Article here about this (long overdue) film. (<- trailers/teasers at that link)
(Note that the release date is now Sept. 24, 2004.)
Full Version: The Motorcycle Diaries
"Long overdue"?
FWIW, as I was flipping through my copy of The Golden Turkey Awards the other day, I came across a reference to the 1969 movie Che!, in which Guevara was played by Omar Sharif and Fidel Castro was played by Jack Palance; the latter actor was nominated for 'The Worst Casting of All Time', though he lost to John Wayne as Genghis Khan in The Conqueror. (It was directed by Richard Fleischer, whose credits include such varied films as 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Barabbas, the original Doctor Dolittle and Conan the Destroyer.)
FWIW, as I was flipping through my copy of The Golden Turkey Awards the other day, I came across a reference to the 1969 movie Che!, in which Guevara was played by Omar Sharif and Fidel Castro was played by Jack Palance; the latter actor was nominated for 'The Worst Casting of All Time', though he lost to John Wayne as Genghis Khan in The Conqueror. (It was directed by Richard Fleischer, whose credits include such varied films as 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Barabbas, the original Doctor Dolittle and Conan the Destroyer.)
...and which received a 2.8 out of ten?!?
Like I said, long overdue...
Like I said, long overdue...
Saw the long trailer on the big screen before Before Sunset and was intrigued. Looks like the performances will be impressive, and the cinematography, at the very least.
Plus it's directed by Walter Salles, director of Central Station, which is promising. But, as one who lives in a town where people habitually swoon over communist nostalgia (oh, how I remember my skin crawling when someone CHEERED the socialist theft of a farmer's property in Ken Loach's Land and Freedom), I sure ain't looking forward to the politics of this film, or to the reception that it gets on that level here.
There's an interview in this week's Big Issue (UK) which discusses the film with Gael Garcia what's his face. It seems that one of the things the director was attempting was to break the myth of Che as a socialist hero, which is something i feel is essential. By that, it's re-directing the attention away from the much coveted poster-boy image and focussing it on his ideals which were arrived at after a long learning process and most importantly working alongside others. The irony of Guevara receiving so much attention (understandably, a charasmatic figure and pretty darn attractive) is that it undermines everything he actually worked and stood for - the strength of many united and working towards a common goal as opposed to the individual who stands out above the community.
It sounds like this is a film that has something new to add to this debate, and isn't just a romantic portrayal that lacks depth and understanding of the complexeties of the person and the political beliefs that shaped him. At least, I hope so.
It sounds like this is a film that has something new to add to this debate, and isn't just a romantic portrayal that lacks depth and understanding of the complexeties of the person and the political beliefs that shaped him. At least, I hope so.
I had to choose between The Bourne Supremacy, The Village and Motorcycle Diaries, and I chose the latter simply because it was the outsider, even though I had no idea what it was about. Call me dumb, but I didn't even realize it was about Che Guevara until the end-titles, though I'm kind of glad about that, because I wonder how involved I would have let myself become had I known I was watching a biographical picture about such a controversial figure.
A beautiful film, one of those that still haunted me the day after. I'm going to try and catch it again, and I'll post more thoughts then.
PS. Given that I generally don't catch films until a year or several years after their release, I am proud to be the first on A&F to have seen this one!
A beautiful film, one of those that still haunted me the day after. I'm going to try and catch it again, and I'll post more thoughts then.
PS. Given that I generally don't catch films until a year or several years after their release, I am proud to be the first on A&F to have seen this one!
Huh, is it already out in Britain, then? FWIW, there is a press screening of this film in Vancouver on Tuesday, in conjunction with our upcoming film festival, but I believe it's not due to be given a proper release until October.
Caught it this morning. Liked it. Was surprised by how little there was in the way of actual politics here.
At the end of the film, Ernesto (the future Che) says he will have to think about what he has seen on his travels, and he remarks that there is "so much injustice", and I found this remark striking on two levels.
First, Ernesto and his friend Alberto went on to become partly responsible for the Communist state of Cuba, which is surely not the best example of justice in the world either.
Second, and more significantly, the film spends so little time on POLITICAL injustice that I was struck much more by the many NATURAL injustices (for lack of a better word) that Ernesto comes across in his travels. Ernesto suffers from asthma and comes down with a number of illnesses over the course of the film; he is also a med student, and he and his friend are ultimately heading to a leper colony at the end of their travels, where they plan to work for a few weeks; along the way, he spots a tumour in one man's neck, and remarks that a cow is going blind, and I could not help but notice how many of the older indigenous people that he meets and loves have lost their teeth, etc. One of the leprosy victims he meets tells him, "Life is pain," and I could not help but think that Ernesto was brushing up against something of cosmic significance -- the incredible beauty of the South American landscape when seen from afar, the many small tragedies that one sees up close -- and it seemed awfully pathetic, almost a sign of resignation, that he settled for addressing merely political injustices in his later life.
Perhaps there are subtle political touches that I missed. I did catch the fact that the man with the tumour has a German last name (von something-or-other) and his wife a German first name; since this film takes place in 1952, just seven years after World War II, I guess we're supposed to think that these are fugitive Nazis or something, but perhaps not. (My mother grew up in the Chaco in Paraguay, where there is a strong Mennonite community, and when I told her that my best friend's birthday was on April 20, she said, "Oh, that's Hitler's birthday!" How did you know? I asked. "Oh, EVERYbody in Paraguay knew that," she said. I don't believe Ernesto and Alberto ever visit Paraguay -- they start in Argentina and make their way through Chile, Peru, Colombia and Venezuela -- but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Germans could be found all over that continent.) Perhaps there were other, similar details like that that I missed.
Anyway, good film. Would be interested to hear what others have to say about it.
At the end of the film, Ernesto (the future Che) says he will have to think about what he has seen on his travels, and he remarks that there is "so much injustice", and I found this remark striking on two levels.
First, Ernesto and his friend Alberto went on to become partly responsible for the Communist state of Cuba, which is surely not the best example of justice in the world either.
