Subscribe to RSSReview : Che
I have been thinking a lot about which movie I should write about next. Between my thinking and my huge move from Puerto Rico to Arizona, I spent a lot of time. Finally, after we started settling down in the last one week, I started watching movies again. And I think it is more than a coincidence that all the movies I ended up watching, starred this actor named Benicio Del Toro. It is almost as if his acting skills propelled me to watch his next movie. It was the combination of this fabulous actor, along with one of my favourite directors – Steven Soderbergh, that finally convinced me to watch ‘CHE’. And I needed that convincing, because I was apprehensive about watching any movie on a Marxist political/revolutionary figure.
Having studied different forms of communism from an Economics perspective, I was pretty gung ho about the power of the proletariat, class struggle and such lofty ideals. They lasted just as long as I read the text books (incidentally customized for the students by a communist govt) and other pro-communism propaganda. When I went out of my comfort zone and read about the failed communist ‘revolutions’ and the atrocities committed in the name of communism in different parts of the world, my idealism came crashing down. More so, when I realized that many of the ‘icons’ of communism actually lived in luxury, while thrusting poor living conditions on the remaining people, in the name of stateless, classless society. While Che wasn’t amongst those people, and spent his time fighting for the revolution he believed in, forsaking material comforts, I was still doubtful if I’d like to watch a film on him – a 4 hour biopic no less! Filmmakers have a tendency to romanticize such figures, making them Robinhood like folk-heroes, while often overlooking any atrocities that they might have committed.And I want to tell you – emphatically – that despite certain pitfalls, I am very glad I watched the movie. It is one of the best films I have ever seen. The movie – which I would categorize as a docu-drama – is in two parts and as the lead actor says, it is best watched within 24 hours of each other. That is exactly what I did.
The first part, ‘The Argentine’ deals with the Cuban Revolution – the overthrowing of the Cuban dictator Batista and the coming into power of Fidel Castro. This part of the film follows a non-linear form of story-telling. You see Che and Fidel meeting and planning the Cuban revolution, carrying it out and then Che making public appearances on TV and his famous UN speech, after they are successful in Cuba. Che’s transition from a young, idealistic doctor to a full blown guerilla is mesmerizing. It makes you think …. what is it that makes people like Che give up the prospect of a successful, material life and plunge themselves into something they believe in (even if it is not practical or something that you don’t personally agree with). One thing that was initially annoying me about this part of the film, was that although it was a Che biopic, you didn’t really see the man all that much. You heard him, saw his hand movements, long shots of him, but not that much close up – especially, not when he was talking. Then I realized that the director was actually intending to show us Che, more through other people’s eyes. And hence, when Che spoke, you could see his effect on people from the way they reacted to him. Once I realized and accepted that fact, viewing became a lot more interesting.
The second part, ‘Guerilla’ is a lot more linear in its presentation and easier to follow than the first part. It is also a more difficult – not in terms of cinematic experience, but emotionally – watch. In this part, we follow Che to Bolivia, after he resigns from Fidel Castro’s government in Cuba. He hopes to repeat his success in Cuba, in other Latin American countries, beginning with Bolivia. Once there however, he realizes that people are not that receptive to his idea of revolution. Also, there are power struggles and infighting within his band of revolutionaries and Che is left to deal with all of it by himself. There is no Fidel, no Raul, none of the other major architects of the Cuban revolution to help Che in this struggle. To make it worse, his health condition worsens, until he can hardly breathe and finally, he is arrested and executed by the CIA-backed Bolivian forces, after his whereabouts are revealed by some Bolivian peasants. The indignity that he suffers at the hands of the Bolivian army after his arrest and even after his death is truly heartbreaking. For an ex-diplomat, and a popular public figure to meet with that kind of indignity in death is unthinkable. But he did.
The best part about the movie is, it doesn’t try to portray Che as a sympathetic or heroic figure. You see his struggle, you understand his ideology, but you are also detached from the revolutionary aspect of the man. His humane side only comes up sporadically, when he is treating a villager or one of his comrades. Or, when he shyly requests for a little face powder for a television interview after at first declining any make-up. That scene, to me, was one of the best in the entire movie, although it had nothing to do with the revolution or Marxism. It was such a real, human moment!
In watching ‘CHE’, you learn about the man behind the myth, the complex man with multiple facets to his personality, as opposed to the glamourous pop-figure that he has been reduced to, over the years, in the form of posters on dorm (hostel) walls and t-shirts worn by people who have no clue about what Che was all about.
