All biographical films garner charges of omissions; director Steven Soderbergh’s Che actively courts them. The worst way to approach this two-part, four-and-a-half-hour anti-biopic is to see it as a film expressly about Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Those who expect a full portrait of the man will be confronted with a film that boldly declines to imagine its subject’s psychology or personal life.… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (1)Page 1 of 1 pagesI have never understood the bourgeoisie chic fascination with El Che. The North American children who sport his image have no idea what they are doing. We’re not talking progressive politics here, we’re talking bloody communist revolution. Is that what these products of a capitalist society that educated them really stand for?
I have friends in South America who have pictures of Che on the wall of their living rooms. I can understand that. Crap on my head all day and call it democracy and capitalism and I wouldn’t just be a Che fan, I would become a Marxist revolutionary. When you don’t have equality under the law, free speech, or the ballot box, your options narrow.
Two different worlds…
Posted by K Foutsc on Feb 16, 2009 at 7:17 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Ben Kenigsberg
- Che the Man, Not the T-shirt
Soderbergh’s Che refuses to typecast the revolutionary.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2009 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