Second, and more significantly, the film spends so little time on POLITICAL injustice that I was struck much more by the many NATURAL injustices (for lack of a better word) that Ernesto comes across in his travels. Ernesto suffers from asthma and comes down with a number of illnesses over the course of the film; he is also a med student, and he and his friend are ultimately heading to a leper colony at the end of their travels, where they plan to work for a few weeks; along the way, he spots a tumour in one man's neck, and remarks that a cow is going blind, and I could not help but notice how many of the older indigenous people that he meets and loves have lost their teeth, etc. One of the leprosy victims he meets tells him, "Life is pain," and I could not help but think that Ernesto was brushing up against something of cosmic significance -- the incredible beauty of the South American landscape when seen from afar, the many small tragedies that one sees up close -- and it seemed awfully pathetic, almost a sign of resignation, that he settled for addressing merely political injustices in his later life.
Perhaps there are subtle political touches that I missed. I did catch the fact that the man with the tumour has a German last name (von something-or-other) and his wife a German first name; since this film takes place in 1952, just seven years after World War II, I guess we're supposed to think that these are fugitive Nazis or something, but perhaps not. (My mother grew up in the Chaco in Paraguay, where there is a strong Mennonite community, and when I told her that my best friend's birthday was on April 20, she said, "Oh, that's Hitler's birthday!" How did you know? I asked. "Oh, EVERYbody in Paraguay knew that," she said. I don't believe Ernesto and Alberto ever visit Paraguay -- they start in Argentina and make their way through Chile, Peru, Colombia and Venezuela -- but I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Germans could be found all over that continent.) Perhaps there were other, similar details like that that I missed.
Anyway, good film. Would be interested to hear what others have to say about it.
Something else occurs to me. This film goes out of its way to emphasize that Ernesto (the future "Che") is honest, in contrast to his friend Alberto, who is always bulls---ting and flattering people; Ernesto tells the truth to people even if it is not what they want to hear, e.g. when he meets the German with the tumour in his neck, and when he is asked by one person what he thinks of the story that the other guy has written. Ernesto is not entirely above telling untruths, if he stands to gain from it -- there is an amusing episode involving a bogus newspaper story which is apparently historical (we see the actual newspaper clipping on the screen during the end credits) -- but his basic default mode is one of honesty. This reminds me of the way that, e.g., Americans emphasize the honesty of their own most mythic leaders ("Honest Abe" Lincoln, George "I cannot tell a lie, I chopped down the cherry tree" Washington), but it is also striking to see the film emphasize this angle when it seems the film is told, to some degree at least, from the point of view of the very dishonest (but in a charming way) Alberto.
Just got back from seeing this. It was the first time I've seen an audience in the U.K. applaud at the end of a film.
| QUOTE |
| the man with the tumour has a German last name (von something-or-other) and his wife a German first name |
The man calls his wife "Schatzi" which is a term of affection in German. The english equivalent would be something like "darling", "sweetheart" or more literally "treasure".
I was interested to see how the film would handle the moments showing the doctor Ernesto gradually turning into the politically minded Che. Some I can think of:
his speech on his birthday at the leper colony.
the recurring black and white images of the people he meets, grouped together.
the various books he can be seen reading.
I thought most of these moments settled quite subtly into the proceedings, but his speech just seemed a little separate from the rest of its context.
What kept coming to mind were the moments of a similar nature in Attack of the Clones where the film tries to fill us in on the transformation of the unknown boy Anakin into the well-known Darth Vader who can force strangle people.
- You're not all-powerful, Ani.
- Well I should be!
(da-da-daaaaa!)
-I killed them. I killed them all. They're dead, every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children, too. They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals. I HATE THEM.
(DA-DA-DAAAAAAAAAA!)
The Motorcycle Diaries had the feel of a fictional prequel for real-life.
What interests me is that in a lot of the moments in the film, such as the speech and the black and white group images, Ernesto and his changing viewpoint becomes quite threatening. The groups reminded me of photos taken of military units before battles. It did feel at times that Ernesto was turning into as much of a violent sociopath as a cool, poster-ready revolutionary leader.
Ben wrote:
: What interests me is that in a lot of the moments in the film, such as the speech
: and the black and white group images, Ernesto and his changing viewpoint
: becomes quite threatening. The groups reminded me of photos taken of military
: units before battles. It did feel at times that Ernesto was turning into as much of a
: violent sociopath as a cool, poster-ready revolutionary leader.
Wow! I didn't get that out of it at all -- the black-and-white shots reminded me of the haloed shots at the end of Not of This World more than anything else. Except, of course, that where that Italian film is appealing to the spiritual reality that lies behind everyone's seemingly humdrum life (and suggesting a sense of "vocation" over all things), this Latin American film is appealing more to the material reality and demanding some form of "justice" for these workers.
: What interests me is that in a lot of the moments in the film, such as the speech
: and the black and white group images, Ernesto and his changing viewpoint
: becomes quite threatening. The groups reminded me of photos taken of military
: units before battles. It did feel at times that Ernesto was turning into as much of a
: violent sociopath as a cool, poster-ready revolutionary leader.
Wow! I didn't get that out of it at all -- the black-and-white shots reminded me of the haloed shots at the end of Not of This World more than anything else. Except, of course, that where that Italian film is appealing to the spiritual reality that lies behind everyone's seemingly humdrum life (and suggesting a sense of "vocation" over all things), this Latin American film is appealing more to the material reality and demanding some form of "justice" for these workers.
I found the political speech at the birthday party almost unforgiveable at first -- kind of like that awfully didactic speech by the schoolteacher at the end of Truffaut's L'Argent de Poche -- but when I realized at the end that the film was about Che Guevara (doh!), it seemed a bit more plausible.
The fact that the character is Che Guevara does make the speech "plausible", in a sense, but I think one could still argue that the film doesn't really warm us up for the speech, at least not dramatically; that is, the speech makes sense given what we know of the character's LATER actions, but I'm not sure it makes sense given what the movie shows us of his EARLIER actions. Che's assertion that there is only one Latin American race, or whatever, does kind of come from out of nowhere -- and it actually contradicts his earlier experience, where he and Alberto are chased out of that one Chilean town by men who call them "Argentine scum" or something to that effect.