Benicio Del Toro won the Best Actor Award at the Cannes Film Festival in 2008, for this movie. I don’t know who else was in the running for the award, but it would have been pretty difficult to match up to Del Toro’s performance in ‘CHE’. Right from his walk, to his speech, to his asthmatic coughing – Benicio Del Toro was almost like a reincarnation of Che Guevara. A lot of his acting in this movie is through his body language and eyes, rather than dialogues. And you don’t want to miss any of his little expressions. It can be rather difficult, considering that most of the film is in Spanish and you have to spend a considerable amount of time looking at the subtitles. But there is an easy way out – the first time you watch it, read the subtitles and the next time concentrate more on what is happening on the screen. In conclusion, I would like to say, that ‘CHE’ is in no way an easy movie to watch, but it is an important one and worth every second of your time.
Follow Us
13 Comments
Okay…it has stayed in the box for too long. I'm watching it soon.
Welcome to COL, quite a good Debut to make.
Making a Biopic to me always has been a tight rope walk. Focus too much on the details, it ends up like History Channel Documentary( not that i hate them), Focus too much on the drama, it ends up a caricature. I guess the key is to maintain the right balance between them.
Which is where movies like Lawrence of Arabia, Patton, The Aviator to name a few worked for me big time. It was not just the detailing, but the dramatic scenes involved that made those movies a classic.
Che was a bit of a complex figure, idealistic to begin with, but then slowly he became as tyrannical as the leaders he ousted out. But that has been a feature of most Commie leaders. George Orwell's Animal Farm, brilliantly satirizes that.
I think i will watch this on DVD, hardly see any chance of this movie being released in Indian theaters.
"it is best watched within 24 hours of each other"….unfortunately I saw The Argentine more than a year ago and yet to see the next part (& I never came across this statement by the actor before!!!)
Coming 2 Che, I think he had certain qualities that made him a romantic and endearing figure that attracts even those who are not hardcore Communists. No other leader of his ilk including Mao & Castro can claim such popularity. I loved the first part, it was an epic in true sense. Del Toro was snubbed at the Oscars, so was the film!
Now I have to watch this… as soon as I get back home… A very nice write up Debashri.
Sameer – You have to watch it
.
Ratnakar – I agree with you. Making a biopic is indeed a unique challenge. Must be hard to decide how much drama to put in, so people can find it interesting, and yet what elements to retain, so the realism is not lost. And in that, I think Soderbergh, along with his lead actor, does a great job.
. Well this movie is one of the reasons. I have been unable to get it out of my head ever since I watched it. Shah Rukh Khan with his teary eyes, quivering lips and outstretched arms was the perfect foil to 'Che' 
. Hopefully, now, I can move on…. 
Coming to your next point, I think where Che scores over other communist leaders, is he didn't really fall into that 'power trap', even after he gained power. He went on to become a guerilla again…. even if it was a stupid thing to do… rather than lead the lavish life of a communist leader – Mao, Stalin, even Fidel himself… indulged in luxuries that they preached other people to let go of. I think that is why Che is a little different from those guys. Also, when a popular figure (with a likable face) dies early, he/she tends to become a legend, with people forgiving their deficiencies more easily – Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Madhubala, Rajiv Gandhi – all cases in point.
You were asking me why I was watching the soppy 'Chalte Chalte' yesterday
Jitaditya – I think the snubbing at the Oscars was more to do with anti-Cuba feelings, rather than the quality of the film. It was stupid to do that. The academy doesn't have any qualms about films portraying other countries badly, but when it comes to their own, they become conservative. I don't see any other reason why this gem of a film was not even in consideration for the awards. But to me, its their loss – not Soderbergh's, not Del Toro's and definitely not mine, because I watched it and will watch it again – Oscars or no Oscars
Sarang – Thanks
. Come home first 
….
Something else I wanted to share… while watching this movie, I thought, why don't we make movies like these in India? We have such great actors. It is true that even Benicio had to struggle to get where he is today. But in our industry, the truly wonderful actors don't stand a chance. It is a toss-up between joblessness and playing villains (eg. Kay Kay in Drona) or miniscule roles (eg. Deepak Dobriyal in Delhi 6) against/alongside the far-less talented star kids. Why do we do this to genuine talent?
@ Deb
I told you the problem is we get offended so easily. Our leaders are very sensitive to their Icons, so even the slightest word against them, they get so offended. It is another matter, that our leaders are rarely sensitive to issues that matter.
So make a movie on Bhagat Singh or Subash Chandra Bose, the Gandhi loving crowd gets offended.
Make a movie on Shivaji or Rana Pratap, the secular crowd gets offended.
We are of that great nation, where Prakash Jha has to be careful to ensure that Rajneeti does not contain any unflattering references to Her Highness Sonia Maino.
I think i see this trend only of late. Way back in the 50's, we had Sohrab Modi , V.Shantaram coming up with some wonderful biopics.
