However, it’s there, but very buried. It currently has a 83% approval rating but so far, only six reviews are collected. Meta-critic has better illustration of how divisive the film has been viewed and it has a 65% rating, but for people who pride themselves on having a shred of intelligence, we’re happy the yays are The New York Times, J. Hoberman, The A/V Club, The L.A. Times and the major nay is the New York Post.
It’s a long investement of time, but it’s one week only so if you do live in New York and L.A. and you have a chance, you should try and experience this rare occasion. We’re going in for a second serving tomorrow.
We’ve described the unconventional nature of this film many times, but this graph from Salon is really succinct.
“It’s neither a hagiography of the Marxist hero nor an attempt to dynamite his legend; Soderbergh has effectively pissed off left-wing critics, right-wing critics and a certain number of mainstream viewers who just wanted a conventional, psychological-realist biopic.Instead, “Che” is something closer to the naturalistic novel or documentary journalism.”
People who are expecting an overt political stamp either way will probably be disappointed, and people expecting to see some of the darker and uglier things did in his political life will probably be pissed off. Audiences, seemingly habituated into the customs and practices of your average biopic film will likely be confused, but those with an adventurous spirit willing to absorb an ambitious that plays against the grain of cinematic conventions will be eagerly appeased.
We realize Benicio del Toro isn’t going to be at the Oscars, but that’s certainly not an indication of it not being good enough (please, the Oscars are no real barometer, especially when you look at what films this year were the best). His quiet, internalized and soulful performance is amazing in the amount in convey with minimal effort.
Another super interesting part of this film’s timeline (which is long) is the fact that Soderbergh agreed to direct the film in 2000. But legendary filmmaker Terrence Malick (“Days Of Heaven,” “Badlands,” “The Thin Red Line”) had the project first, sort of. Soderbergh explains to Salon.
“What happened was I was on for a couple years. Terry came on as a writer and then I suggested if he wanted to segue into directing it that I would happily step aside and so I did and he took over the project for a couple years. Then we got into this weird situation where the money finally came together right at the point where the money finally came together for Terry to do “The New World.” So I got a call saying, “Would you jump back on this to keep the money from going away?”
So basically, Soderbergh says yes in 2000. Malick comes in somewhere in the middle and probably around 2003-2004 when he’s about to shoot “The New World,” the film goes back into Soderbergh’s hands. But Soderbergh explains the split film issue much better.
“For a long time, it was one script. And it was becoming really unwieldy. And worse than that, because it was so long, we were still trying to make it into one film, or one normal-length film. The themes were really, really short, and you really couldn’t go into any detail about anything and it started to feel like a two-hour trailer for a four-hour movie. And that’s when I suggested busting it in half. When we did that, all the solutions kind of rose to the surface. And the problems that we were dealing with in terms of detail and rhythm got solved when you could just bifurcate the whole thing.”
It’s a great interview and you should read it all, but we’ve gone on about “Che” long enough today. If you live in New York and L.A., use this week as your once chance to see it in full. We loved both “The Argentine” and “Guerilla,” the second half being slightly more emotional with less spare music, even though it is an ill-fated campaign. We can’t wait for the full experience tomorrow. Oh and if you do go this weekend, you get the free special collectors edition Roadshow program. We have it and it’s pretty excellent.