BTW, does anyone know enough about Che to know what was in that later that his girlfriend sent to him? We can guess, of course -- and I like the fact that the movie doesn't feel obliged to spell everything out for us -- but I'm wondering if the details and outcome of that relationship has at least been spelled out in the historical record.
BTW, does anyone know enough about Che to know what was in that later that his girlfriend sent to him? We can guess, of course -- and I like the fact that the movie doesn't feel obliged to spell everything out for us -- but I'm wondering if the details and outcome of that relationship has at least been spelled out in the historical record.
Anyone know anything about the release schedule for this film? Alan says above that it's opening (in limited release, I assume) on September 24, but I know it's coming to Vancouver on October 8, so presumably it's broadening out fairly quickly ...
| QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Sep 11 2004, 09:00 PM) |
| Che's assertion that there is only one Latin American race, or whatever, does kind of come from out of nowhere -- and it actually contradicts his earlier experience, where he and Alberto are chased out of that one Chilean town by men who call them "Argentine scum" or something to that effect. |
But weren't they chased out because Ernesto was getting a little too personal with the mechanic's wife? Although it is ambiguous whether they hated them anyway and had alreadydestroyed the bike's brakes.
Ben wrote:
: : Che's assertion that there is only one Latin American race, or whatever, does
: : kind of come from out of nowhere -- and it actually contradicts his earlier
: : experience, where he and Alberto are chased out of that one Chilean town by
: : men who call them "Argentine scum" or something to that effect.
:
: But weren't they chased out because Ernesto was getting a little too personal with
: the mechanic's wife?
Yeah, but the point here is that international prejudice exists, as exemplified by the kind of slurs that the one group of guys threw at the other. The particular REASON the slurs were thrown is a separate matter.
: Although it is ambiguous whether they hated them anyway and had already
: destroyed the bike's brakes.
Oh, interesting point. Though I think it would be more accurate to say that the bike was taken from the shop before the repairs were finished.
: : Che's assertion that there is only one Latin American race, or whatever, does
: : kind of come from out of nowhere -- and it actually contradicts his earlier
: : experience, where he and Alberto are chased out of that one Chilean town by
: : men who call them "Argentine scum" or something to that effect.
:
: But weren't they chased out because Ernesto was getting a little too personal with
: the mechanic's wife?
Yeah, but the point here is that international prejudice exists, as exemplified by the kind of slurs that the one group of guys threw at the other. The particular REASON the slurs were thrown is a separate matter.
: Although it is ambiguous whether they hated them anyway and had already
: destroyed the bike's brakes.
Oh, interesting point. Though I think it would be more accurate to say that the bike was taken from the shop before the repairs were finished.
I STILL haven't seen this so I can't really mention anything about the film's potrayal, but from what I recall from the book, the two of them were pretty cheeky chappies who, at first at least, treated their host towns with little respect. Much like the English in Greece/Spain, and yes: generalisation, but enough people do it that it is a problem which inevitably becomes referred to in terms of nationality and not individuals.
I think, also, that it is important to remember that Latin America has as divided a history as any other continent. Argentina and Chile have fought many wars, argued consistently over territory (particularly in the south where the Andes fade to Patagonian flatlands and no longer provide a natural divide) and air space. Remember the Falklands? Chile provided a base for the UK's planes (hence Thatcher's support of Pinochet when he was arrested). So, yes, of course there are national divisions. It's important to point out that Che is not Ernesto Guevara's given name, but one allocated to him by non-Argentine Latin Americans he later worked alongside because "che" is the Argentine version of "hey." So yes, the fact that he is Argentinian is critical but I don't think it undermines the idea of a united Latin American experience. Take the United States - people (particularly non-US citizens) forget how large the country is. The size of a continent. Would you compare the experience of someone from... umm... say... Missouri to someone from New York state? Yes AND no, right? It serves a purpose to be united under a nationality, despite differences in local experiences. Similarly, Latin America has centuries' worth of shared experience and is a much more powerful force when united. For example the Organisation of American States provides for leverage with the g8 states. Furthermore, Latin America are incredibly resource-rich continents. So Che's vision of an united Latin America is not a call for collapse of national identities but rather a call for mutual support for a shared humanitarian goal. And now, really, that's not an idea that is so unfamiliar. Is it?
If anyone is interested in reading more about Latin America's colonial history and its influence today I recomend Eduardo Galeano's "The Open Veins of Latin America." Some might say it is a little heavy handed, but it is beautifully and articulately written and an educational experience.
Anyway - must see this movie...
I think, also, that it is important to remember that Latin America has as divided a history as any other continent. Argentina and Chile have fought many wars, argued consistently over territory (particularly in the south where the Andes fade to Patagonian flatlands and no longer provide a natural divide) and air space. Remember the Falklands? Chile provided a base for the UK's planes (hence Thatcher's support of Pinochet when he was arrested). So, yes, of course there are national divisions. It's important to point out that Che is not Ernesto Guevara's given name, but one allocated to him by non-Argentine Latin Americans he later worked alongside because "che" is the Argentine version of "hey." So yes, the fact that he is Argentinian is critical but I don't think it undermines the idea of a united Latin American experience. Take the United States - people (particularly non-US citizens) forget how large the country is. The size of a continent. Would you compare the experience of someone from... umm... say... Missouri to someone from New York state? Yes AND no, right? It serves a purpose to be united under a nationality, despite differences in local experiences. Similarly, Latin America has centuries' worth of shared experience and is a much more powerful force when united. For example the Organisation of American States provides for leverage with the g8 states. Furthermore, Latin America are incredibly resource-rich continents. So Che's vision of an united Latin America is not a call for collapse of national identities but rather a call for mutual support for a shared humanitarian goal. And now, really, that's not an idea that is so unfamiliar. Is it?
