June
1Does 'Che' Deserve Mythic Status?
Before we leave the auteurs, I’d like to point up the extraordinary leeway afforded Steven Soderbergh these days. Here’s a filmmaker who wants to break every rule of self-preservation, yet critics fall all over themselves to excuse him. He shows up at
Che was a Communist thug who, through myth-making like Soderbergh’s, has been transformed into an iconic hero, especially around
Many critics, even The Times’ A.O. Scott, seem forgiving about this rather extraordinary historical distortion. After all, Soderbergh (the man who gave us Sex, Lies, and Videotape but also Ocean's Thirteen) has achieved auteur status where he seems above the laws of intellectual honesty. Perhaps Soderbergh’s next film will be a biopic about Stalin that, oops, forgets to mention certain trivialities like mass murder.
Subscribe to Peter Bart's Blog Feed
Really glad to see this column, Mr. Bart. As someone who's family was terrorized by Che's legacy of oppression and murder, I have been astonished by how many people in free countries idealize him. If you ever saw a film like this made of one of Hitler's top guys, there would be riots.
Posted by: jigzaw | 9/10/2008 4:48:12 PM
I dunno, doesn't the US use waterboarding, tap the phones of anti-war groups, and non-violent leftist groups? Send gov't infiltrators into their ranks? Shoot unarmed blackmen? What's your definition of brutal? What's your definition of police state? Of dictatorship?
Posted by: American Dissident | 8/15/2008 2:11:32 PM
In no way did Mr. Bart say this was "Red propaganda." He merely said that Soderbergh blatantly leaves out HISTORIC facts that distorts Che's mythology. There's no denying he was a mass-murdering communism. If you support Che, don't pretend that didn't happen. He also pointed out peoples' ironic obsession with Che caps and t-shirts after knowledge of these HISTORIC facts, which, you gotta admit, is pretty damn ignorant.
Posted by: BOFFO | 6/3/2008 11:54:58 PM
Peter--Soderbergh has stated that 'Che' is complete, there is no additional editing to be done...so get your facts right before making one of your arguments that he showed an unfinished film at Cannes
Posted by: JulieW | 6/3/2008 5:25:54 PM
Castro's brutal dictatorship? Go to the island and look for it. It was there in the 30s-50s under "democrats" like Machado and Batista, who destroyed the country and left it to Castro in ruins he never had a proper chance to restore.<br><br>Posted by: Max | 6/3/2008 10:12:01 AM<br><br>Look for it? You won't find it. Dissidents, those with HIV, anyone speaking out against Cuba, are in jail, thus you will not see IT. You will see great beaches, wonderful old Chevys from the 1950s and everyone with health care. That's what Cuba presents to the world. The brutal truth of that regime is very sad.
Posted by: Andy | 6/3/2008 2:11:54 PM
It's adorable how all you folks choose sides and fill in the rhetoric instead of analyzing evidence (there's plenty that's non-partisan) and weighing Che's crimes and good acts against the same balance of good and evil embodied in many a historical figure of similar stature. Grey area! Ooh, do I have some undoubtedly brilliant condescension coming my way? Sure hope so! Left or right, there's no excuse for letting ethos trump logic, and both sides, as so brilliantly represented here, are guilty of just that. Grow up. It's called the scientific method and it doesn't just apply to physical science. If Soderbergh mythologized Che without showing the darker side, there is certainly some dishonesty going on, and I'm sure Mr. Bart would demand the same honesty in a story depicting, say Fulgencio Bautista. Or would he...Mr. Bart?
Posted by: Nicko | 6/3/2008 12:48:36 PM
Apologies, forgot to mention on my previous post--if one wishes to see an accurate cinematic representation of life--and in this case specifically of a creative person--in Castro/Guevara Cuba, see, if you've not, Julian Schnabel's amazing BEFORE NIGHT FALLS, with a stunning performance from Javier Bardem.
Posted by: EBD | 6/3/2008 10:59:55 AM
I had hopes, albeit dim, that someone as apparently intelligent as Soderberg would get the real Che story correct. Alas, it seems not. I've always been a combination of amused and enraged by the mythologizing and hero status by the Boho West of Che (to say nothing of the same of the biggest mass murderer in the history of mankind, Mao). I've often wondered if these "creatives" had a clue what many of their fates would be under the system dreamed of for our Hemisphere by the likes of Che (all in the name of "The People", of course). If they know about the wall Che lined up Enemies of the Party (deemed as such by him alone) against and had them shot, one after the other. If they know that even today, Cubans with HIV are thrown in jail as degenerates. If they realize what life is like under a brutal dictatorship, of the type Che so lusted after. I generally swallow and chalk it up to bratty Western ignorance. In Soderberg's case, given his obvious intelligence and the research he must have done, I have to his believe omission is a tacit approval--by cover up--of all that was evil about this man and his ruthless desire to brutally repress, murder and enslave. I find it chilling.
