Review: ‘Che’

Travis:

‘Che’ is the newest film from the indie-minded director Steven Soderbergh and is quite the undertaking. Sure, it was likely a rough movie to make, but I’m actually referring to the viewing of the movie. The movie is technically two films, told as two parts. Sort of like Tarantino’s ‘Kill Bill’ that had two volumes. Although, ‘Che’ isn’t that cool. Of course, being the movie geek I am, I watched both parts back to back for a combined running time of 263 minutes. Ouch!

‘Che: Part 1’ (131 minutes) is actually an excellent film. Part 1 begins in Che’s life right around the time when he meets Fidel Castro, as he’s considering a plot of lead a revolution of Cuba. Che decides to join Castro and the entire Part 1 is about the revolution led by Castro and Che. While none of the performances truly stand out as extraordinary Oscar-worthy achievements, Benicio del Toro does do an excellent job portraying the complex character and ideology of Che. He manages to remove himself from the character enough that we aren’t completely saturated with viewing mentality of “hey, I’m watching Benecio play Che.” Demian Bichir plays Fidel Castro, a decent performance, but the most amazing part is how perfectly they nailed the look, which does wonders to help his performance and the film.

The story is developed in a semi-linear format, splicing grainy black-and-white interviews and clips of Che speaking before the U.N. amidst the historical telling of how the revolution took place. Stylistically, ‘Che’ is distinctly but subtly the work of Soderbergh. The cinematography also has a similar understated but magnificent beauty and charm to it, turning some otherwise unpleasant barren landscapes and impoverished peasant villages into amazing National Geographic-like portraits of a land and a people with endless amounts of texture and depth. Not surprising, as Soderbergh is an accomplished cinematographer.

‘Che: Part 2’ (132 minutes) is, unfortunately, not a deserving continuation of the story. Part 2 delves into the later life of Che as he has left his political position of power in Cuba and seemingly disappeared. Early in the film, we see Castro reading a letter from Che publicly on Cuban TV which explains Che’s disappearance. Che has decided his usefulness in Cuba has waned and feels he needs to move on and promote his ideology to other peoples in need, leading him to Bolivia after having worked with other revolutions in Africa and South America. In Bolivia, he attempts to recruit fighters from the peasant villages and stage a revolution. Che never fully receives the support he hopes for from the mining workers who opt for general strikes instead. Che and his followers struggle throughout the entire film, never truly making any progress and eventually meet their fate at the hands of counter-insurgency mercenaries backed by the CIA. Part 2 is painfully slow and dull, repetitive in it’s attempt to portray this portion of Che’s life as his untimely downfall. The stylistic elements that added so much to Part 1 are absent and the film at times feels a bit like an episode of reality TV, with the characters quarrelling and bickering over everything.

Both parts of ‘Che’ have their own distinct feel to them, but I hope that the film is released in theaters as two parts, rather than as one continuous film of epic length. While I’m not entirely opposed to such long films, the need is always present the the length is justified. In the case of ‘Che’ it is not. The simplest way for me to express this is to say that Part 2 is such an immense let down and truly wastes so much time to essentially tell us that Che pushed his luck too far, that Soderbergh could have added a couple of liver paragraphs at the end of Part 1 before the credits, giving the audience a wrap-up of Che’s life after the revolution. As a result of seeing both parts back-to-back, Part 2 actually pulls away from the impact and power of Part 1. This same effect can be seen with Clint Eastwood’s WWII epic in two parts, whereas ‘Flags of Our Fathers’ was a slow-paced and politically pushy flop, but ‘Letters from Iwo Jima’ was a brilliantly told story with some incredible cinematography. The two films were not equal and actually resulted in a lesser experience when viewed together. This is exactly what occurs when viewing both parts of ‘Che’ together.

[Overall: Part 1 triumphs getting 4 stars out of 5, but Part 2 gets executed with 2.5 stars out of 5]

Jeremy:

Steven Soderbergh’s four-hour, 18-minute opus about Ernesto “Che† Guevara is not like any biopic put to film. In fact, it’s not really a biopic at all. Che, played by the ever-compelling Benicio Del Toro, is the focal point of the film, but his life outside the two main revolutions that form his legacy is not really covered. Instead, the four-plus hours, split into two films, ‘The Argentine’ and ‘Guerilla’, each running just over two hours, shows each of these revolutions, first Cuba and then Bolivia, in great detail.