If anyone is interested in reading more about Latin America's colonial history and its influence today I recomend Eduardo Galeano's "The Open Veins of Latin America." Some might say it is a little heavy handed, but it is beautifully and articulately written and an educational experience.
Anyway - must see this movie...
gigi wrote:
: So yes, the fact that he is Argentinian is critical but I don't think it undermines the
: idea of a united Latin American experience.
Undermines, no. But when the sentiment of a united Latin American experience comes up near the end of the film, it does kind of come out of nowhere, and, if anything, it does kind of fly in the face of at least one experience that the two characters have already had. If the film was trying to show us that Ernesto and Alberto were, at first, the sort of people who treated their host towns with disrespect, then I don't think it succeeded; there isn't THAT much of an arc to these characters.
But I guess I would have to see the film again, with all this in mind, before I could say for sure.
: Take the United States - people (particularly non-US citizens) forget how large the
: country is. The size of a continent.
Ahem. Certain Canadians might take issue with that -- after all, WE'VE got the second-largest land mass in the world, while you Yanks only have the fourth.
: So yes, the fact that he is Argentinian is critical but I don't think it undermines the
: idea of a united Latin American experience.
Undermines, no. But when the sentiment of a united Latin American experience comes up near the end of the film, it does kind of come out of nowhere, and, if anything, it does kind of fly in the face of at least one experience that the two characters have already had. If the film was trying to show us that Ernesto and Alberto were, at first, the sort of people who treated their host towns with disrespect, then I don't think it succeeded; there isn't THAT much of an arc to these characters.
But I guess I would have to see the film again, with all this in mind, before I could say for sure.
: Take the United States - people (particularly non-US citizens) forget how large the
: country is. The size of a continent.
Ahem. Certain Canadians might take issue with that -- after all, WE'VE got the second-largest land mass in the world, while you Yanks only have the fourth.
Hey, it's just acting
The Motorcycle Diaries is a Brazilian adaptation of Guevara's memoir of the same name about his formative 1952 trek as a medical student through South America on the back of a 1939 Norton. The actors and director filmed along the budding revolutionary's path and found the experience similarly transformative. "I think inevitably a journey like this leads you to become a different person," said Bernal, who noted that impoverished conditions have changed very little along the route in the past fifty years. This does not mean that Bernal plans to Hasta la Victoria Siempre! it up, mind you. The young Mexican actor said that his generation feels that armed revolution led to a lot of bloodshed, but little progress for Latin Americans. The work of democratically-elected leaders -- whether Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, or Mexican President Vicente Fox -- has shown him that change can occur via the electoral process. More than one journalist looked visibly disappointed by Bernal's enlightened response.
National Post, September 14
The Motorcycle Diaries is a Brazilian adaptation of Guevara's memoir of the same name about his formative 1952 trek as a medical student through South America on the back of a 1939 Norton. The actors and director filmed along the budding revolutionary's path and found the experience similarly transformative. "I think inevitably a journey like this leads you to become a different person," said Bernal, who noted that impoverished conditions have changed very little along the route in the past fifty years. This does not mean that Bernal plans to Hasta la Victoria Siempre! it up, mind you. The young Mexican actor said that his generation feels that armed revolution led to a lot of bloodshed, but little progress for Latin Americans. The work of democratically-elected leaders -- whether Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, or Mexican President Vicente Fox -- has shown him that change can occur via the electoral process. More than one journalist looked visibly disappointed by Bernal's enlightened response.
National Post, September 14
As I write this I am listening to the film's wonderful soundtrack. I love it when listening to the music transports you right back into the film itself, evoking the same emotions over again. I've had a pretty rough day today, in one way and another, and listening to the beautiful guitar piece De Usahia a la Quiaca, which played over the film's final montage, is making me want to cry.
| QUOTE |
| you Yanks |
*coughs and splutters*
YANK!
I'm a
I'll have you know!Heh... I don't care really, but just wanted to clarify that. Appropriate for the ongoing discussion
gigi wrote:
: I'm a I'll have you know!
Whoops. My bad!
: I'm a
I'll have you know!Whoops. My bad!
Gigi - where are you from BTW - you've not filled in your location bit of your profile, so I couldn't see
Matt (from Loughborough)
Matt (from Loughborough)
Sorry Matt,
it's a thing I have that I don't reveal personal details on the internet. Not because of security (although this would be a valid reason) but because I appreciate a certain anonymity that the internet affords me. You are who you want to be, and in a chat room such as this I appreciate not being able to be pinned down too much. Things such as location, job, hobbies, creed and denomination, etc. lose their importance and you can discuss ideas outside of an all-defining context.
Pretentious, I know. Still, I like the spirit of the idea. Besides, adds a little mystery... I rather appreciate that you can't track IP addresses on this forum.
*shrugs* just me.
it's a thing I have that I don't reveal personal details on the internet. Not because of security (although this would be a valid reason) but because I appreciate a certain anonymity that the internet affords me. You are who you want to be, and in a chat room such as this I appreciate not being able to be pinned down too much. Things such as location, job, hobbies, creed and denomination, etc. lose their importance and you can discuss ideas outside of an all-defining context.
Pretentious, I know. Still, I like the spirit of the idea. Besides, adds a little mystery... I rather appreciate that you can't track IP addresses on this forum.
*shrugs* just me.
Well that's fine I suppose, its good how the site lets you be as known or unkown as you want.
That said - aren't we only having this conversation because you've already revealed a major part of your identity - your nationality?
Matt
That said - aren't we only having this conversation because you've already revealed a major part of your identity - your nationality?
Matt
Yeah, I was aware of that as I was writing it. I don't mind people knowing things about me as long as they're in context. What I mind is that information being available at any time so, say I make a post about a certain author and the ideas I mention strike the reader as interesting and their reaction is to then click on my information to find out more about me. I think that lessens the idea. Might give you a better awareness of me, but what I like about the internet is that you can't take anything at face value and so the ideas almost take on a life of their own. I've met people from the internet before and it's usually awkward and blurs boundaries of reality and so I made a deliberate decision to seperate what I do on the internet from what I do in my personal life otherwise it can get a bit head-screwy.
