The Up and Down Of It

• email this story
• read comments (78)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

"Lawrence of Latin America," my Huffington Post article about Steven Soderbergh's two forthcoming films about Ernesto "Che" Guevara, went up a few minutes ago. I've said some of the same things in previous postings, but here are two taster graphs anyway:

"If you love epic-styled movies you've certainly seen and loved Lawrence of Arabia, which also means you've been influenced by the great win-lose Lawrence theme. The first half of David Lean's Oscar-winning 1962 film is mostly about climbing the mountain -- the dream, the struggle and the rush of an enigmatic hero fighting and winning an underdog battle. The second half is about tumbling down the other side as the cards -- personal, logistical and political -- turn against him.

"It's the basic template for almost every ambitious life or grand adventure. Things are always glorious and heart-pumping when you start out with God or fate on your side, but sooner or later these same forces will hand you clouds, complications and downturns. Just ask Barack Obama.

"This theme is why I've been so enthused about seeing Steven Soderbergh's Che Guevara films, The Argentine and Guerilla, for over a year now. Because Peter Buchman's two scripts, which I read in March 2007, made it clear that this two-part epic, which Soderbergh has been struggling to finish in time for the Cannes Film Festival and which reportedly runs over four hours, is essentially Lawrence of Latin America.

"Benicio del Toro, the moody and mesmerizing Marlon Brando-ish actor whose work keeps getting deeper and more fascinating, is all but certain to stir Oscar talk for his performance as Ernesto "Che" Guevara, the legendary Argentine/ Cuban firebrand. Even if the Che movies turn out to be problematic, Del Toro can't not whip ass. He's too strange, too gifted. Guevara is too perfect a role for him. All the stars and planets are aligned."

comment #1

actionman says ...

Great article, Jeff.

I hope Soderbergh knocked both of these outta the park. They both sound extremely interesting...

Question: how much (if anything) remains from Malick's drafts?

comment #2

BurmaShave says ...

So glad we have him on Obama's side to draw parallels to a murderous and insane scumbag. BEAT PEOPLE TO DEATH. WITH HIS BARE HANDS. FOR FUN. Also, sucked at revolution. Take off the fucking t-shirt.

comment #3

JackTorrance says ...

Che was a murderous right-wing lunatic disquised as a leftist hero. He ordered the execution of many artists, homosexuals, liberals, conservatives, and priests.

comment #4

gruver1 says ...

It would be so nice if Hollywood Elsewhere could attract more in the way of thoughtful, referenced, fully considered replies instead of the usual grunty, snarly gorilla postings that always turn up. This is my sadness. This is the load on my back. As Jose Ferrer's Turkish Bey says in "Lawrence of Arabia, "I am surrounded by cattle."

comment #5

BurmaShave says ...

Wells it would be nice if you did your homework. Not everything is subjective. Even humanism has its limits. As for the snarly grunts, who sets the tone here? Ban me if you like, but I wouldn't be saying this if I didn't have respect for you. .

comment #6

kidkosmic says ...

Che was no T.E.

Soderbergh is no Lean.

Gorilla is the new elephant in the room.

comment #7

Jay T. says ...

I think it's safe to say that the idea of Che is a hell of a lot better than the reality.

comment #8

actionman says ...

As Jose Ferrer's Turkish Bey says in "Lawrence of Arabia, "I am surrounded by cattle."

This just made me laugh very hard

comment #9

Mgmax says ...

"I am surrounded by cattle."

"The creatures looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

comment #10

D.Z. says ...

Burma: And Bush blew up frogs for fun. What's your point?
Sucked at revolution? How did that Bay of Pigs thing turn out, huh?

Jack: "Che was a murderous right-wing lunatic disquised as a leftist hero. He ordered the execution of many artists, homosexuals, liberals, conservatives, and priests."

Yes, and Andrew Jackson murdered many Indians. What's your point?

Mgmax: "The creatures looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Compassionate conservatism tends to do that.

comment #11

gansibele says ...

