When is a biopic not quite a biopic? When it doesn’t explain the subject’s motivations? When it misses large chunks of the subject’s life? When it remains so faithful to account that it largely rejects context? All of these charges apply to Che: Part One. It is scarily close in narrative to Cuban hero Guevara’s Reminisces of the Cuban Revolutionary War – each shot is an almost exact remake of Guevara’s memories, each set of images another page of Guevera's memories.
And this is where the controversy has arisen. Is a film which draws entirely on a personal account a biopic or an autobiopic? Critics are divided, as I reported at the end of last year. Some believe it isn’t even a biography; instead its focus on the conflict as the narrative has led many to call it a war film, or a military biopic if you want. But isn’t this what Che would have wanted in a film about his life? His goal was never personal glory; most who met him said he lacked ego in the sense the Western world understand it. But, on the other hand, should a biopic take into account the subject's wants?
I don’t know quite what to think about aesthetics, narratives and whether it goes deep enough. It is true that Che’s life before the revolution is completely glossed over; the earliest we see him is during his first encounter with Fidel Castro in Mexico City, where plans for revolution are presented to Guevara. It is also true we never see his wife, children, family or home country; His personal life is actually limited to a single reference. We aren’t even exposed to Guevara’s motivations – he is simply a pig-headed anti-imperialist revolutionary.
Yet despite the lack of coherent context, it somehow works – like Soderberg has understood Guevara’s message and has given it fair space to breathe in, warts and all.
However, this isn’t to say the film is homage – far from it. The revolutionary soldier/military pioneer is just that – at times ruthless, cold-hearted and passionate to the point of crazed anger but that seems to be the point, that Guevara was interested in the war, the struggle, not his own role within the revolution. Aided by a stunning performance from Benicio Del Toro, Che: Part One is an insightful Western mainstream account of the Cuban revolution, yet not in the way most expected.
I suspect those have major problems with the film will have them on ideological levels, on both the political and filmic fronts. Miami Cubans complained vigorously the film is too far on the side of the Cuban revolutionary perspective, and this is incorrect. What is important to understand is the context of how Soderberg has treated the film: less interested in politics or motivation, he wants to reveal the revolutionary life – what it means, what it involves, how the biggest mass revolution of the twentieth century happened. Some film buffs may alude the lack of depth, and in a sense this is justified, but clearly they have rejected the style of the film. This is less about a person and more about how a person can be driven to achieve goals, and become a living (soon-to-dead) icon.
As a unique piece of filmmaking Che: Part One is a major success. Ruthless, uncompromising and brilliantly shot with wonderful central performances, Soderberg has produced a really strong film here (minus the casting of Castro – it's wrong, wrong, wrong; and the fact Guevara’s hat doesn't come off once during the whole film). Not the film of the year – I have a feeling The Wrestler might take that accolade) but a strong effort and one which will divide opinion, both the in film and political communities, for years.
Part Two follows next month.