OK, have finally seen this film and feel a little more ready to comment on previous posts. I should point out that I was watching it with some of the things mentioned in mind, and so may have been a little more receptive to certain subtler elements at play.
Firstly, I have to remind people about the difference in approach to Che Guevara as a person in the Latin American world and the non-Latin American world. Yes, he's heralded as a socialist revolutionary hero by a large proportion of the world's population. However, the relationship he has to Latin America is much different and far more complex than a poster boy, or an idealist. He was and is seen as someone who sacrificed himself (he was killed by the Bolivian army after being captured when he went to see if there were possibilities of a revolution there) for the plight of people with no voice. You may find this image disturbing He is held in similar esteem by those who support his vision and hated with similar vehemence by those who oppose it as Martin Luther King is in the US. I think this understanding is really important when viewing The Motorcycle Diaries. This is a person a large proportion of the continent still mourn.
I think it will be easiest if I divide my comments into sections.
throughout the rest of the post
Point one: the comment that dramatically we aren't prepared for the speech about a united Latin American experience. I think this is because a lot of subtleties, which may only be intelligible to someone with an understanding of Latin American history have be overlooked. Before they even get on the motorbike, Alberto mentions the word "communist." Argentina, much like it's neighbouring country Chile, was undergoing a period of huge political upheaval at this time. Communism was not introduced to Latin America with Che and Castro, it had been a hugely influential force for decades already. We can not assume that before going on his journey Guevara was politically naive.
Another moment of history that is crucial to the understanding of an united Latin America is the mention of Tupac Amaru who fought a more successful uprising against the conquistadores because he was able to unite tribes under his leadership.
Also, remember the first border crossing? What does Che's narration say? He is asking what distinguishes us when we cross a line that isn't there. Border politics (ask any Mexican) is historically a constant battle ground in the whole of Latin America.
For me the speech about unification is not out of the blue. Partly because of this but also largely because of the human element throughout, the injustice. This brings be onto
point two:
Firstly, I have to remind people about the difference in approach to Che Guevara as a person in the Latin American world and the non-Latin American world. Yes, he's heralded as a socialist revolutionary hero by a large proportion of the world's population. However, the relationship he has to Latin America is much different and far more complex than a poster boy, or an idealist. He was and is seen as someone who sacrificed himself (he was killed by the Bolivian army after being captured when he went to see if there were possibilities of a revolution there) for the plight of people with no voice. You may find this image disturbing He is held in similar esteem by those who support his vision and hated with similar vehemence by those who oppose it as Martin Luther King is in the US. I think this understanding is really important when viewing The Motorcycle Diaries. This is a person a large proportion of the continent still mourn.
I think it will be easiest if I divide my comments into sections.
throughout the rest of the postPoint one: the comment that dramatically we aren't prepared for the speech about a united Latin American experience. I think this is because a lot of subtleties, which may only be intelligible to someone with an understanding of Latin American history have be overlooked. Before they even get on the motorbike, Alberto mentions the word "communist." Argentina, much like it's neighbouring country Chile, was undergoing a period of huge political upheaval at this time. Communism was not introduced to Latin America with Che and Castro, it had been a hugely influential force for decades already. We can not assume that before going on his journey Guevara was politically naive.
Another moment of history that is crucial to the understanding of an united Latin America is the mention of Tupac Amaru who fought a more successful uprising against the conquistadores because he was able to unite tribes under his leadership.
Also, remember the first border crossing? What does Che's narration say? He is asking what distinguishes us when we cross a line that isn't there. Border politics (ask any Mexican) is historically a constant battle ground in the whole of Latin America.
For me the speech about unification is not out of the blue. Partly because of this but also largely because of the human element throughout, the injustice. This brings be onto
point two:
| QUOTE |
| the film spends so little time on POLITICAL injustice that I was struck much more by the many NATURAL |
I think the film distinguishes between the two much more delicately than that. What is political about these natural injustices is the further divides we have placed on them. The German man had a tumour, but he could go to any recomended specialist Guevara mentions because he can afford it. Germans are as a general rule financially well off in Latin America (racism is rife on the continent and European attributes are highly valued and rewarded) . This man and his wife lived rurally, but we could see they had money. The cow was going blind, the injustice was that the poor indigenous people could not afford to take it to a vet for something that does not endanger its life or quality of produce. When people are that poor, these things aren't even a question, and so the man shrugged when he was told. The leper colony, yes natural injustice. However, how much worse was their life made by being isolated across a river and treated as lepers. They came from across the continent, families, land, left behind. To me, the climax wasn't the speech, it was Guevara jumping in the river. This is what he represents and where the real "character arch" (biopic - personal growth may be more appropriate)- a human reaching to help other humans in need - is in the film. The politics is how he finds a way to apply it.
There were other much more explicit examples of politics at play. The miners, who are central in the film both literally and metaphorically. The miners from this particular mine were later at the centre of the socialist reform in Chile. The mine (copper) was owned by an US company, and was re-nationalised when Allende came into power and before he was thrown out in a CIA backed coup led by the army which resulted in the "disappearances" of thousands. So yes, natural injustice, but how can you begin to deal with natural injustice if the very land from which you grow your food is stolen from you as these miner's and the old man's on the path to Peru was?
Thirdly:
| QUOTE |
| Ernesto and his changing viewpoint becomes quite threatening |
That is because he is becoming politicised. Is this wrong? I don't think so. How do we achieve change? By questioning and challenging the structures around us that may lead to or aggravate injustice. The photo may bear resemblance to military units because it is sepia tinged. Or it may be a direct reference to the photo of the Cuban revolutionaries coming into Havana on horseback.
More likely, it is a direct reference to an actual post-football match photo of lepers and doctors.
| QUOTE |
| that he settled for addressing merely political injustices in his later life. |
I think there are certain things the Cuban revolution tried to achieve (and did) which are often forgotten. Firstly, it is a highly educated nation. Education at all levels is free, and it has one of the lowest levels of illiteracy in the world. Secondly, healthcare is free to all. Cuba has one of the highest ratios of doctor per capita in the world and is looked to as a leader in many areas of medicine. Again, I don't think you CAN seperate political injustice from natural injustice.
