Che Part One stands as a fascinating piece of biography making, not compromising towards linearity, generic expectation or narrative; for some this will be enough of a turn-off for it to be viewed as a failure, but a failure on whose terms? As I began, Soderbergh is a filmmaker of contradictions, aware of the financial realities of his craft, and able to make interesting projects happen thanks to his almost unique position within the industry. Perhaps that is why he was attracted to making a film about Che Guevara, who also had to defend the contradictions of his position - revolution may be about love of one's fellow man, but this love necessitates killing. How can this paradox be reconciled? In private, this may be impossible, but in public one must attempt to square this circle.
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - pappy
I thought it was great, but then Che is my hero anyway. He saved so many lives, and taught people how to stick up for themselves and fight against US terrorism.