Bay of Pigs turned out just as good as Che's "one, two, three VietNams" in Guinea, Congo and Bolivia. So Che wins 3-1. Did you have a point? Do you, ever?

Burma: word.

Jeff ignores the 800 pound gorillas. No amount of toughtfulness or references will ever convince a Che fanatic. There's plenty books (starting with his own "Diaries") documenting his bloodthirsty, murderous ways, and if you are ever in Miami or Havana let me know and I can guide you to some of his survivng victims and their families. We have a saying in Spanish "there isn't a worse blindness than those who don't want to see".

comment #12

BurmaShave says ...

DZ that's honestly the most psychotic example of relativism I've ever read. I'm ashamed to share even the vaguest of liberal values with you.

comment #13

alynch says ...

Did D.Z. seriously just compare blowing up frogs with the mass murder of innocent people. I never would've pegged him for somebody on the same moral plane as Harry Lime.

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

alynch: "Did D.Z. seriously just compare blowing up frogs with the mass murder of innocent people."

Well, Bush did kill one million Iraqis, so...

comment #15

Aladdin Sane says ...

Seeing that Lawrence of Arabia is one of my top 5 films, I think it's a travesty that you've linked two Che films with it (even hypothetically). While Che is no doubt an interesting person to explore, I don't think he deserves to be mentioned in the same company as Lawrence (unless we're discussing narcissism). So call people brutes, grunts and what-have-you Wells, but you started it with your dumb assertion that Soderbergh has the skill to pull off a Lean when dealing with a man who maybe had the right idea once, but definitely strayed from the path.

All that being said, I hope the movies are good, but I won't be surprised if they crash and burn.

comment #16

Hickenlooper says ...

Wasn't Che butcher and murderer? Even more so than Batista? If we trendy Anglos want to romanticize a Latino iconic figure, why not make a movie about Ceasar Chavez who really made a difference in people's lives rather than glorify a Communist footnote. Maybe everyone just loves those Che T-shirts too much.

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

On an unrelated note, since Mgmax loves the Bush economy so much, he'll be glad to know Americans are selling old things off more than buying new things. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_on_bi_ge/cashing_out_the_attic

comment #18

Sweetbubba says ...

I guess I just don't get why Che is more loved by leftist elites than Jeffrey Dahlmer. Why favor one mass murderer over another? I guess Dahlmer erred by not riding a Harley and killing priests,

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

Bubba: While we're at it, why do conservatives favor negotiating with North Korea and doing business with China while bombing Iraq at the same time?

comment #20

Mgmax says ...

D.Z., where is this bombing going on in Iraq that you're talking about? Could you provide one cite for this idee fixe you have (no doubt to support the ten million we've killed or something) that we're flying B-52s and dropping bombs somewhere day after day?

Also, I'd like to know why you're against recycling. Ebay-- capitalism's answer to the throwaway society!

comment #21

Rich S. says ...

Face it, guys, if Peter Jackson or Brett Ratner were directing these movies, Jeffrey would be more than happy to point out what a psychopathic murderous bastard Che was. On the other hand, if Michael Mann had directed them, I shudder to think how deep the moral relativism would get.

comment #22

Dave Polands Gut says ...

Movie on a Communist who killed innocents. Box office gold!

comment #23

alynch says ...

D.Z., I continue to have trouble seeing what kind of point you're trying to make. Yes, there are other people besides Che that have done terrible things. Now how does that in any way justify what he did?

comment #24

ketut says ...

Isn't there a corollary between torturing animals when you are young to becoming a Republican when you are older?

comment #25

p.Vice says ...

I have tasted these 'graphs and believe I have been poisoned. First of all, invoking David Lean and a con artist like Soderbergh in the same sentence is blasphemy... then to indicate that the "stars and planets are aligned" on a fucking movie you haven't seen a frame of yet? You're basically saying that the idea is sooooo darn good that it doesn't even matter what the end result is. That, in a word, is marketing. Good job, Wells.

comment #26

Walter Sobchak says ...

