Soderbergh on Che: “He’s a hard ass.”
Posted by Dirty Harry on Monday, December 15th, 2008
Picture of a moral relativist outside of the Hollywood bubble in action.
My favorite line, “If you think Che’s a murderer…” Think? Oh, this point is debatable? What moral swamp do these people come from?
Thanks to Reader Candilla for the link.
Filed in General |
Christian Totoon 15 Dec 2008 at 9:55 am 1Stunning.
Let’s recap. If someone embraces his ideology (Che) he will bend over backwards to make excuses and fuzzy his legacy to protect him. Even if he’s a killer … a squasher of liberty, etc.
And note how he gets a little giggly when someone in the crowd yells out “Bush” as a murderer. He doesn’t seem to wanna defend Bush, just Che.
Addison DeWitton 15 Dec 2008 at 9:55 am 2Ughh!! Soderberg, the “pride” of my hometown. I’m ashamed. The moral relativist always has an answer for every criticism, “well, that’s the way you see it”. No, buddy, that’s the way it is.
Brandonon 15 Dec 2008 at 9:58 am 3Yep, the lunatics are runnning the asylum.
Mr24pon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:13 am 4Like Christian I am stunned. I haven’t liked Soderbergh for years but thought I was being too hard on the guy. Now I realize I was right about him. He’s just an idiot. And he goes on my list of people I will not support. I know it may not be that much of a sacrifice as I avoid his stuff anyway but still.
JohnLockeon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:14 am 5Steve, lemme ask you a question: what kind of artistic integrity would I have if I made a movie with Hitler as the protagonist that ended before the Holocaust and World War II? What if I completely avoided explicitly showing what a monster he was, and just told the story of a poor failed artist and his rise to power, with the unfilmed caveat that, oh yeah, this character is also capable of killing six million Jews?
HARRY HERE: Then you would be John Cusack. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290210/
Michaelon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:23 am 6This is exactly how we will lose our liberty.
Soderberg’s four minute rationalization for his tribute to a sociopath and murderer is the blueprint for every ‘intellectual’ who advocated facism in the twenties and thirties, Satlinist purges, Maoist mass murder and every other ‘great’ movement that has resulted in tyranny and death.
And sadly it demonstrates Soderberg’s total disassociation of his own responsibility in what the subject of his film advocates. As I mentioned on another thread here, you can hear him making the point that he presented just enough of Che’s criminal side to cover his own ass so that he can claim that this is not a white-wash of Che’s ugliness.
Note the, “For those of you who think he is a murderer.”
By hedging the truth, Soderberg not only becomes an advocate of Che, but of Che’s crimes.
Glenn Kennyon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:31 am 7While acutely aware of the fact that there is nothing Soderbergh could say or do—short of destroying every copy of “Che,” and then bankrolling the next half-dozen David Zucker pictures—that would mollify any of the above commenters, I do feel obliged to point out that at the end of the embedded clip Soderbergh does unequivocally state, “We’re lucky to live here.” Meaning the United States of America.
Just saying.
HARRY HERE: Nothing as silly as all that, Glenn, but the whole truth about his “hard ass” would’ve been nice. And simply stating he’s lucky to live here is not a Get Of Of Moral-Jail Card Free for our side, you know, like driving a Prius is on the other.
David Marcoeon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:42 am 8While acutely aware of the fact that there is nothing Soderbergh could say or do—short of destroying every copy of “Che,” and then bankrolling the next half-dozen David Zucker pictures—that would mollify any of the above commenters…
Must have built up quite a sweat knocking down that straw man…
I do feel obliged to point out that at the end of the embedded clip Soderbergh does unequivocally state, “We’re lucky to live here.” Meaning the United States of America.
Four minutes of rationalization, followed by one token statement. Yup, really balanced things out there.
It’s like someone has spread their crap all over the walls of my living room and your pointing out how they had the courtesy to take their shoes off before entering my house.
Chris Bon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:46 am 9Imagine if someone in Hollywood made a movie telling the story of a a good looking young man from Sweden who in 1941 decided to leave home so he could join the Waffen SS and lead other Swedes in the battle against the Soviets.
Now image the director of this film trying to objectify/white wash the service of this young Waffen SS volunteer. “The Soviets were really bad after all, and the fight against communism was noble fight…Hilter’s methods were just wrong”
Given Soderberg’s Swedish ancestry and outlook, I am sure he would would find serious issue with this director (and he would be very right too!), as would most of the Hollywood/European elite. These people would be petrified to see a film made that made no judgments about the service of a member of the Waffen SS, but yet they can embrace Che.
v.on 15 Dec 2008 at 10:48 am 10“Hollywood/European elite.” Woah. Nice conflation there.
“These people would be petrified to see a film made that made no judgments about the service of a member of the Waffen SS”
It’s not quite the same thing, but there’s two versions of The Wannsee Conference, if that helps. No one was petrified, if memory serves.
David Marcoeon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:54 am 11Woah. Nice conflation there.
There is no conflation. The Hollywood celeb set aspire to European radical chic and travel in the same circles.
Stephanieon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:56 am 12Yeah Soderburg Che was a hard ass as long as he had a Kalisnikov, and enough morons to go out and do his bidding. Soddy idiot, I know hard asses, and Che couldn’t carry their mess kits. What a jack ass.
Stephanieon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:57 am 13In fact my friend Jenn’s dogs are harder asses than Che’ and they are Chihuahuas.
Glenn Kennyon 15 Dec 2008 at 11:06 am 14Harry: “The whole truth about his hard ass would have been nice.” Yes, it would have. And somebody should make that film, although you certainly get intimations of that hard truth in pictures such as “Before Night Falls” and “Improper Conduct.”
But for myself, I’ve always insisted that in looking at any individual piece of, dare I say it, art, that you have to take into account what’s actually up there, not the thing that you or I or somebody else would have made had we been in the artist’s place. I don’t know if you recall, but I was one of the few critics to come down on “Motorcycle Diaries” for its Che-as-puppy angle. (http://www.premiere.com/Review/Movies/The-Motorcycle-Diaries) I don’t have the same problems with Soderbergh’s picture largely because, among other things, I don’t consider its structure an actual evasion, although plenty do, including the Times’ A.O. Scott.
What Soderbergh’s doing here, to my mind, is more of an historical re-creation, or attempt at it, along the lines of Rossellini’s films about the court of Louis XIV in the mid-’60s, I think. (Although when I brought that issue up during the Q&A, the head-scratching in the audience sounded almost exactly like crickets chirping.) I understand that’s not gonna satisfy a whole lot of people, but you never know. A friend and fellow film blogger who’s a Miami-raised son of Cuban immigrants who fully expected to loathe the film when he saw it at the New York Film Festival wound up respecting it quite a bit.
HARRY HERE: I agree with most of what you say. As an individual film (I see it tomm.) it might be fine in a vaccum, but we live in a bigger moral world than one filmmaker’s vision. There are those who see art’s responsibility only to art, and those like myself who see a bigger responsibility. In the picture business, this has been the debate since BIRTH OF A NATION.
But I can see it from your side.
From my side, however, what I see is an industry falling over themselves in various forms to grant ONLY humanity to Uncle Fidel, Hugo, Raul, and Che’ — and to rip an issue outraging the Left today, what do you think those clowns’ record is on gay civil rights? By all means, save the outrage for Mormons and Jerry Lewis, but not these guys.