Posted by: EBD | 6/3/2008 10:25:06 AM
Castro's brutal dictatorship? Go to the island and look for it. It was there in the 30s-50s under "democrats" like Machado and Batista, who destroyed the country and left it to Castro in ruins he never had a proper chance to restore. <br><br>
Posted by: Max | 6/3/2008 10:12:01 AM
Soderberg did to Che's real legacy of dictatorship and brutality what Stalin did to Trotsky in the famous photo-- one day he's there, the next he's gone.
Posted by: John | 6/3/2008 9:51:22 AM
Refreshing to have someone in Hollywood remind everyone the true nature of who this guy really was, and "thug" might be too kind. A handsome face and a beret, I suppose, is enough. Read David Mamet in the Village Voice for a refresher course.
Posted by: Andy | 6/3/2008 6:48:45 AM
Thank you Mr. Bart. Thank you for speaking out. Gracias.
Posted by: O. | 6/3/2008 2:56:20 AM
Pro-communist or not...this is pretty irrelevant for a film which bored the hell out of me when I saw it in Cannes.<br>Nobody should worry about young people being influenced by this hodgepodge of a movie, as they probably will not even enter a theatre to see it, and if they did, they would run out screaming after five minutes.<br>If this thing really cost 60 million plus to make, the producers and the director should be tarred and feathered, and so, indeed, should be the Cannes Film Fest for showing it in such a rough and tumble state.<br>And this comment comes from a person who is a Soderbergh fan and who has never ever been accused of being an anti-communist.
Posted by: Jean-Pierre Thilges | 6/3/2008 1:39:00 AM
Two words:<br><br>Doctor Zhivago
Posted by: R | 6/2/2008 10:13:57 PM
"And I find it hard to believe Soderbergh's "Che," which neo-con extraordinaire Benjamin Bratt wanted to be part of, is really some kind of Red propaganda. <br><br>Posted by: an alan smithee podcast | 6/2/2008 7:46:35 PM"<br><br>You're so correct, alan smalldiklee, actually this movie is beyond Red propaganda, but is actually just below the level of B/S. If this "work of art" were actually B/S, that would be an improvment.
Posted by: Mohammed the Teddy-Bear | 6/2/2008 9:16:18 PM
Considering all this hubbub about a movie most people haven't seen, I find all this "controversy" somewhat hilarious.<br><br>If Variety is so worried about historical relevance and accuracy, why not dedicate some time to dead American soldiers.<br><br>And I find it hard to believe Soderbergh's "Che," which neo-con extraordinaire Benjamin Bratt wanted to be part of, is really some kind of Red propaganda.<br>
Posted by: an alan smithee podcast | 6/2/2008 7:46:35 PM
Hey Heroin, maybe Bart’s merely anti “bourgeois rich kid turned mass-murderer immortalized on Urban Outfitter t-shirts,†regardless of the ethos they adopt to justify their body count? Or maybe you’re just bitter that your pop art Bin Laden shirts didn’t take off.
Posted by: Ronnie Pudding | 6/2/2008 6:19:09 PM
I'm curious, "Heroin", were you on heroin when you concocted those insights? Che is a well-documented historical figure. Why should someone who is aware of the actual facts (like Mr Bart) not call 'b.s.' on this ridiculous whitewashing of Che as some sort of noble humanitarian and free-thinker. The end of the Cold War doesn't mean one should gloss over reality.
Posted by: history matters | 6/2/2008 6:06:14 PM
Why you feel the need to keep up your staunch anti-communism in this day and age is beyond me. Are you afraid that some impressionable young viewer is going to become a leftist revolutionary and murder you? How about letting filmmakers do that most American of things and make whatever film they want.
Posted by: Heroin | 6/2/2008 5:31:03 PM
The practice of screening unfinished films at major international festivals is increasing, but generally with unhappy consequences as the directors of Southland Tales and The Brown Bunny, for example, discovered to their cost in recent years.
Posted by: Palais Veteran | 6/2/2008 3:51:57 PM
"Che" is dreadful--agonizing to sit through--and I'm a fan of Soderbergh's earlier work. A total, creepy distortion of historical fact.
Posted by: oblivionroad | 6/2/2008 3:20:22 PM