I wonder what Hickenlooper is, a gorilla or cattle? (Get with the program, George! Che rocked!...and his poster makes my dorm room look soooo bitchin'!)

comment #27

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Gansibele, kidkosmic, and particularly Aladdin Sane: As I explained in the simplest of simple-dick terms, the October '06 Buchman scripts avoid observations or judgments about the administration of Cuban socialism as practiced by Che or Fidel Castro. Respectively, they carefully limit their focus to how some hard-core cadres (a) fought and helped trigger a revolution successfully from '56 to '58 in Cuba and (b) how some of the same cadres fought and failed to trigger a revolution in Bolivia in 1966 and '67. I didn't suggest that the two Che films might be comparable to "Lawrence of Arabia" except that taken together they use the same basic story structure -- scaliing a tough mountain and ending in success and then tumbling down the mountain and ending in failure. I didn't say Soderbergh was somehow comparable to David Lean or that "he has the skill to pull off a Lean." I didn't say Che was T.E. or vice versa. I didn't say it was shot in 70mm by Freddie Young and Nicolas Roeg -- I said it was shot with a Red One digital camera. I joked that it might be fun to have it scored in a Maurice Jarre-type way but c'mon...a joke! I was pretty careful in assembling the words as I did. I merely said that the two films, based on the Buchman scripts, have the same basic thematic bones, is all. There are other themes and ways of regarding the two films, and it may be that no one else will agree with this observation but what I've said here is valid, I feel. I would only ask that commenters would give the initial pieces a thorough read-through and think-through and not just respond just to certain hot-button aspects or fragments of an article without considering it as a whole.

comment #28

GonePostal says ...

It's always amazed me that Che's Cult of Personality extends beyond the college set. I get his appeal to college freshmen, even beyond the t-shirt. But why does Hollywood feel the need to glamorize Castro and Che? Batista was pretty awful, granted, but since Castro and Che just traded one awful regime for an even more oppressive one you can't really cheer them on. Why do educated people like Jeff here, or a Spielberg or so many others in Hollywood, of all places, put so much stock in Che? He's certainly an interesting and influential figure, and one wortthy of scholarly examination, but certainly not worthy of our appreciation or the hagiography that was the Motorcycle Diaries and what appears to be these two upcoming films.

More importantly, what is it about Che's story that is reminicent of TE Lawrence? Lawrence, while a bit of a narcissict and slightly naive about world politics, would cringe at the idea of being compared to a man who took such delight in killing, and who crerated the labor camps that still imprison artists, homosexuals, AIDS victims and other "unwanted" types in the Soviet Gulag-style. What obsticles did Che fail at overcoming that compares his end to Lawrences? That he couldn't get the Bolivians to start killing each other? That he was an utter failure outside of Cuba?

Should movies about Che be made? I have no objection, but when dealing with a man like Che, a hagiography is not only the wrong way to go, it's offensive to the memories of those who died either by his hand or through the result of his actions. I have to ask, Jeff. Why do you think Che deserves two films that he feels will turn Che into a TE Lawrence like figure? Is it just because Soderberg is directing, Del Toro staring and you liked the script? Seeing as Che is sort of a Stalinst, at least in his approach to state control of the populace through fear, would you chear on a favorable biopic of Stalin that was directed by Soderberg and starred, say, Daniel Day-Lewis? Because I think that's a better moral comparison for Che than any other "revolutionary" figure.

comment #29

travis b says ...

i guess i'm one of the few who reads and comments on hollywood-elsewhere to find the history of Che Guevara fascinating. And not in a "liberal-Che-T-shirt wearing" kind of way, but because of the basic morality tale that is in play. Here is a man who was born with it all, the silver spoon in hand, had a great education and could have made a difference based on that, but instead, he went the opposite way, looking to bridge the gap between classes, which in itself is noble. But, he got lost and gave in to absolute power, which ultimately led to his death. There's nothing there that says I agree with what he did, though I do find his original goals to be noble, the way he turned out is the very opposite of his first intentions. I've simplified it all far too much, kind of like how everyone else on this board has done. Will the movie do the same? Who knows, but I'm looking forward to it, if not for the subject matter, but for the acting and directing talents behind it. And look, we're already talking and arguing about it, which is always the sign of something to see.