Soderbergh is ground zero right now with respect to our continued head-shaking over the values and morals on the Left. Monsters guilty of the worst human rights’ crimes imaginable don’t simply get a pass, they’re validated and excused — or in Che’s case — have their murderous crimes swept under the rug. Sure, you can all it art, especially in a world where used toilet paper can be given that definition. Like Spielberg’s Munich, it sounds very much like a monstrous piece of art/propaganda…
But it’s really not healthy for society or art. The oxygen of both is truth and by all accounts Soderbergh is a liar by omission.
moviebobon 15 Dec 2008 at 11:16 am 15“HARRY HERE: Then you would be John Cusack. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290210/“
“Max” was not a whitewashing of Hitler. The whole point of the character’s appearance in the film is that EVERYONE knows who Hitler is and what he will become and that the other characters don’t realize that History’s Greatest Monster is taking shape right before their eyes.
SPOILER ALERT
The film is mainly about a frustrated German artist (Cusack) who’s trying to mentor a young art-student Hitler. He knows what the kid believes, and that he’s “falling in” with the proto-Nazi crowd, but he thinks he can save the kid by directing his energy into the arts - at one point, Young Hitler shows him a portfolio full of his designs for Nazi logos and architecture, and the guy just sees it as a great conceptual art piece. Of course, we KNOW it’s going to end badly, but the film leaves things just slightly ambiguous as to whether or not getting recognized for his sketches instead of his fiery speeches would’ve stopped Hitler from becoming, well, Hitler.
It’s a pretty good movie, little long at points.
flyingtigeron 15 Dec 2008 at 11:17 am 16A little background is needed. When and where was this taken? He must have been shocked to discover that not everyone idolizes Che.
Michaelon 15 Dec 2008 at 11:18 am 17Soderberg’s ridiculous ending line, “We’re lucky to live here.” Rings hollow when you consider that he just made a film glorifying the ideals of a murderer who’s goal in life was to destroy everything that makes the ‘Here,” he’s talking about worth living in.
It is actually a rather cowardly attempt to assuage those in the audience who were beating up on him.
If Soderberg had lived in Che’s Cuba he would either become one of the murderers, one of those dragged off to reeducation camps, or stood against a wall and shot.
Useful idiot personified.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 15 Dec 2008 at 11:23 am 18How many Soderburgs have been imprisoned or killed by Che, Castro and their followers. Like the liberals denouncing Bush for fighting the terrorists - the same terrorists that target those liberals when they have the chance.
Willing dupes like Soderburg don’t have a clue.
Dirty Harryon 15 Dec 2008 at 11:27 am 19Michael: I agree. When Soderbergh utters, “We’re lucky to live here,” it comes off as nothing more than a simpering attempt to be left alone instead of truly standing up for his film.
I’ve already got my tickets for tomorrow’s screening. Maybe it will be REDS, a terrific film with an immoral message?
I can dream.
Christian Totoon 15 Dec 2008 at 11:45 am 20Glenn,
You’re dodging the issue … creating a biopic that’s Four Hours Long and leaving out some of the person’s most despicable acts is problematic to say the very least.
But putting that aside … listen to Soderbergh’s comments/denials/evasions in that clip. Listen to comments Ted Turner recently said about admiring Castro. Why do liberals have such soft spots for despots? They rush to blame Bush for all the world’s evils, and frankly I’m ok with that if you’re gonna treat the Castros of the world the same way. But they don’t. Why???
Isn’t condemning the Castros and Ches of the world one area where the Left and Right can agree?
v.on 15 Dec 2008 at 12:03 pm 21“A little background is needed. When and where was this taken? He must have been shocked to discover that not everyone idolizes Che.”
This was Friday night’s screening at the Ziegfeld Theater in New York, which I ended up snagging tickets to at the last second (and which Glenn ably conducted the Q&A at afterwards). As for Soderbergh being “shocked” (which I assume is sarcasm), he had just gotten back from what were apparently some contentious screenings in Miami, so a New York crowd wasn’t going to ruffle him at all. As you can hear from the dude screaming “Murderer” and “bullshit,” there was a corrective check there as well.
“There is no conflation. The Hollywood celeb set aspire to European radical chic and travel in the same circles.”
Sorry to tell you this, but the days of Hanoi Jane and Godard collaborations have passed.
Dirty Harryon 15 Dec 2008 at 12:12 pm 22v.
You have a marvelous gift for the dismissive. It almost covers the fact you don’t argue your own side. Almost.
Glenn Kennyon 15 Dec 2008 at 12:14 pm 23Christian—I was there, moderating the Q&A—if the angle on that video were a little wider, you would have seen me to Soderbergh’s left, cravenly scanning the theater for the nearest exit. So I heard what he said, and a lot more. And I don’t regard his statements as evasions or rationalizations. He’s completely aware that in Che’s Cuba, he’d be a dead duck.
Obviously you see the picture as a symptom of a larger problem, that is, liberals having soft spots for despots. I’ve never considered Ted Turner a classic lib before, but I see Soderbergh’s perspective as substantively different from Turner’s.
In any case, I see Harry’s going to see the picture soon, and I’ll be interested in his reaction.
TeacherDaveon 15 Dec 2008 at 12:16 pm 24I want to get as much information as I can on Che so that I can argue with lefties I know about his bloody history.
Can anyone recommend for me a factual, even-handed (or at least only mildly slanted) book about the life of Che?
Monday link love — WHAT WOULD TOTO WATCH?on 15 Dec 2008 at 12:26 pm 25[…] Harry is hosting a fascinating conversation concerning the new movie “Che” and its apologist, I mean director, Steven […]
NCvoteron 15 Dec 2008 at 12:59 pm 26TeacherDave - I used to volunteer with an agency that resettled Cuban refugees, almost all of whom had been jailed in Cuba before resettling in the US. Several refugees were doctors whose only offense was accessing the internet to decry human rights violations in that country. Others had been jailed on suspicions of homosexuality (nothing more). This was as recent as 7-8 years ago. Any of them could give you a perspective not found in Hollywood films.
GMKon 15 Dec 2008 at 12:59 pm 27Maybe he’s just a clinical narcissist who can see quite well that Che is exactly what he is, and advocacy of Che is simply advocacy of himself by extention, something no narcissist can resist doing.
I think pretending there is a better nature to appeal to in any of these Marxist assclowns is an insult to those of us who have a better nature. They need to be classified, and treated, as what they are. Anything else constitutes abuse of the innocent by mixing them in with the innocent. Hollywood narcissists, and they are legion, need to be contained with ridicule the way you contain other lesser animals with cattleprods. They simply respond to nothing else. Wasting energy treating their objections to America as if they are intellectually honest just wounds good people. Make them look foolish. It’s the only thing that works. That’s why they are all afraid of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. They’ll kick anybody in the nuts.
They aren’t getting it wrong, they aren’t committing an error of reasoning, they aren’t dupes. They just want to see the world burn. You forget that and you might as well just team up with them because anything you do to fight back just plays into their hands.
jpon 15 Dec 2008 at 1:26 pm 28Andy Garcia’s movie, The Lost City, couldn’t get the time of day. This one does
jpon 15 Dec 2008 at 1:27 pm 29Can anyone recommend for me a factual, even-handed (or at least only mildly slanted) book about the life of Che?
