Chicagoist: Che Chat: Point/Counterpoint

Ward Up

Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:19:10 -0600

highfidelity: No harm, no foul. I guess I was getting a bit defensive!

highfidelity

Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:55:48 -0600

Ward Up: I was really just joking with you as sometimes when people say ,"my cousin, my friend, etc." they are really refering to themselves. I mostly just found it odd that teenagers two years ago were still into the "Che" thing. I tend to think of it as more of a 90's thing initiated by RATM. Thats me being ignorant though. That said, you are giving quite a bit of detail about this cousin of yours, albeit unnecessarily, so I believe you.

Ward Up

Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:55:40 -0600

highfidelity: That fifteen year old (currently a seventeen year old) lives in Prairie Grove, which is just north of Crystal Lake. He is an average teenager and a senior at Prairie Ridge High School. He earns his spending money by working at a fast food restaurant on Route 14 in Crystal Lake. He plans to attend NIU this fall.

jerico

Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:21:08 -0600

I saw Sunday's 1:30 show. Under no circumstances did I find the movie to be too long. In fact, I found it quite easy to sit for 2 hours, catch a 30 minute break, and watch the final 2 hours. Also, the second movie is not boring. And it's not a second movie, it's merely the second half of one movie. The second half needs to be seen to give the first half a counter balance. Also, the second half is a linear story about being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's the story of Che in hiding and being hunted. It's excellent. And yeah, 2/3s of the movie is in spanish. Believe it or not, but most of the Americas speak spanish. I mean, step outside... most of the city is speaking spanish. Having to read subtitles is not a chore. Read a book every once in a while. Stop reading the Red Eye, it's written for stupid people. Part of the experience of this movie is being in the jungle. Hiding. Fighting. Living as a revolutionary. To cut it down and shorten the screen time would weaken the picture. Almost everyone reading this site has no problem sitting through a 3.5 hour football or baseball game. Set down the beer and open your brain for a few hours.

highfidelity

Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:20:34 -0600

As for the length of the film(or two films), I can understand someone who hasn't seen the film saying to themself, "oh man, 4 hours is just too long." But really you're only saying that because its longer than a normal movie. There are numerous 90 minute movies I've seen that were more laborious that this. While quite an undertaking, Che actually moves pretty quickly, and even as lengthy movies go, I would say this was fairly painless. That may just be because I enjoyed the subject, others may think this would be torture. In actuallity, I could easily see, at least the first part, being lengthened to 3 hours to more effectively tell the story. Ward Up.. that fifteen year-old cousin was actually you wasn't it?

Rob Christopher

Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:07:53 -0600

Well like I said above, I don't think seeing it on DVD is the way to see it. And I think, had it been shorter, it would've bordered on being pointless. You need that total immersion in the sequence of events, and you can only get that in a long movie. It's going to be less coherent if you break it up into chunks.

Ingrid

Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:57:54 -0600

I'll probably wait til it comes out on DVD. There is no way I can sit in a theatre for 4 hours. That seems to be the biggest criticism...the movie could have been made shorter.

Rob Christopher

Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:37:08 -0600

The movie doesn't shirk from mentioning the executions that occurred in Cuba. Che talks about it very pointedly in his speech to the UN, although it only shows two guerrillas being shot for desertion. And Che's capture/execution is depicted with plenty of detail. This is no whitewash job. I think what has disturbed a lot of people about the movie is its ambiguity; it doesn't make a point of flat-out condemning the man, it just presents a range of details and lets the viewer decide. I'd say that makes it a whole lot smarter and more powerful.

Ingrid

Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:24:34 -0600

I don't plan on seeing this movie, but I was wondering if the movie actually got into this real truth about Che Guevara. The parts that those who wear those oh so hip and cool iconic t-shirts don't realize. The only hint of that I got from the interview above was that he was a 'fallible person'. I'd say that was an understatement.

Ward Up

Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:11:53 -0600

My fifteen year-old cousin had on the classic red t-shirts with Che's picture. My cousin also had a Che poster on his bedroom wall. At some point, my cousin learned about Che's disastrous social policies in Cuba. He also learned about Che's vicious suppression of dissent, Che's murder of those who did not agree with Communism, and Che's part in wrecking the Cuban economy. My cousin then stopped wearing the Che t-shirt and he took down the Che poster. My cousin is now 17 years old. By the way, my cousin considers himself a Democrat and he supported Obama. My cousin just did not think he should continue to idolize a communist thug who hurt his own people.

highfidelity

Mon, 19 Jan 2009 17:30:20 -0600

(I apologize for the novel here, but I've been needing an outlet to discuss this movie!) I was also at the 1:30 showing on Saturday. Interesting to know you guys were there because, I found myself the whole time I was in that theater wondering who else was there and what their motivations were for coming. I mean, as you point out, it's not a movie for everyone. I was kind of wondering if there was anyone there who maybe didn't know what they were getting themselves into. That aside, now a few days removed, I can honestly say that I thought this movie was incredibly good. It goes without saying that Benicio was absolutely stellar. It actually was quite eerie at times to watch him with how closely he resembled the actual man himself. Overall my feelings of the film as a whole are pretty positive, but there were times that I felt like it was pushing through some of the history and characters rather quickly. While the first part was the more "entertaining" of the two, I think there was a clear struggle between making the movie about Che or making it about the Cuban Revolution. In the end I think Soderbergh treads that line well and doesn't fail to keep either part of the story absent for too long. What I mean is, the focus of the story is obviously Che, but just like the scenery, the Revolution becomes a sort of character in itself. I do feel like there was a bit too much skimming over some historical facts and parts of Che's life during this era. I'm probably a bit more critical of this in the first part simply because I'm more familiar with it though. The second half of the movie is where the real and raw view of who Che was and what he stood for comes to light, and in my opinion this is where the movie shines as a storytelling device. Im in total agreement that this is the decidedly more "boring" or "slow" half of the movie, but the movie really isn't complete without it. Despite my own feelings that I would probably only watch the first part again, if at all, I would never recomend it being severed like that for a first time viewer. You really must emerse yourself to get the full effect. I'm certainly glad I got to see this "roadshow" version of the film. All in all I was very pleased, and as I remarked to my girlfriend afterwards, "I'm glad we saw it, now I never have to see it again."