I hope this doesn't come across as aggressive. It's really not intended that way. I think that's enough for now. Await replies eagerly.
I hope this doesn't come across as aggressive. It's really not intended that way. I think that's enough for now. Await replies eagerly.
gigi wrote:
: What is political about these natural injustices is the further divides we have
: placed on them.
Absolutely -- though the fact that some people can afford better healthcare than others is not, in and of itself, any particular kind of problem. (To say that a certain minimum of healthcare is essential is not at all to say that no one should ever be allowed to get more.)
You cite some interesting examples, but what about the asthma? The asthma is the most central, the most personal, the most inescapable form of "natural" injustice in Che's life, and I cannot think at the moment of any way in which THAT was politicized.
: To me, the climax wasn't the speech, it was Guevara jumping in the river.
Absolutely agreed.
: How do we achieve change? By questioning and challenging the structures around
: us that may lead to or aggravate injustice.
True, though one must beware that one does not aggravate it even more.
: I think there are certain things the Cuban revolution tried to achieve (and did)
: which are often forgotten. Firstly, it is a highly educated nation. Education at all
: levels is free, and it has one of the lowest levels of illiteracy in the world.
: Secondly, healthcare is free to all. Cuba has one of the highest ratios of doctor
: per capita in the world and is looked to as a leader in many areas of medicine.
: Again, I don't think you CAN seperate political injustice from natural injustice.
Are you saying, then, that Cuba is a model of political justice now? Do Cubans have freedom of speech and political association to go with their education? Does Cuba have a QUALITY of medical care to go with its QUANTITY of doctors? And to what degree is private ownership permitted or encouraged? I don't have a clue, m'self, but I do know that there are justice issues there, too.
: What is political about these natural injustices is the further divides we have
: placed on them.
Absolutely -- though the fact that some people can afford better healthcare than others is not, in and of itself, any particular kind of problem. (To say that a certain minimum of healthcare is essential is not at all to say that no one should ever be allowed to get more.)
You cite some interesting examples, but what about the asthma? The asthma is the most central, the most personal, the most inescapable form of "natural" injustice in Che's life, and I cannot think at the moment of any way in which THAT was politicized.
: To me, the climax wasn't the speech, it was Guevara jumping in the river.
Absolutely agreed.
: How do we achieve change? By questioning and challenging the structures around
: us that may lead to or aggravate injustice.
True, though one must beware that one does not aggravate it even more.
: I think there are certain things the Cuban revolution tried to achieve (and did)
: which are often forgotten. Firstly, it is a highly educated nation. Education at all
: levels is free, and it has one of the lowest levels of illiteracy in the world.
: Secondly, healthcare is free to all. Cuba has one of the highest ratios of doctor
: per capita in the world and is looked to as a leader in many areas of medicine.
: Again, I don't think you CAN seperate political injustice from natural injustice.
Are you saying, then, that Cuba is a model of political justice now? Do Cubans have freedom of speech and political association to go with their education? Does Cuba have a QUALITY of medical care to go with its QUANTITY of doctors? And to what degree is private ownership permitted or encouraged? I don't have a clue, m'self, but I do know that there are justice issues there, too.
| QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Sep 30 2004, 06:42 PM) |
| The asthma is the most central, the most personal, the most inescapable form of "natural" injustice in Che's life, and I cannot think at the moment of any way in which THAT was politicized. |
Ernesto's vulnerability at the hands of this illness may help connect him to broader suffering,I guess...
On a bit of a tangent,I've ended up feeling about this film the same that I do about Saving Private Ryan,that I'm listening to a story that's been told for someone else(I'm British...).Which isn't a critiscism of either film,it's just that I sometimes need a reminder that film stories aren't necessarily universally intelligible,however easy it is for me to see them.
You're right to highlight the asthma, Alan. The film, after all, starts with close up shots of his inhalers. I would agree with David's assessment.
| QUOTE |
| Ernesto's vulnerability at the hands of this illness may help connect him to broader suffering,I guess... |
Furthermore I would add that it helps us connect to him as a human, and not as this impossible figure to emulate or dismiss.
| QUOTE |
| though the fact that some people can afford better healthcare than others is not, in and of itself, any particular kind of problem. (To say that a certain minimum of healthcare is essential is not at all to say that no one should ever be allowed to get more.) |
Yes but should anyone ever not be allowed to get more simply because they can't afford it?
| QUOTE |
| Are you saying, then, that Cuba is a model of political justice now? |
No. I said
| QUOTE |
| I think there are certain things the Cuban revolution tried to achieve (and did) which are often forgotten |
I am not naive enough to say that a "model" of political justice exists. However, there are good and bad lessons to be learned from Cuba. As there are any state. With Cuba though, I would repeat that the good are often overlooked because of the bad. Furthermore, political association is a very complicated thing in Cuban society. It has a much different understanding of democracy, which is more similar to the US' voting on bills than it is 4-yearly national elections. Also, freedom of speech has been gaining leway over the past decade (we can point to the films which have been made there, such as Fresas y Chocolate, and the visit by the Pope as examples). Cuba in it's current state is, after all, young.
As for quality of medical care - yes the quality is good and avaiable to all for free. Except non-cubans, who have to pay (and pay they do, precisely because the quality of medical care is so high and more advanced than other countries because it is invested in massively by the government), which is one of the very few ways that Cuba is able to bring money into the country. That Cuba is a poor country is not in discussion, however this is largely as a result of the continuing illegal trade embargo imposed by the US which has been consistently voted against by the UN. That there is such a large quantity of doctors is essential, as it means that doctors are allocated a restricted number of patients and are able to familiarise themselves with the medical history of the patient and their families.