Humberto Fontova has two books I know of, one about Che and another titled “Fidel’ which I’ve read.
the limits of their crimes are astounding, when they killed political prisoners they drained their blood and sold it.
jpon 15 Dec 2008 at 1:29 pm 30if this movie worships the Che cult and re-writes basic history. Andy Garcia is who should publicly call out Soderberg and embarass him. He has the hollywood status to do so, he kinda has with his movie on Castro already.
Glenn Kennyon 15 Dec 2008 at 1:37 pm 31Thanks for that, GMK. Tell us a little more about your plans for classification and treatment. From behind your convenient mask of anonymity.
I myself am kind of interested (and here I cease attempts at sarcasm) in Andy Garcia’s reaction to the film. And curious as to whether it’s caused and rifts in his relations with Soderbergh (they worked together on all three of the “Ocean’s” pictures). I suppose we’ll hear something soon.
Dirty Harryon 15 Dec 2008 at 1:41 pm 32I didn’t care for Andy Garcia’s film. I appreciated what he tried to do and think he’s a wonderful actor, but the narrative was difficult to follow and kept you at arm’s length.
And Soderbergh’s film is based on Che’s own auto-biography which might explain the whole not killing lotso’ innocent people stuff in there.
I’m also interested in watching the film tomorrow from Soderbergh’s “You can see he’s capable of murder” perspective.
jpon 15 Dec 2008 at 1:58 pm 33Lost city could’ve been great, if big money had been behind it and it wasn’t so personal for Garcia. It was a good concept and a strong story, however too long and Bill Murray’s character was pointless and not funny. Dustin Hoffman was good though.
jpon 15 Dec 2008 at 2:00 pm 34our moral egalitarian elites will be the death of us, freaking idiots.
“Relativism will certainly damn our souls and end our Species” -C.S. Lewis
I swear postmoderns are determined to make the man a prophet
Jasonon 15 Dec 2008 at 2:00 pm 35Soderbergh is not a moral relativist; nor is he a more equivalist. What he is is a moral inversionist. His moral worldview is inverted. Up is down, down is up, right is wrong, wrong is right.
Liberator Bush is “evil.”
Mass-murdering, gay-executing Che is a “hard-ass” and a “hero.”
Welcome to Hollywood Bizarro World.
jpon 15 Dec 2008 at 2:04 pm 36it truely is amazing the type of retardation and stupidity it takes to make Gay Propaganda movies in hollywood and also movies that glorify the Che cult at the sametime by the same group of people, oblivious to it all.
the same group are very pro-Abortion, while huge Animal Rights supporters who freak out over a photo op of Palin while a Turkery gets killed!
jpon 15 Dec 2008 at 2:08 pm 37Soderbergh also makes movies glorifying Crime(Oceans 11) while he and Clooney and company accuse Bush of “War Profiteering, Haliburton, War of Oil, blah, blah”.
v.on 15 Dec 2008 at 2:10 pm 38DH: I’m not going to argue my side because — quite sincerely — I have absolutely zero interest in the actual historical Che Guevara (and even less hope of convincing one of your readers that somehow the Hollywood elite — Reese Witherspoon? The Rock? — are palling around with “radical chic” Europeans, who I frankly don’t see much of out there these days; it’d be like me insisting all of your readers are members of the John Birch Society. I’ll buy that many H’wood actors speak prominently on causes I may agree with but which they seem to barely comprehend, but it’s not quite the same thing). This probably makes me amoral (or maybe just irresponsible), but that’s how I feel about it; I can understand why many people would still be very angry about him, but I don’t care either way.
I am, however, intensely interested in Soderbergh, and while I think he was being a bit disingenuous in claiming “it doesn’t matter” what he thinks (I mean, it has to), the movie has this bizarre kind of neutrality to it. I didn’t feel anything while watching it except for interested in the movie as a technical accomplishment. Soderbergh’s movies tend to be based around concepts (The Good German — which I agree is awful — as a counter-WWII movie, Bubble as a lower-class study, etc.); Che is deliberately built to rhyme in two halves, which it does. Soderbergh is just strange enough that I could absolutely believe he’s mostly interested in making a movie about who has someone with way stronger beliefs than he does. (To put it another way: Soderbergh’s a moral relativist, and I never get a sense of real conviction from him about anything. Che most definitely was not, and this seems to fascinate Soderbergh.)
I’m aware that pretty much everything I wrote above might be considered dangerously myopic or irresponsible to most of your readers. To be honest, Che left me absolutely cold on any visceral level, but I have a hard time seeing even you thinking the film is propaganda or glorification. It might be a product of a fascination you might find repugnant, but I can’t see anyone on either side being politically gratified by this movie. Honest.
whiskeyon 15 Dec 2008 at 2:31 pm 39Soderbergh is the symptom of the disease.
Counter v and Glenn Kenny, Hollywood’s disease is social and class based.
When Hollywood was run by deeply assimilationist Jews, who deliberately maintained a middle class outlook, this sort of thing would have been impossible absent heavy War Department pressure to propagandize during War Time. Hollywood was then incapable for the most part of widely supporting America’s enemies and those who wished to destroy it’s middle class structure.
Because Hollywood WAS middle class, for the most part, when it came to writers, directors, producers, and many actors. Oh sure the stars led rich, highly upper class lives, but the great bulk of Hollywood was middle class. People who lived next door to lawyers, accountants, engineers, and so on.
NOW, you look at a guy like Soderbergh, and the hatred for the middle class and the middle class values shines through. Soderbergh HATES everything about the Middle Class, it’s values, it’s morality, it’s middling status and values of hard work, morality, delayed gratification, and so on that allow the middle class to STAY middle class and possibly even move upwards.
Because Soderbergh and Hollywood is a diseased aristocracy, as corrupt and decadent as any before it. Hollywood is run by WASPy Ivy League grads, who play with other people’s money, and never have to show a profit. Status and power accrues to those who can demonstrate the most loathing for America, and middle class values. Hence “Towelhead,” “Hounddog,” and of course, “Che.”
I doubt Soderbergh even knows what capitalism and communism is. He’s not very smart, or well read, or anything but a man of some small skills (very small) who depends on personal connections and status for continued success. In the closed shop, nepotistic environment that is Hollywood.
Heck, OF COURSE Soderbergh ADMIRES Che’s killing. The way decadent aristocrats ALWAYS admire those who kill without compunction, pity, sorrow, or regret. Particularly when their victims are the middle class.
If you try and pencil in Left-Right politics into institutions it largely breaks down. If you understand American institutions particularly Hollywood (and corrupt aristocrats like Soderbergh) as class-based, with the corrupt aristocrats in eternal war on middle class values and people, it makes perfect sense.
Heck, look at their anti-War pictures. A smart propagandist would portray Iraq and Afghanistan as a “betrayal” of middle-class values and home-town America, filled with goodness and light, the fighting of the war something that betrays the fundamental “goodness” of America. Instead the film-makers betray their game by showing small town America and Americans as debased, corrupt, and vile themselves, full of bigotry and hatred. Which is why of course they flopped.
