By Mal Vincent
The Virginian-Pilot
© April 17, 2009
Clocking in at four hours and 17 minutes, "Che" somehow avoids any drama that might be inherent in the life of a man who still represents the heart of idealistic political revolution. A true curiosity, the two-part movie diminishes the mystery and aura of its subject rather than dramatizing them.
Stephen Soderbergh seems determined to make movies that no one sees, between his "Ocean's Eleven" titles that pay the bills. Soderbergh has made things such as "Solaris," "Full Frontal" and "The Good German," apparently to show that he can do as he pleases between hits. They were all flops, but none tops "Che" for sheer ennui.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara is most famous for his part in the Cuban revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power and ousted the corrupt Batista regime. He then walked away to spread revolution across Latin America, ending with a disastrous campaign in Bolivia. He was also a doctor, diplomat, intellectual theorist and diarist. (In fact, these two films are ostensibly inspired by his diaries.) In the 1960s, his revolutionary zeal drew the adoration of American college students who were, because of Vietnam, already in a rebellious mode. Che T-shirts were everywhere. Che posters still decorate some college dorm rooms.
Most theaters have shown "Che" in two parts on different nights. The Naro Expanded Cinema booking, which continues for a week, shows both parts together, with a blessed intermission. You get a souvenir booklet, which seems superfluous, because you're not likely to forget this movie if you sit through it. A ticket will allow you to see Part Two on a different occasion. Once you've found freedom, though, you may never return.
Rather than its length, its great failing is that it is more a training film for guerrilla warfare than a narrative that even approaches drama.
Part one covers the years from 1955 to 1962, including a meeting with Castro in Mexico, a flash forward to a defiant United Nations speech in 1964 and a series of repetitious shootouts that eventually lead to the capture of Havana. The time frame slips back and forth, defying chronological order. Interest, though, is sparked by the U.N. segments in New York City, which, for no apparent reason other than artiness, are shot in black and white. Then, it's back to the mountain jungles, which, while beautifully photographed, become monotonous.
There's lots of greenery and lots of rebels sitting around talking in a group. One of the games is Find Benicio Del Toro. The actor, who won an Oscar for "Traffic," as did Soderbergh, is cast as Che, but he's kept in the shadows or in the greenery so that he seldom takes center screen, must less the center of attention. There's lots of talk about voting on who will get executed or on how more than 40 percent of the land is held by less than 2 percent of the people. None of this is dramatic.
Part Two goes from 1966 to Che's death in Bolivia in 1967. The passage of days is numbered, up to Day 341. (It seems longer.) If you thought Part One was dull, Part Two is duller, primarily because an unsuccessful revolution is less interesting than a successful one. Everything goes wrong. The peasants distrust the revolution. The weather is disastrous. The local communist party withdraws its support. At this point, my feeling was: This can't last forever. Every movie, even this one, has to end sooner or later.
Alberto Iglesias' music score comes and goes with an obvious blare that creates an oddly melodramatic intrusion. (Someone may be trying to sleep.)
It's too bad that a director with the vision of David Lean never took on a biography of Guevara. Lean made a masterpiece of a bio with "Lawrence of Arabia." What is needed, too, is the remarkable balance of a movie like "Patton," another masterpiece. "Patton" was so subtle, yet still factual, that the audience could see the movie as being either pro or con. "Che," on the other hand, is all mood and no substance.
It is the ultimate endurance test.