Private ownership is not permitted or encouraged. Interesting fact: Monopoly (the game) doesn't exist in Cuba. People earn the same wage, housing is allocated according to family size and monthly rent is the same for everyone, utilities are the same every month and for everyone, everyone has the same national holiday allocated, every couple of years people have to give a month of their time to work on the national agricultural produce (i.e. farming). Is this a bad thing? I mean, really when it comes down to the essentials of living - family home health education culture food rest - do the Cubans really need the excessive trade that we ourselves don't need? I repeat, I am not highlighting Cuba as a model of justice. Just questioning our version of justice in comparison.
gigi wrote:
: You're right to highlight the asthma, Alan.
I guess if I can get your country wrong, then you can get my name wrong.
: Furthermore I would add that it helps us connect to him as a human, and not as
: this impossible figure to emulate or dismiss.
Quite so. But it also connects him very intimately with the "natural injustice" of which I spoke.
: Yes but should anyone ever not be allowed to get more simply because they can't
: afford it?
Sounds like a loaded question. If you are asking whether the maximum possible medical attention should be available to anyone and everyone regardless of the cost, then no, I don't think it should be. As a society, we can try to guarantee certain basic standards, but after a certain point it is in everyone's interests if people start paying for themselves.
: Cuba in it's current state is, after all, young.
I dunno, Fidel has been running the place since my dad was in junior high (not that "junior high", as such, ever existed in the British Empire, or Commonwealth, or whatever they were calling countries like Zambia in the 1950s...).
: That there is such a large quantity of doctors is essential, as it means that doctors
: are allocated a restricted number of patients and are able to familiarise
: themselves with the medical history of the patient and their families.
They sound almost like parish priests.
: Private ownership is not permitted or encouraged.
Ah, well, that is a problem. Though as you say, it may be exacerbated by the fact that Cuba is not allowed to trade with outside partners like the U.S. One fact may be feeding off the other.
: Interesting fact: Monopoly (the game) doesn't exist in Cuba.
Nor any other privately-owned board games, I guess.
: Is this a bad thing? I mean, really when it comes down to the essentials of living -
: family home health education culture food rest - do the Cubans really need the
: excessive trade that we ourselves don't need?
Who decides how people get educated? Who decides what sort of culture is permitted? Who decides what days of rest people should have? And so on, and so on. No, I don't think it is a particularly good thing to have freedoms in these areas curtailed.
: You're right to highlight the asthma, Alan.
I guess if I can get your country wrong, then you can get my name wrong.
: Furthermore I would add that it helps us connect to him as a human, and not as
: this impossible figure to emulate or dismiss.
Quite so. But it also connects him very intimately with the "natural injustice" of which I spoke.
: Yes but should anyone ever not be allowed to get more simply because they can't
: afford it?
Sounds like a loaded question. If you are asking whether the maximum possible medical attention should be available to anyone and everyone regardless of the cost, then no, I don't think it should be. As a society, we can try to guarantee certain basic standards, but after a certain point it is in everyone's interests if people start paying for themselves.
: Cuba in it's current state is, after all, young.
I dunno, Fidel has been running the place since my dad was in junior high (not that "junior high", as such, ever existed in the British Empire, or Commonwealth, or whatever they were calling countries like Zambia in the 1950s...).
: That there is such a large quantity of doctors is essential, as it means that doctors
: are allocated a restricted number of patients and are able to familiarise
: themselves with the medical history of the patient and their families.
They sound almost like parish priests.
: Private ownership is not permitted or encouraged.
Ah, well, that is a problem. Though as you say, it may be exacerbated by the fact that Cuba is not allowed to trade with outside partners like the U.S. One fact may be feeding off the other.
: Interesting fact: Monopoly (the game) doesn't exist in Cuba.
Nor any other privately-owned board games, I guess.
: Is this a bad thing? I mean, really when it comes down to the essentials of living -
: family home health education culture food rest - do the Cubans really need the
: excessive trade that we ourselves don't need?
Who decides how people get educated? Who decides what sort of culture is permitted? Who decides what days of rest people should have? And so on, and so on. No, I don't think it is a particularly good thing to have freedoms in these areas curtailed.
Slate article here by Paul Berman arguing that Che is not a figure to be celebrated...
I wrote:
: FWIW, as I was flipping through my copy of The Golden Turkey Awards the other
: day, I came across a reference to the 1969 movie Che!, in which Guevara was
: played by Omar Sharif and Fidel Castro was played by Jack Palance . . .
Whoa. Just turned up something else -- apparently Gael Garcia Bernal, the star of The Motorcycle Diaries, had ALREADY played Che Guevara in a 2002 mini-series called Fidel. I don't think I had come across this in any of the articles I have read so far.
And of course, Benicio Del Toro may play the character in that upcoming movie directed by Steven Soderbergh from a script by Terrence Malick (a topic for which there are two threads.)
: FWIW, as I was flipping through my copy of The Golden Turkey Awards the other
: day, I came across a reference to the 1969 movie Che!, in which Guevara was
: played by Omar Sharif and Fidel Castro was played by Jack Palance . . .
Whoa. Just turned up something else -- apparently Gael Garcia Bernal, the star of The Motorcycle Diaries, had ALREADY played Che Guevara in a 2002 mini-series called Fidel. I don't think I had come across this in any of the articles I have read so far.
And of course, Benicio Del Toro may play the character in that upcoming movie directed by Steven Soderbergh from a script by Terrence Malick (a topic for which there are two threads.)
FWIW, my review.
Thoroughly enjoyed this film last night. I expected it to be much more heavy-handed, much more "biographical" (if you know what I mean). Instead, it's a quiet, contemplative film with strong performances and a touching ... but not overbearing ... finale. Excellent work.
Watched this film again, and came back to this thread to read it carefully, because I think The Motorcycle Diaries is going to be one of the central subjects in my book about film. I am growing very fond of it, and it becomes more powerful every time I see it. Originally, I put it at about #20 on my 2004 favorites list, and now it's up in the top 10.
This is YEARS late, but let me say "thanks" to gigi and to Peter and the others who contributed to this thread when the film was out.
This thread is a model of what the Arts and Faith Board is about, in my opinion.