To sum up: Soderbergh, a typical Hollywood aristocrat who is convinced he is far better than you all, and worships a guy who really did kill middle class people (which was what Che was all about, really, killing his middle class parents).
whiskeyon 15 Dec 2008 at 2:37 pm 40As a follow-up, Che was a total failure and disaster, in fact any movie about him ought to show how much a failure he was in every particular way.
Latin America is poor and violent because it is plagued by “Big Man” social arrangements, with corrupt and brutal plantation style economies. There is no middle class society with an expectation of law, order, and lots of trust between people. Enabled by patriotism, and the sense that all are fellow nationals who take pride and comfort from national institutions and heroes and their fellow national citizens.
Che correctly diagnosed the problems: the corruption and violence and poverty. His answer was more of the same of “Big Man” disease, as was Castro’s, and the Shining Path, and Chavez, and every other tin-pot two bit would be dictator or actual dictator.
Not a man among them was willing to serve his terms and leave, as Washington did, or follow the path of the Founding Fathers and provide a government for men not Angels, with checks, balances, and the prevention of tyranny rather than “effectiveness” in killing social enemies.
None of them and particularly Che, was willing to change the CULTURE and expectations of how to live. All wanted a Big Man dictator, rather than changing life from below upwards to how people should behave, what is morally good and bad, how people should trust one another, demand honesty, form social bonds, and the like.
v.on 15 Dec 2008 at 2:42 pm 41Oh, and thanks for the reminder of The Lost City. When that came out, I was editing a student paper and ran a negative review (never saw it). I got angry e-mails from people in Florida; they were EXCEPTIONALLY well-coordinated on that. It was interesting.
Glenn Kennyon 15 Dec 2008 at 2:52 pm 42Whiskey: You write: “NOW, you look at a guy like Soderbergh, and the hatred for the middle class and the middle class values shines through. Soderbergh HATES everything about the Middle Class, it’s values, it’s morality, it’s middling status and values of hard work, morality, delayed gratification, and so on that allow the middle class to STAY middle class and possibly even move upwards.”
Example, please? Just one. I’m curious. I can’t even think of a single Soderbergh film that is ABOUT the middle class.
Although one thing I personally hate about the middle class is its increasing inability to use the apostrophe correctly.
Nickolas Dilmoreon 15 Dec 2008 at 3:02 pm 43For V: question about the movie’s “Che neutral” narrative: does it depict him as a bumbling idiot who never actually led any successful missions or battles? Does it show how, when Castro put Che in charge of Cuba’s economy, Cuba went from being Latin America’s economic powerhouse to worse than flat broke in less than three years? Are there depictions of Che executing hundreds of prisoners without the benefit of a trial, often administering the coup de grace via pistol to the head himself? Are there scenes showing his disastrous forays into the Congo, where he got most of his men killed? Are the last moments in the film Che surrendering to Bolivian troops with his weapon fully loaded, while his men kept fighting and dying?
Buggon 15 Dec 2008 at 3:20 pm 44“Those acts were necessary”. Echoes of “We were good Germans, we were only following orders”.
Penelope27on 15 Dec 2008 at 3:47 pm 45What I find even more bothersome, not that there are people who would justify what Che did (even though, apparently, he did not show it in his movie)- is the timing.
I am at the end of the Baby Boomer generation, who has no problem with revisionist history, but the following generations have absolutely no historical perspective (or clue) whatsoever about Cuba. A film like this is easy to go see and jump on the Che band wagon.
It is difficult to debate these people, because if you bring up the facts about Che, they simply do not believe it.
Michaelon 15 Dec 2008 at 3:58 pm 46“Che was just one of those guys who walked the walk and talked the talk. There’s just something cool about people like that. The more I get to know Che, the more I respect him.” Benicio Del Toro.
Please don’t try to pretend this is not a piece geared toward praising this killer and reenforcing the modern liberal vision of him as some kind of revolutionary hero.
ModDemon 15 Dec 2008 at 5:14 pm 47You really misread this YouTube clip.
When he says, “if you think he is a murderer…’ he isn’t floating that idea as if HE doesn’t think Che is a murderer. He is floating the idea that perhaps others out there think that Che is not a murderer. And face it, lots of college kids outside of this so called ‘Hollywood bubble’ view Che as a revolutionary hero. It should be noted this film is not a Hollywood film. It was financed independently without a distributor. It wasn’t greenlit by any studio.
Joe Weldonon 15 Dec 2008 at 5:33 pm 48Soderbergh: “I can’t be half in, and half out.”
Yet that’s exactly what he did.
If the reviews are correct, and Soderbergh didn’t show any mass executions of innocent people that Che participated in, then he’s bullsh*tting in this interview on stage, just covering his ass.
Someone should’ve yelled, “Why didn’t you show him lining up and murdering innocent people?”
Just watching the excellent video Killer Chic that Harry showed us recently, it’s tragic to see an unmistakable trend…
There is no right and wrong with these idiots anymore.
There’s only RIGHT and LEFT.
Hitler T-shirts - unthinkable.
Che or Mao shirts - cool.
Calling Americans ‘imperialists’ - which is what the Soviets used to call us - right on!
Man-made global warming deniers - same as Holocaust deniers.
Islamic paramilitary death squads in Iraq wiping out the population for the last 5 years - nawwwww, let’s call them ‘insurgents’! That’s it!
I feel like grabbing these ass*oles by the collar and yelling at them like Jabba the Hut: “You weak-minded fool! They’re using an old neo-Marxist mind trick!”.
Nauseating.
Thomas Talionison 15 Dec 2008 at 5:51 pm 49I met a guy from Amnesty International who was wearing a Che hat. He was oblivious.
Also, the trailer looks so fair and balanced and I assure you the movie is not.
I love how they show the CIA allows meeting in lush surroundings while the brave rebels are in the jungles. Someone has seen Paths to Glory.
gmkon 15 Dec 2008 at 6:28 pm 50Hey Glenn Kenney: My name is Gerard Michael Knorr, I was born 11/27/69 in Deaconess Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri. I own my own business, my clients are people who think like me, and I railed your mom in the ass. What’s your real name?
The Evil Twinon 15 Dec 2008 at 6:46 pm 51Teacher Dave:
Here’s a great website that lays out the truth about Che:
http://trenblindado.com/index.html
Glenn Kennyon 15 Dec 2008 at 6:52 pm 52Glenn Kenny is my real name, Mr. Knorr. As it happens I’ll be visiting Missouri soon. You want to take that opportunity to say that shit about my mother to my face?
Nice folks you get here, Harry.
The Almighty Turtleon 15 Dec 2008 at 7:19 pm 53Chris B:
“Imagine if someone in Hollywood made a movie telling the story of a a good looking young man from Sweden who in 1941 decided to leave home so he could join the Waffen SS and lead other Swedes in the battle against the Soviets.”
Actually, I could see that. Many Norwegian and Swedish nationals tried to volunteer for the German military during the war. Now, many of them were scum, but many of them did so because they wished to aid Democratic Finland (who was engaged in a five-year struggle to stay afloat against a Soviet Onslaught and the creeping influence of the Reich).
“Now image the director of this film trying to objectify/white wash the service of this young Waffen SS volunteer.”
It would usually depend on the SS unit you were assigned to. Indeed, several units (Estonian, Latvian, and Finnish) units actually served with honor and were never accused of war crimes (indeed, the former two were explicitly distinguished from the SS in general by the Western Allies postwar, and actually served as guards during Nuremberg!), while, on the other hand of the spectrum, you have swine like Kamfgruppe Pieper, Dirlewanger’s “men”, and the like.
