The end of this movie, and by ending I meant the final few minutes when the director imposed too fine a point on it, negated the movie before it. I don't think you could necessarily call this a spoiler, even though it sounds like I just described the Sixth Sense. It's not a spoiler because what the director imposed is a political message that had nothing at all to do with the story he just told.
I guess a movie like this can be made for two reasons. The first is to look at the history of an historical figure (no matter how you feel about them) and look at the forces that created the persona that made them famous. The second is propaganda about an historical figure that attempts to exploit their past to impose some sort of divinity on them. I might have argued that this movie was trying to be the former, but when our young Guevara swims across the Amazon to spend the evening with lepers, I would say we're walking into sainthood territory.
But the end of the movie. Right--we're reminded that this young man whom we've watched grown and (and this can't be emphasized enough) has empathy for the people turns into the poster child for lefty ignorance--I mean, the handsome revolutionary who was the saviour of his people. Or, rather, other people who needed saving.
I'm pretty far to the left, but embracing Che feels a little close to embracing Pol Pot. I guess it depends on your view of Communism, but I have yet to see an application of Communism that is any more humane that the system is was supposed to replace. I have no empathy for the revolutionaries because none of the revolutionaries proved their propaganda by any other means than tragically imposed dictatorship.
Of course, I'm just as uncomfortable with the right in America demonizing communism and Marxism as some sort of tool of the devil. I certainly don't think that capitalism is divinely inspired--but, here's a good one, if you're ever arguing about evolution with a right-winger, ask them to explain capitalism from a divine point of view instead of natural selection, which is kind of the point of capitalism.
Pardon that digression--the truth is that the leaders I admire were people who stood up to oppressors and bared their chests to the sword point, standing on principal. I have little sympathy or respect for those that held the knife, even if it was sharpened on the block of the people, even if it was held to the chest of the oppressor. Propaganda of any sort--and this film is propaganda--leaves me feeling more manipulated and angry than a million Spielberg films.
This director is asking us to feel empathy for a man only showing us some reasons he may have become what he became, but without showing us what he did. Without showing us the revolution, we have no revolutionary. But, at the same time, without showing us the revolution we have the sanitized Che, the one who you can't argue against. After all, he loves poor people!
If the director had left off that last bit of text, explaining who this character became, and how the CIA murdered him (maybe they did, but the facts seem a bit hazy to make unambiguous statements like that), then we would be dealing with a film concerned with narrative and character. INstead, we're dealing with a movie whose message was summed up neatly with a bow for us. Instead, we're dealing with a movie only Pravda could love. It's no better than the Passion of the Christ. What a shame to waste such beautiful cinematography. What a shame to waste such good acting.
Where we saw it: DVD | We deign to rate it: 35 outta 100