Manoj Kumar made Shaheed, one of the best movies ever on Bhagat Singh, and not many objected. Yet when Raj Kumar Santoshi makes Legend of Bhagat Singh, why do the Gandhi loving junta get so worked up? Why can't they accept, that he is not a God?
Anyway i believe Ashutosh Gowarikar's next movie will be on the Bong revolutionary Surya Sen, and i hope it comes out well.
Well whatever are AG's faults, he is one of the few movie makers, who treats the medium with respect. Jodha Akbar had it's own flaws, but still you can't deny the detailing in the movie. And some of the historical episodes were accurate.
Every country has one censor board, India must be the only nation having two censor boards- one official and another unofficial. The official one is a pain, but they still pass the movie.
The biggest danger is the Unofficial Censor Board- 2 Bit Jokers not fit for anything in life, seeking to protect their community/religion/caste/country( take your pick) from destruction.
And our spineless leaders grovel before them, for some votes.
So the Pope has no issues with the Da Vinci Code being screened, though he does not agree with the movie's theme.
But we have a "More Holier than the Pope" asshole seeking a ban, and our I&B minister promptly obliges to respect "Christian feelings". Thoook.
Ratnakar – You said it
. That is exactly what I was thinking. Someone or the other gets offended these days, with even any random movie. Forget biopics, even the 'Barber' community (I didn't even know that existed) got offended, just because a movie was named 'Billoo Barber'. That is just ridiculous, but sadly, not a laughing matter.
But to be fair, we've had some good biopics too – 'Sardar' was one of them and so was 'Making of the Mahatma'. But our film makers have to play safe, lest the Gandhi-Nehru Brigade, the Marathi manoos brigade, the Hindus, the Muslims, the Christians(what was that nonsense about Da Vinci Code in India! I failed to understand who was feeling 'offended'), the Sikhs, the upper and/or lower castes, the OBCs who don't fall under those castes – feel offended. And somehow, they all do. How stupid is that! We need to start accepting that even national heroes have/had their flaws.
As far as Gowarikar's film on Surya Sen, I hope he does a good job of it. Am I hopeful? Maybe not that much. I grew up listening to the legend of Master-da and I somehow can't envision Abhishek Bachchan as him. Kay Kay Menon, yes. Aditya Shrivastava, yes. Yashpal Sharma, yes. Deepak Dobriyal, yes …. but Abhishek Bachchan????? That man can't speak a decent line of Hindi! I don't want Master-da to end up as another Beera – with bulging muscles and eyes….
As regards, Jodha Akbar, I was disappointed. firstly, I couldn't bear to 'listen' to Aishwarya Rai and secondly, I think I had an issue with the basic premise of the movie. Akbar had 3000+ wives and concubines. And I am to believe in his 'Love' story?
For me, gowarikar's best work is 'Swades' so far. I absolutely loved it. And it is on the basis of 'Swades' and 'Lagaan' that I hope he will make a good movie on Surya Sen. But with a 'star' cast like Abhishek Bachchan and Deepika Padukone, my hopes kind of dim 
.
Ratnakar – I see you mirror my feelings on 'Da Vinci Code'
.
As a story Jodha Akbar was quite silly, it was more like a big screen saas bahu drama, but the detailing was good.
I liked Kamal's Hey Ram too, ok it was indulgent, and some scenes stretched on, but to me the movie was a brilliant depiction of the Partition era. And Atul Kulkarni was just brilliant in it.
Also Santoshi's The Legend of Bhagat Singh, though that romance track could have been avoided, the rest of the movie was true to the spirit. Ajay Devgan was brilliant. The other Bhagat Singh movie was highly avoidable, i mean Bobby Deol can't act period, and to put him in Bhagat Singh role was blasphemy.
Also there is this Tam movie Bharati, about the life and times of Subramaniam Bharati, watch it for Sayaji Shinde's performance in the title role, excellent. Also Illayaraja beautifully uses Bharati's original poetry for the songs.
I think the reason 'Che' worked so well for me, was that there was no attempt to please or placate any one. They just went ahead and made a movie that they believed in. Yes, they got an Oscar snub…. but do we care? Also, Benicio (he is also one of he producers) and Soderbergh had a tough time promoting the film. Journalists were rude to them, because many of them saw 'Che' as an anti-US movie. Things got so bad once that Benicio walked out of a press conference. There are morons everywhere, who will question your creativity, who have a 'holier than thou' attitude. But we need to stop placating those quarters.
. We need more like him.
That is why I totally adore Anurag Kashyap. He went ahead and made what he believed in – the rest be damned
A very nice write up.. you have convinced me to watch this movie..:)..am sharing the review…:)