” The Soviets were really bad after all, and the fight against communism was noble fight”
Which I think we can all agree with, especially given the fact that many wished to aid Finland, not the Third Reich.
…Hilter’s methods were just wrong”
As well as tyrannical, predatory, and destructive. To replace one evil with another is no cure.
“Given Soderberg’s Swedish ancestry and outlook, I am sure he would would find serious issue with this director”
That I can believe.
“(and he would be very right too!)” that would depend, like I said.
“These people would be petrified to see a film made that made no judgments about the service of a member of the Waffen SS, but yet they can embrace Che.”
Dingdingding, we have a winner! Hell, these people would probably be outraged if it showed the SS units with largely clean hands (Finnish, Baltic Nationalists, ect) even while pointing out the less-then-noble approach of their “comrades” in the other SS units, while at the same time cozying up to Che and Castro.
Avery Bullardon 15 Dec 2008 at 7:30 pm 54whiskey: Hollywood is run by WASPy Ivy League grads
Neither Hollywood nor the Ivy Leagues are run by WASPs.
…Hollywood was run by deeply assimilationist Jews… Hollywood was then incapable for the most part of widely supporting America’s enemies and those who wished to destroy it’s middle class structure.
Because Hollywood WAS middle class
Class is less important than ethnicity, or rather, ethnic genetic interests. It always is in ethnically mixed societies.
When WASP hegemony over the Ivy Leagues and, by extension, the country, ended, the entire culture changed. Hollywood no longer had to appease an elite that identified with the bourgeois values that were adaptive from an Anglo-American perspective. Those values were a product of the the Anglo-Saxon extended phenotype, which has declined due to competing phenotypes.
We are evolved to value certain goals because ultimately they serve our genetic, not material, interests. Those genetic interests cannot be separated from ethnic interests. (See Pierre van den Berghe’s ‘ethnic nepotism’ concept).
Class/material interests have little to do with Hollywood’s (and America’s) transformation.
ModDemon 15 Dec 2008 at 7:33 pm 55whisky
There are a couple [few maybe] facts you should consider. Re Towelhead; The movie’s message is that slurs like that are unacceptable. And note that the film is based on a novel written by Alicia Erian an Arab-American. She’s hardly Hollywood elite. And actually it is Islamic groups that were upset by the title. Why would you be? Hounddog too is a movie about the horrors of rape. The movie has something important to say. It too is independently made. Again not a Hollywood bankrolled film.
Also get your facts a bit straighter on why Latin America is poor and violent. The work of the CIA to undermine the democratically elected governments in favor of dictators who were anything but democratic has a lot to do with the shape Latin America is in. Che, of course, is a controversial figure but you can’t tell me Pinochet, Noriega and the military fools in Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil who killed and ‘disappeared’ thousands are less controversial. What’s more the US supported them, which is problematic. At least Che was killed.
Thomas Talionison 15 Dec 2008 at 8:02 pm 56I’m watching Che from the projection booth right now. Amazing hypocrisy.
They’re sitting around a table discussing the coup but ‘it must be based on principles.’
That’s why they’re better than the dictator they replaced. They go on to talk about ‘the people’ and making their lives better. Way to go.
Thomas Talionison 15 Dec 2008 at 8:05 pm 57Pinochet only killed/exiled people who wanted to take away the freedom of his countrymen.
They were called Communists. And they were actively armed by Cuba, East Germany and the U.S.S.R.
The tried to hide under the protection of Democracy. Ironically, that is the first thing that they would take away if they came to power.
Note: Pinochet lost an election after the Communist threat and stepped down from power.
His free market policies made Chile extremely prosperous also. They tend to.
The Almighty Turtleon 15 Dec 2008 at 8:17 pm 58ModDem: While I think you are missing the point (ONE of Towelhead’s messages may have been slurs=bad, but it had others, and there are other movies that say things to the effect that racial stereotypes are bad, so why no movies from them?), I am going to have to ding you on the Latin America point.
Hard.
“Also get your facts a bit straighter on why Latin America is poor and violent.”
Well, let’s see here, we have the Spanish Imperial abuses, the authoritarian tendencies that corrupted many of the Latin American “founding fathers”, from Toussant L’Overture (yes, he was from French Haiti, not Spanish America, but bear with me), to Bernardo O’Higgins, to even Simon Bolivar, we also have the fact that there was no real concept of divisions of power- as can be seen from Bolivar’s writing down to Porfirio Diaz and other dictators that have come and went. In other news, there were plenty of internal issues as well as external ones.
“The work of the CIA to undermine the democratically elected governments in favor of dictators who were anything but democratic”
Yes, that is a just point, and one that I have come to loggerheads over with some on this site. However, while you have a point, you are missing a larger one: we were FAR from the only power influencing things. Cuba, the USSR, and China all had their fingers in the pie, and the fact is that- sadly- we often have had to keep our eye on them, even if that means ignoring the (to use a ludicrous euphemism) slightly-less than savory acts of the goons we propped up. Hell, FORGET the Cold War, take a look at Latin America from 1898-1943, which saw a struggle between the US and one end and Germany on the other (both the Kaiserreich and Hitler) and you realize that the situation is not as nice or dainty as one would like it to be. And this, like it or not (and make no mistake, I DO NOT) goes a long way to explaining why we did what we did frequently and with many mistakes: because, while Somozoa was “A son of a B*tch”, he (as FDR put it) was “Our son of a B*tch”, and at the very least would not side with the Germans or Soviets. And that fact determined our thinking vis-a-vis Latin America since the Spanish defeat in 1898 to the present day.
PerfectTommyon 15 Dec 2008 at 8:24 pm 59GMK - your post at #50 is might tacky.
PerfectTommyon 15 Dec 2008 at 8:35 pm 60“a might tacky” or “mighty tacky” would be suitable fixes for my previous post.
The Almighty Turtleon 15 Dec 2008 at 8:38 pm 61“has a lot to do with the shape Latin America is in.”
As does German, Soviet, Castroite, and Chinese meddling in the issue, in addition to plain old local corruption. The sad fact is that, while all of the above were scum, at the very least we could hope to do a Syngman Rhee on “our” scum, forcing them to be more democratic as time went on and the threat of them falling into hostile orbit lessened. And before you poh-poh this approach (and yes, it is a very unpleasant approach), it DID work in South Korea and Taiwan. On the other hand, Castro himself has outlasted the South Korean dictatorship that we eventually pressured into folding. And does he REALLY look like he is changing?
The fact is that US strategic thinking has been about one thing over all: self-preservation. While we certainly made bad calls (Mossadegh and Iran is one thing), sometimes hard choices must be made. And, must a remind you, we have not always been undermining “elected” regimes (do you REALLY think the Sandinistas were elected by any count save the bayonet one?) and indeed, were it not for the eevill CIA, Argentina, Chile, and Columbia would likely remain authoritarian dumps as opposed to the stumbling but slowly-evolving Democracies they are.
