of Latin countries, as well as Spain), to Alberto Iglesias’s wonderful pastiche of late 50s, early 60s movie soundtracks, and finally to the films’ revolutionary subjects. But more than anything else, Soderbergh tries to emulate Preminger in approach.
Preminger strove to present his characters and their situations seemingly without taking sides—the force of this attempt at telling a story with an even stance is always apparent, often alarmingly so. Soderbergh, in The Argentine, affects a distance which barely presents anything from any side, and the result is utterly lazy. It is a disposable, inconsequential attitude towards the film’s subject, where whole stretches of the film could be shorn with minimal impact, the process of Che’s involvement in the Cuban revolution rendered as colorless and indistinguishable, the connection between scenes, between words, and between actions not only unclear, but more critically, unmemorable. The only matter of any importance to The Argentine is Che’s participation—though not necessarily his role—in the Cuban revolution. He certainly was there all right, though what he did precisely and how he did it the film seems to take pains to keep imprecise and at arms’ length.
If The Argentine recalls Preminger and Exodus, the second part of Che, called Guerilla and detailing the man’s failed attempt to move the revolution to Bolivia, recalls Merrill’s Marauders (1962), though certainly not Samuel Fuller’s brute forcefulness as a filmmaker. A more accomplished film, though to a degree less interesting because less baffling than the indeterminate angle of attack that The Argentine takes, the second half of Soderbergh’s film grasps more firmly the physical sense of guerilla life. As in the Fuller film, Soderbergh’s revolutionary soldiers become bogged down and beset by the jungle they live and work in, and the filmmaker genuinely gives the story a sense of what it’s like to sit around, dirty and weary, so close to the center of a cause that indeed the sense of what one is fighting for or against is almost immediately lost.
This physical grounding lends Guerilla a sensibility, and a more cohesive sense of unity on a scene by scene basis, something that the first half of Che profoundly lacks. There is also, crucially, a firmer and more cinematically defined inside and outside to what Che is doing (though the man himself, aside from how he looks when artfully reposed, is a mystery). The threats to the revolution as a whole and the men fighting it in particular are far clearer, even if mostly kept off-screen—and are all the more powerful for being so. The Argentine, by contrast, is all men posing before moving onward, anonymously. This constant motion and abbreviated hints at revolutionary rhetoric give the filmmaking the illusion of functionality, simply laying out for us the schema, with generous discretion and limited coloring. But the reality is that the film is too discrete, too respectful, too mindful, and refuses to commit to any angle or necessity, any energy, emotion or idea. Guerilla gains some ground back, if only by showing soldiers shucking corn, getting disheartened by a lack of response from the Bolivians outside the jungle, and seeing their faith lost in the physical deterioration of the asthmatic Che. But it is mostly too little too late. Che squandered the spirit of its subject at the onset, and for over four hours the film suffers most horribly from lacking the vitality and the intelligence of something so basic and so necessary both for the subject itself, but really for film as a medium.
I went and saw the four hour “roadshow” version last night at the Zeigfeld in New York City. It was shocking to see what the mostly sold out crowd laughed at. I notice this in theaters alot, but during CHE is was unbelievable. They laughed heartily when men were shot and killed. The only reason I can think of is that because of Soderbergh’s distance to the subject matter, the men that Che and Castro’s guerllas were shooting were not humanized in any way. They were silly, slapstick enemies for the great revolutionary, physical embodiment of a classic t-shirt design to dispose of. I liked the movie and found his approach effective in many ways, and the film does touch on the success of Castro owing in part to the feeling of abandonment from their leaders that the enemy soldiers possessed. But I think the constant laughing of the audience really stands for the lack of emotion and commitment toward the subject of the revolution.
Hi Willi: that’s interesting what you note about audience reaction. I saw it at a press screening during a film festival, which itself can have a deriding audience, but is markedly different from a public screening. I don’t think I’ve really heard of an audience laughing at death in a serious war movie. I wonder what it is about Soderbergh’s distance that prompted this? I like your your theatre about a lack of emotion and commitment—in other words, sympathetic investment—towards revolution as a subject and revolutionary behavior as an activity. How often, after all, is that portrayed in American entertainment/media? I’m glad you got to see the roadshow version though, one of my favorite elements, which I didn’t comment upon in the review, are the two overtures that start each part, with the maps and the music. I find it both somewhat silly and somewhat profound.
It was absurd really. I was reluctant to comment on it just because I was worried about being pretentious or placing myself above the audience, but many of them were laughing at such inappropriate moments that I had to make a guess and tie it to the movie’s biggest criticism, that it is unemotional and doesn’t commit to telling the story from any angle. I liked the overtures as well. They were a beautiful and interesting way to cater to the fact that plenty of people seeing this movie (including myself) aren’t familiar with the geography involved.
I have heard that the roadshow version wont be seen anywhere else, meaning that me, living in Ottawa, will not see this version. I do not want to watch the split up version, I want to see the full one. Maybe one day we will get a combined dvd release. and about bad audience reactions, I had the same situation in There Will Be Blood. People laughing, really awkwardly at the worst times.
I drove up to L.A. to see the Roadshow edition and I have to say it was worth it. I found the film captivating in ways I’m just now realizing days later. For instance, the scene at the end of “Guerilla” when the Bolivian guard asks another soldier to watch Che because he’s afraid he’ll let him go. A really layered and fascinating slice of historiography.
I can’t wait to see this looks amazing
Look forward to seeing this film.
I thought the overture on the first one was an overkill but later it made sense because it exactly set the mood of things to come that the films are not going to be a historical accounts of his life, but depictions into the in roads of revolution which usually happens slowly and calmly with bursts of action spikes

Please to add a new comment.

Previous Features