You guys took a controversial film, one condemned by much of the Christian press, and you discussed it fairly, openly, and with evidence of research and reflection. You acknowledged problems, and redeemed aspects otherwise overlooked. You were civil, but not "nice" ... aggressive, but not contentious. And I learned a great deal from your conversation that has deepened my appreciation for the film while also informing me as to the danger of embracing its vision of Guevara as a blameless hero.
Ben, that comparison to Anakin was great.
So anyway, thanks all... especially gigi and Peter.
This is YEARS late, but let me say "thanks" to gigi and to Peter and the others who contributed to this thread when the film was out.
This thread is a model of what the Arts and Faith Board is about, in my opinion.
You guys took a controversial film, one condemned by much of the Christian press, and you discussed it fairly, openly, and with evidence of research and reflection. You acknowledged problems, and redeemed aspects otherwise overlooked. You were civil, but not "nice" ... aggressive, but not contentious. And I learned a great deal from your conversation that has deepened my appreciation for the film while also informing me as to the danger of embracing its vision of Guevara as a blameless hero.
Ben, that comparison to Anakin was great.
So anyway, thanks all... especially gigi and Peter.
Since Peter has prompted a visit to this thread on the [topic=8274]Che thread[/topic], I'll post here rather than there.
I think it's a great film. A reminder (regardless of its historical accuracy to some extent) that, however much we might take issue with someone's beliefs and actions, that person is still made in God's image and therefore has some instinctive, intuitive grasp of what is good and true and right, even if they try to suppress those intuitions. It's true of all of us: we are image-bearing rebels. The scene in which Ernesto and Alberto arrive at the leper colony encapsulates this tension perfectly: Guevara behaves like Christ while the religious mother superior is bound by legalism.
I think it's a great film. A reminder (regardless of its historical accuracy to some extent) that, however much we might take issue with someone's beliefs and actions, that person is still made in God's image and therefore has some instinctive, intuitive grasp of what is good and true and right, even if they try to suppress those intuitions. It's true of all of us: we are image-bearing rebels. The scene in which Ernesto and Alberto arrive at the leper colony encapsulates this tension perfectly: Guevara behaves like Christ while the religious mother superior is bound by legalism.
Somewhere in Jeffrey's book, IIRC, is the following comment quoted from Roger Ebert's review:
Like his friend Fidel Castro, he was a right-winger disguised as a communist. He said he loved the people but he did not love their freedom of speech, their freedom to dissent, or their civil liberties. Cuba has turned out more or less as he would have wanted it to.Uh huh. So, based on this, the authentically Communist regimes of the world would be... help me out here, I'm blanking. It can't really be that all Communist regimes have been led by "right-wingers disguised as communists," can it?
If you rule out Socialism, then most Communist regimes to seem to be or have been totalitarian. The problem is that people confuse the two.
And the Communists would say that it has to be that way until the class warfare is complete and true communism comes into being.
Don't assume I would argue that myself.
Don't assume I would argue that myself.
QUOTE(Alan Thomas @ Apr 3 2007, 11:16 AM) [snapback]145905[/snapback]
If you rule out Socialism, then most Communist regimes to seem to be or have been totalitarian. The problem is that people confuse the two.
Confuse which two? Socialism and communism? Communism/socialism and totalitarianism? Or totalitarianism and "right wing"?
It is the final confusion that seems to me to be at the heart of Ebert's astonishing comment. I cannot see that either "wing" has a corner on totalitarianism.
QUOTE(Darrel Manson @ Apr 3 2007, 02:59 PM) [snapback]145927[/snapback]
And the Communists would say that it has to be that way until the class warfare is complete and true communism comes into being.
It's a good thing the inexorable laws of history guarantee that communism is the future, because an ordinary proletarian waiting around for the advent of true communism might eventually get fed up with all this right wing stuff.
QUOTE(Darrel Manson @ Apr 3 2007, 02:59 PM) [snapback]145927[/snapback]
Don't assume I would argue that myself.
You didn't sound like a man arguing his own POV.
See? You've got them confused. Communism = Socialism + Totalitarianism.
And there I was thinking that a conversation about The Motorcycle Diaries had restarted. Silly me.
I just finished reading the book. Not at all as I remember the film. The book was the kind of thing an young American or Brit or Canadian might come up with bumming their way through Europe or North America.
Link to the thread on Soderbergh's Che: The Argentine.
The Cult of Che
The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system -- the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination. . . .
Yet the entire movie, in its concept and tone, exudes a Christological cult of martyrdom, a cult of adoration for the spiritually superior person who is veering toward death -- precisely the kind of adoration that Latin America's Catholic Church promoted for several centuries, with miserable consequences. The rebellion against reactionary Catholicism in this movie is itself an expression of reactionary Catholicism. The traditional churches of Latin America are full of statues of gruesome bleeding saints. And the masochistic allure of those statues is precisely what you see in the movie's many depictions of young Che coughing out his lungs from asthma and testing himself by swimming in cold water -- all of which is rendered beautiful and alluring by a sensual backdrop of grays and browns and greens, and the lovely gaunt cheeks of one actor after another, and the violent Andean landscapes. . . .
Paul Berman, Slate.com, Sep 24 2004
The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system -- the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination. . . .
Yet the entire movie, in its concept and tone, exudes a Christological cult of martyrdom, a cult of adoration for the spiritually superior person who is veering toward death -- precisely the kind of adoration that Latin America's Catholic Church promoted for several centuries, with miserable consequences. The rebellion against reactionary Catholicism in this movie is itself an expression of reactionary Catholicism. The traditional churches of Latin America are full of statues of gruesome bleeding saints. And the masochistic allure of those statues is precisely what you see in the movie's many depictions of young Che coughing out his lungs from asthma and testing himself by swimming in cold water -- all of which is rendered beautiful and alluring by a sensual backdrop of grays and browns and greens, and the lovely gaunt cheeks of one actor after another, and the violent Andean landscapes. . . .
Paul Berman, Slate.com, Sep 24 2004
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.