“Che, of course, is a controversial figure”
Lovely euphemism. While I do not entirely subscribe to the idea that he was entirely a fool, a moron, and a bloodsucking demon, the fact remains that he certainly racked up a kill count equivalent to Pinochet when he was not even the head of state (!!!) and helped to foster instability that ironically THREATENED progress towards democracy (you mention the charming Argentine Junta? Guess what that was a reaction to? That’s right, a Guereva-inspired “revolution” that undermined the stability of the previous Argentine Democracy and helped collapse it).
“Pinochet”
Ugh. Augusto Ugarte Pinochet, how I HATE you so. However, as despicable as the man was, you must realize that the alternative (Allende) was likely not going to be much better and probably would be worse (especially considering his alliances with Moscow and Habana and the fact that he was already greasing the machinery for far larger purges then the brutality Pinochet unleashed). In addition, guess who spent a lot of time applying pressure to force him to step down? Granted, that may not have been entirely humanitarian, but it DID pave way for modern Chilean democracy without the purges of Allende or the continuing vampirism of Pinochet. In addition (as I will mention later) half the reason we felt that we had to support Pinochet was because he (like it or not) was a balance to both Soviet infiltration and the Argentine Junta.
Thomas Talionison 15 Dec 2008 at 8:49 pm 62Here’s a quick video on pinochet:
http://www.popmodal.com/video/1193/Pinochet-Debate
Glenn Kennyon 15 Dec 2008 at 8:50 pm 63Thanks for pointing that out, PT.
But now what I wanna know is, is Avery Bullard saying what I THINK he’s saying? ‘Cause that takes things from “tacky” to really creepy.
ModDemon 15 Dec 2008 at 8:56 pm 64The Almighty Turtle
That’s hardly a ding. I thought you were going to say the right wing military dictatorships were better than the democratically elected ones. The threat of the USSR, China and Cuba has proven to be just that - a threat. But other than Cuba nothing else. I won’t defend Castro and Cuba. But I will defend the overthrown democratically elected governments of the countries I named above. It should be noted that the CIA had a massive propaganda campaign about the Soviet threat with which they justified overthrowing the governments and implementing new governments that applied torturous tactics.
I won’t disagree about Latin America from 1898 to 1943. And I won’t even say that had there been no military dictators that things today in Latin America would be rosy and prosperous. But those dark days of the 70’s and 80’s where the rich got a little richer and the poor a little poorer [and fear reigned] helped shape some of what we see today. Suffice it to say I’m not taking a black & white view of this - just pointing out that Latin America is not a mess because of leftists.
Dirty Harryon 15 Dec 2008 at 8:59 pm 65Here I take a couple of hours to get a haircut and peruse the previously viewed DVD bins and all hell breaks out.
All right, who mentioned whose mother first?
The Almighty Turtleon 15 Dec 2008 at 8:59 pm 66D’arvit, Part 2 is not showing up. Oh well, please hold until it does, would you kindly?
“Noriega”
By all accounts, our ties with Noriega were by far the weakest of the ones you mentioned save perhaps the Argentines (perhaps). He didn’t come to power with our explicit approval, and he was a double-dealer. Hell, if anything, he had more support coming from Moscow and Habana then he did from us. And that showed when we kicked him up and hauled him back up here. Ironically, the destruction of his military regime also helped pave way for Panamanian Democracy as it exists today.
“the military fools in Argentina”
STOP THE PRESSES! OK, while we certainly supported the coup that brought them into power, we certainly began to distance ourselves from them during the “Dirty War” (indeed, half of Kissenger’s infamous memo to them was to wrap it up and then start to curtail their abuses), and, by the late 70’s, we regarded them as an enemy. Indeed, half the reason we supported Pinochet was because he got into a mini-Cold War with the Junta (the Beagle Conflict) and, as such, Chilean intelligence and bases would be needed to keep a lid on Buenos Aires. This was especially true after the Argentines began to menace the Falkland Islands, where Reagan pretty much had to fly down to try and cut a deal with Pinochet in order to get the info and bases Britain desperately needed to offset Argentine numerical superiority. Not pleasant, and not a highlight of our nation’s history, but one that -due to the pressures of the day, both from Buenos Aires and from Moscow- that we felt we had to do. Indeed, it was our aid to the British that led to the defeat of Argentina, the collapse of the Junta, and Argentine Democracy in its present form. So, of the above, i would have to say that the tie is perhaps the loosest and least justified (though still justified given our ties to the coup), as we spent most of our time with them treating them as an enemy.
“Uruguay”
OK, I take back that note regarding Noriega: THIS was the one we had the least involvement with. Pretty much everything that happened in there was hardly touched by us (after all, there was little threat of Communist domination, and the threat of Argentine use of the territory was largely gone afterwards). Overall, the dictatorship then had more connections with the Colorado-Blanco Civil Wars in the 19th century then with us, and we occasionally sent some aid the few times the Reds did pop up, but it was largely hands-off.
ModDemon 15 Dec 2008 at 9:13 pm 67Thomas Talionis
At least one of the guys thought that what Pinochet did was reprehensible. But what they seemed to forget was there was no war in Chile. It was a coup with one side carrying out the war - that would be Pinochet’s side.
But I should point out that PopModal is a pretty [unintentionally?] humorous sight. They call themselves the “Conservative Alternative to YouTube”. Funny, I thought YouTube didn’t lean any which way? They allow most anything to be uploaded regardless of political persuasion.
The Almighty Turtleon 15 Dec 2008 at 9:20 pm 68“Brazil”
Vargas’ Estado Novo was closer to Portugal then us, and largely was decapitated in the 40’s, following Brazil’s entry into WWII, when we used our influence over the semi-Fascist state to strangle it, which led to the democratization of Brazil that lasted until 1964. The coup of 1964 was certainly supported by us, and while we did give support to it in a lukewarm fashion until 68, our demands were slowly collapsing the Junta under the weight of its contradictions, and it likely that it would have until the violent reactions (in yet another Che-esque revolution) breathed new life back into the military regime.
After that, all hell broke loose, and we pretty much gave everything to the Brazilian dictatorship until 1971, when we started to back away after Operation Condor started to sour us towards them (contrary to popular belief, we did not actively intervene on a major basis, and this was primarily a show between Pinochet, the Brazilians, and the Argentines). After this and the Pro-Arab League stance, we began to pressure the Brazilian regime to step down by starting to bleed aid off. And this helped crack the regime in 1985.
“who killed and ‘disappeared’ thousands”
And I can not summarize that in any other way then to say that it is sickening, and I am horrified to hear those justify it. However, as I mentioned before, American foreign policy revolved around Moscow and Beijing, not Latin America.
“are less controversial”
Hardly. It depends on who you ask.
“What’s more the US supported them,”
See above for my responses and outline of them.
The fact is that you are an idealist, and that is good. However, the true tragedy of Latin America is that it has long been a pawn in the larger games of power (Western Allies VS Germany, West VS USSR VS China, West VS Jihad VS China VS Russia, etc). And there is no shame in feeling rage at what has happened there, both with and without our support. However, one must realize that sometimes, there is no “right” answer.
FDR (after he became aware of Stalin’s true nature) and the other Western Allies did not like allying with Stalin, they just pointed out that, if they did not, it was likely that all of Europe would have fallen to tyranny rather then “merely” half of it. And, while we can talk about crushing Pinochet and the Brazilian Junta as easily as we can talk about having Patton and Co drive straight to the Kremlin to publicly hang Stalin in Red Square, the fact is that the realities of the day -as sickening as they may be- do not always offer such sweet options. And it must be noted that it was not only Che, but also Ortega, Castro, Chavez, and FARC all have kill counts higher then the ones you mentioned above, and the second one actually threatened to start World War III by storming the Soviet launch sites and firing the nukes (which helped cause the Soviet pullout from there).