Based on Guevara’s memoirs, ‘Che’ became a passion project for Soderbergh and Del Toro. Years were spent researching the subject and getting every detail down perfectly. The films show this level of detail in abundance. Soderbergh has this sense of including a profusion of detail within his films with ease. In ‘The Argentine’, he transports you into the humidity-soaked hills of Cuba. Everything about it, from the lush greenery to ambient sounds, adds to the feeling of being there.

But this level of detail is not what makes ‘The Argentine’ such an astounding film. Castro’s revolution, the 26th of July Movement, and Che’s involvement in it all plays out without much plodding. There is never a moment in this first film where you feel the weight of the running time bearing down. This is due to the structure of the film. The revolution itself is broken up by flash-forwards to Che’s address to the United Nations in 1964. Whenever you get the sense that the film is beginning to trudge along, Soderbergh whisks you away into grainy black and white images allowing you a moment to breath.

The war scenes found in the latter half of ‘The Argentine’ are breathtaking. The attack on Santa Clara, which makes up the climax of ‘The Argentine’, is a stunningly shot battle sequence that includes possibly the single best shot of the year. It’s a tracking shot following a group of soldiers as they weave their way through building, and it culminates with the derailing of a train in the background. It is amazing to think about the level of preparedness the crew had to be in in order to achieve it.

There is so much more to ‘The Argentine’ than beautifully shot battle sequences. Throughout the film, we get a feel for who Che really was. He was a revolutionary, a genius when it came to military tactics, and a man who truly cared for his common man. ‘The Argentine’ is an incredible film, a magnificent depiction of Che and the Cuban revolution.

Unfortunately, ‘The Argentine’ is followed immediately by ‘Guerilla’. With ‘The Argentine’, the running time never feels superfluous or unjustified. At just over two hours, it feels quite rapidly paced, in fact. However, ‘Guerilla’ is another story entirely. This depiction of Che’s attempted revolution in Bolivia is everything ‘The Argentine’ is not when it comes to a film of this epic length.

For two hours, we follow Che slogging his way through the mountains of South America. Very little else happens in ‘Guerilla’. It is a tedious two hours of film that is only present because of the obsessive nature of the filmmaker involved. There are no cutaways to other points in Che’s life that break up the monotony. It is a direct, straightforward telling of the Bolivian revolution. This type of undeviating filmmaking is generally appreciated, and it, along with the detail, is something Soderbergh is known for. Regrettably, ‘Guerilla’ does not tell the kind of story that creates its own interest.

As I was sitting through ‘Guerilla’, I couldn’t help but think that it would have worked best to have the events that take place in that film simply told to us in an ending narration at the end of ‘The Argentine’. The events that Che went through in South America have been somewhat lost to history, and they might be events that more people should know about. However, a different structure and, honestly, more passion would have benefited ‘Guerilla’ greatly. And, in the end, that may be ‘Che’s biggest flaw. It is a passion project. We have been told that it is a passion project, but the film simply does not feel like it was made with much feeling put behind it. Even ‘The Argentine’ amazingly put together as it is doesn’t seem to be driven by much heart. This lack of heart is made all the more evident in ‘Guerilla’, where not even the camera work seems inspired. We get a few scenes under a blue filter, but, other than that, it’s pretty standard point-and-shoot filmmaking.

Perhaps Del Toro and producer Laura Bickford, who got the project off the ground from the start, should have picked a more passionate filmmaker than Soderbergh. As thorough and as exceptional as his films are, they often feel callous and unmoving. Del Toro, on the other hand, puts his heart into this performance. He plays the hell out of Che Guevara. It is the kind of performance that will be observed and studied for years to come. In a year that included several amazingly subtle performances, Del Toro’s performance in ‘Che’ is among the best.

In the end, ‘Che’ is a middle-of-the-road film, a film that has an epic and magnificent first half and a deeply flawed second half. If you are able to let go of what became of Che Guevara after the Cuban revolution, I would recommend you only watch ‘The Argentine’. However, cinephiles who seek out the first film will most definitely want to sit through the second. It just would have been better if all the time and effort had had a better payoff.

[Overall: ‘The Agentine’ gets 4.5 stars out of 5, ‘Guerilla’ gets 2 stars out of 5]