Like I said, sometimes, there is no easy answer. But, answer me this: do you think that, had Che’s dream come into bloom, that Latin America would be a better place then it is today?
“At least Che was killed.”
Seconded. However, the tragedy of human nature is that there is always another Che, Noriega, Pinochet, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Bismarck, and Castro lying in the wings, waiting for their chance.
God, I think I am depressing myself.
The Almighty Turtleon 15 Dec 2008 at 9:30 pm 69Thomas:
“Pinochet only killed/exiled people who wanted to take away the freedom of his countrymen.”
Alright, that is just sickening, and it is something I will not nor cannot stand for. Were some of Pinochet’s victims members of radical Communist regimes and the abortive Allende dictatorship? Yes. But to paint everyone with that brush is a despicable lie, and is a smear against the innocent who DID suffer.
“They were called Communists.”
And Liberals, and Conservatives, and Capitalists who did not give Pinochet a cut, and people who wanted a reconciliation with Argentina over the Beagle standoff, and…
“And they were actively armed by Cuba, East Germany and the U.S.S.R.”
Allende and his thugs were, as well as several other thugs. However, many of them were innocents whose “weapons” were little more then nail files, paper clips, overlong toenails, and picket signs (and YES, all of those WERE what Pinochet would stretch to include “weapons” when he found it convenient to stretch things).
“The tried to hide under the protection of Democracy.”
With Allende and Co, this is a valid point. But, as for the others, all I can say is that it is amazing how those unruly peasants can get, being cynical about a man who stages a coup to rescue them from a forming dictatorship, and then does an about-face and becomes a dictator himself. How DARE they!
“Ironically, that is the first thing that they would take away if they came to power.”
With Allende and his fellow travelers, yes. With many of the others? No.
“Note: Pinochet lost an election after the Communist threat and stepped down from power.” After the US pretty much threatened to cut off the trickle of aid we were still giving him and redirect it to the righteously angry mob that was baying for his blood. Without that, it is doubtful that he would have EVER given up on power.
“His free market policies made Chile extremely prosperous also.” Stalin and Mao ushered their nations into the industrialized world. Franco and Hitler both enjoyed economic booms. Putin is largely credited (albeit falsely) with remaking Russia into a prosperous power. If that is enough for you to overlook the blood on his hands, then you do not deserve the time I have taken to reply to this.
The Almighty Turtleon 15 Dec 2008 at 9:41 pm 70ModDem:
“Funny, I thought YouTube didn’t lean any which way?”
It is a complicated thing dating back to Google’s acquisition. In any event, the most common caveat is that Conservative videos or videos seen as critical of Islamists (such as an Atheist’s video of choice verses of the Koran that are justified by Islamists after he did the same to the Bible- basically radical or inflammatory parts of the two religious books) are more readily banned even if they do follow Youtube’s guidelines then other things, such as Islamist propaganda, Anti-Semite ravings, etc.
Personally, I am of the opinion that, while Youtube’s management probably bears some blame, that the problem stems from militant use of the “flagging” even where not warranted and lack of checking to make sure.
However, I cannot sum up the entire thing here, and you would be better off getting a summary of the situation elsewhere.
The Almighty Turtleon 15 Dec 2008 at 9:47 pm 71ModDem:
“That’s hardly a ding. I thought you were going to say the right wing military dictatorships were better than the democratically elected ones.”
For the love of GOD, READ THE REST OF MY POST! I had to break it up in order to prevent issues with the spam filter (don’t ask), so don’t judge until you have looked through it!
“he threat of the USSR, China and Cuba has proven to be just that - a threat.”
And one could claim that the Third Reich and the USSR’s posturing towards the Eastern European republics was just that- a threat. At least until September 1st, 1939.
“It should be noted that the CIA had a massive propaganda campaign about the Soviet threat with which they justified overthrowing the governments and implementing new governments that applied torturous tactics.”
And I have duly noted that in abbreviated form (I don’t have all night)
“But those dark days of the 70’s and 80’s where the rich got a little richer and the poor a little poorer [and fear reigned] helped shape some of what we see today”
Indeed.
“just pointing out that Latin America is not a mess because of leftists.”
Well, to clarify, it isn’t a mess ONLY because of Leftists (like some fools seem to believe). Like many tragedies in the Cold War era, it was a mess created bipartisanly.
Like I mentioned, you interrupted my summarization, and I think you would understand my comments better if you read through the two parts after you commented.
The Almighty Turtleon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:02 pm 72Forgot this:
“And I won’t even say that had there been no military dictators that things today in Latin America would be rosy and prosperous.”
Indeed, but that was not my main point. It was that, even if we hadn’t backed the Rent-A-Thugs we propped up, there still could have been dictatorships (both military and otherwise) running rampant in Latin America, many of them getting their marching orders from Moscow and Beijing. To discount that is to miss a major reason for the constant one-upping we played both with the Germans and with the Warsaw Pact in the region for over a century.
Thomas Talionison 15 Dec 2008 at 10:02 pm 73At the end of Part One, Che makes one of his officers return a car he stole which he was going to drive Che to Havana, right after the revolution.
Funny, I didn’t know Communists believed in private property. Che is so moral.
The Almighty Turtleon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:05 pm 74Thomas:
And yet you fail to see that, by excusing thugs like Pinochet, you are falling into pretty much the same trap that Soderbergh and Co did.
Pitiful.
The Almighty Turtleon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:07 pm 75So, 19 posts in two hours thirty minutes. Pretty soon we are going to run out of bandwidth.
Thomas Talionison 15 Dec 2008 at 10:32 pm 76Turtle,
Again I ask, what was Pinochet suppose to do? Allow the Communists to take over and condemn his people to a life of meaningless servitude like Cuba?
The Almighty Turtleon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:53 pm 77Thomas:
“Again I ask, what was Pinochet suppose to do? Allow the Communists to take over and condemn his people to a life of meaningless servitude like Cuba?”
No. But perhaps, oh, I don’t know, he could have actually FOLLOWED UP on the whole “promises of free-elections” thing he made? After Allende fell, most of the hardline, authoritarian Reds pretty much died out within two years. After that, it was primarily the very people who he claimed to be defending that he was oppressing.
And that is nothing more than naked hypocrisy.
whiskeyon 16 Dec 2008 at 3:51 am 78Moddem — contrary to popular belief, history did not start in 1972. Latin America was and always has been a mess of Big Men because of it’s Hacienda Structure. A big ranch, with a big boss, who owns everything, and slaves/serfs/peasants. A few big winners, a lot of losers, is a recipe for social disaster that Che and Castro and Chavez all perpetuated.
Pinochet ended up with about $300 million the Bank. Castro has run Cuba as his feudal empire (he’s worth about $4 billion or so) for about fifty years. The difference between Castro and Pinochet is that the latter killed fewer people, stole less, and did not leave his country to the hereditary rule of his family.
This is what Che was all about: So Fidel could hand off rule after fifty years to his brother and nephew. For another fifty years between them.
Avery Bullard — oh yes Hollywood is run by the “Harvard Mafia,” the Simpsons being an excellent example (nearly all their writers from Harvard). The executive suites are all run by Ivy League WASP grads. One needs only peruse their biographies. This was inevitable once the assimilationist Jews who produced things like “It’s A Wonderful Life” and “Yankee Doodle Dandy” were replaced by guys who greenlighted “Syriana” and “The Good German.”
Glen Kenny — forgetting “Traffick” or “Solaris” or “Full Frontal” where the contempt for ordinary people and middle class life just drips from the screen? What about “Pleasantville” where Soderbergh produced?
In fact, Soderbergh’s inability to make most of his pictures about explicitly pro-middle class people and values is a huge red flag. Hollywood’s Golden Age directors, writers, and producers all made films for ordinary middle class people starring idealized middle class people celebrating middle class values and people.
Soderbergh makes a movie about Che and loves the fact that Che killed people. If that is not anti-middle class and the sign of monumental decadence I don’t know what is.
Soderbergh made one good movie, and that was “the Limey” where basically, Terence Stamp and Peter Fonda saved his behind. Making the gimmicky flashback scenes work, and carrying the movie by acting like the total masters of their craft those two vets really are. But then you could have had a monkey run the camera, and edit them, and it still would have been great.
Reality check: there are not that many tragically hip scenesters who lunch at the Ivy and find killers really, really cool and well, “hard-ass” to make Soderbergh anything but a long-term loser. I’m sure he’ll get jobs from his PC-buddies because his pal is George Clooney. And because people were impressed by “Sex Lies and Videotape.”
However, for most people, he’s worse than Michael Bay. Who at least pretends to put entertainment on screen. All Soderbergh has is the “cool” he feels about real, actual killers.
Next up: “Charlie!” the Manson biopic feel-good comedy of the year. Followed by “Jonestown the Musical.”
Glenn Kennyon 16 Dec 2008 at 5:51 am 79Whiskey:
Really? “Traffic”? In which the most sympathetic character is a cop, and which ends, if I recall, with him attending a Little League game? Whoa, yeah, the contempt for ordinary people there just drips off the screen. If “Full Frontal” condemns anyone, it’s the Hollywood types who eat at the Ivy, so I don’t see what your problem with it is. As for “Solaris,” about a scientist/astronaut and his inability to find meaning in his life…I dunno.
And also, the “ordinary people” that “Pleasantville” makes fun of…are sitcom characters.
But I get your point. You really, really, really can’t stand Soderbergh. Which is your privilege.
Stephanieon 16 Dec 2008 at 7:19 am 80Look the leftists here can assume Che’ was freaking Saint Michael or something all they want. Ask the people who suffered. Dare one of you deniers and hypocrites to bring up Che to Cubans who suffered under his evil. Dare you. Bring it up to a friend of mine. I know what he would do and it wouldn’t be pretty but a lesson (hopefully) would be learned about Che’ and what people who had to live while he was killing their familys had to endure. Its called Moral Equivelency. I smell alot of well he did it…….and he was our guy. You know what my reply to that is? ITS NOT ABOUT PINOCHET YOU IDIOT! ITS ABOUT CHE” you know teh avenging angel of death? Get it? The guy who made Qusay Hussien look like Audie Friggen Murphy. PINOCHET has nothing to do with this discussion. So next person who brings up Pinochet should be ignored. Stay on message or get out of the argument. Your bringing up irrelevancies.
Glenn Kennyon 16 Dec 2008 at 8:03 am 81Che killed people.
Soderbergh made a film.
And Stephanie says: “Bring [Che] up to a friend of mine. I know what he would do and it wouldn’t be pretty.”
She’s right on one point. Pinochet has nothing to do with this (aside from the fact that one can find murderers on all political sides). But posturing about how violent your friend is apt to become when confronted with a Che supporter is a poor substitute for debate.
Oh, but I forgot. All any left-leaning people want is for the world to burn.
v.on 16 Dec 2008 at 8:12 am 82“For V: question about the movie’s “Che neutral” narrative”
The answer to most of these questions is obviously no, it’s just not there. But I’m not being clear on “neutral,” I guess; it’s just that I have a hard time seeing *anyone* being persuaded about anything about this movie.
But yes, if you want to see a movie about Che the abomination, this ain’t that. If that still strikes you as a moral problem, there’s nothing I can do about it. But this isn’t propaganda.
Carolynon 16 Dec 2008 at 8:40 am 83“Moral equivalency”.
I hate that description. Though it’s accurate, it’s banal, robbing you of the horror of what it describes. I prefer ‘no moral values’. It’s accurate and you can actually close your eyes and see what you’re describing.
(BTW, I’d like to add ‘cowardly liar’ as well.)
v.on 16 Dec 2008 at 11:04 am 84Sadly, I have yet to be convinced that being ambivalent about some issues means you are spineless, stupid or immoral. But it’s a nice thought.
Carolynon 16 Dec 2008 at 5:20 pm 85Uhm, v? Could you please read what I actually said? I did NOT say ‘ambivalent’. Didn’t mention it at all. You did. And then you went and protested. Yeah, protested a word I did not say. Wow!
That must be cool doing that. I mean, it saves so much time from having to actually read what someone says or listen, etc. Which then saves you from having to actually think about what they said or meant. Neat.
However, just to show how it’s supposed to be done - I will actually read what you said and then respond. To begin with, ‘ambivalent’ doesn’t mean you’re ’spineless, stupid or immoral’. It means you haven’t made up your mind. However, the problem with your attributing ambivalency to Soderbergh is that he isn’t ambivalent one bit. No siree. When you spend $80 million and three years making a film about Che which deliberately and knowingly eliminates any scenes where Che tortures, kills, maims, imprisons, murders, etc. huge numbers of people simply because they hold beliefs he doesn’t agree with, than there is NOTHING the least bit ‘ambivalent’ about that film. No siree, Bob, Soderbergh’s ‘Che’ has most definitely made up its mind. It doesn’t give a shit about Che’s murderous tendencies, his cruelty, his monstrosity, etc.
Nope, that isn’t ambivalent one bit. But it IS ’spineless, stupid and immoral’. It is spineless because Soderbergh hasn’t the honesty to admit he doesn’t give a shit. It’s stupid because he actually thinks we won’t notice . And it’s immoral because a person who refuses to confront the immorality of others - worse, to paper over, hide and deny immorality - is without morality himself. Which is the definition of a ‘morally equivalent’ person. Which is what I called Soderbergh to begin with.
I didn’t call him ambivalent. You did. And the reason I didn’t call him ‘ambivalent’ is because he isn’t. He’s ’spineless, stupid and immoral’. And for lying about that, he’s also a coward.
00smoothieon 16 Dec 2008 at 5:21 pm 86When Soderbergh says words to the effect that “It doesn’t matter what I think of Che, I have to present his story as it happened”, I just have to laugh. What, did this guy HAVE to make this movie? He had no choice? As others have stated before me, there can be a lot of agenda rolled up into the choice of which movies get made in the first place. He could’ve made a four hour (before edits) biography of Solzenhitsyn, but no: he chose to make one about Che. So don’t give me any of this “I didn’t choose how to tell the story, I had to be true to the story” BS, dude. You chose which story to make in the first place!