Something else to think about: Have any of you ever travelled outside of the U.S. (especially to the Central America regions) and talked with anyone about Guevara? To many of the people of that region, he is a hero, because he was the first to take into account their rights, to treat the lower classes and peasants as equal to the wealthy. There is a large segment of the population that is uneducated to the whole story, but his legend looms large and it pushes some of these people to a better tomorrow. I understand the plight of many of the people in Cuba and again, what happened was horrible, but you have to take into account the impact he had on both sides of the fence. Ultimately, it only adds to the complexity of the history of this man.

comment #30

Jay T. says ...

DZ did make one good point after the frogs bit.

Let me ask just this: what's worse? People wearing Che t-shirts or Andrew "Trail-of-Tears" Jackson on the U.S. 20 dollar bill? I'm just saying...

And besides, before anti-Che-types jump to hate these films, consider that maybe they give an honest account of the man's bloodythirsty actions... (let's hope so)

comment #31

gansibele says ...

Coincidentally, I was just coming back to say that in all fairness to Jeff, he does refer to Buchman's "carefully limits" (I'd say withewashing but we are all entitled to our opinion including fawning over socialist murderers) in the HuffPo piece and even goes the extra mile of quoting a survivor from Che's mass murdering of political prisoners at La Cabaña. Jeff had to throw in the usual "Miami right-wing Cubans" crap, but at least he acknowledges the other side of the story.

But Jeff, you simple-dick: your first knee-jerk answer brought the expected responses. You didn't include those passages from your piece on your HE post, so how would we know you are not just equating Che and Lawrence of Arabia beyond the cinematic context (you say you were careful but read again. without teh whole piece it's not as obvious). It would have been so much simpler than start complaining about snarling gorillas. I admit I knee-jerked as well. Should have read the HuffPo piece earlier. DZ's annoying capuchin monkey act finally got my goat.

For the record, I'm a left-wing liberal Cuban (not Cuban-American because I was born and lived most of my life in Cuba) in Miami. So I'm coming at this from a different perspective. I grew up chanting "we'll be like Che!" every day in school and with posters of the guy in my walls. Only after meeting some of the victims and seeing the evidence was that I shook off the guy. So I can understand the frustrations of the right-wing (we prefer "hardliners") when it comes to Che. It can't be easy to see the guy who took away your property, killed and imprisoned your family members and ultimately condemned you to exile, being revered and fawned over by most of the world.

I've argued many times that Che the symbol has little to do with Che the person and to fight a symbol is a Sisyphean task. That the kids who wear Che t-shirts don't have a clue of what the guy really did (Hollywood and popular culture doesn't help though) and they are just using the symbol at hand for rebellion and social justice. Bottom line, Che is a controversial figure that will raise this kind of debate. Sorderbergh knows this and you know it too Jeff. It should be welcomed rather than regretted.

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "D.Z., where is this bombing going on in Iraq that you're talking about? Could you provide one cite for this idee fixe you have (no doubt to support the ten million we've killed or something) that we're flying B-52s and dropping bombs somewhere day after day?"

We were actually bombing Iraq before we even invaded and declared war. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/The_unofficial_war_U.S._and_Britain_led_massive_air_campaign_before_Iraq_war_be_0627.html
I'm not against recycling, but if middle-class families have to pawn things just to pay for gas, then Republicanotmics doesn't work.

David Poland: "Movie on a Communist who killed innocents."

Yeah, they should make a movie with someone more wholesome, like "The Patriot".

alynch: I dunno. What justified making a feel-good movie about a key player who enabled Osama Bin Laden last year?

GonePostal: "Lawrence, while a bit of a narcissict and slightly naive about world politics, would cringe at the idea of being compared to a man who took such delight in killing, and who crerated the labor camps that still imprison artists, homosexuals, AIDS victims and other "unwanted" types in the Soviet Gulag-style."

How many mainstream movies try to balance WW2 with Japanese-American internment camps?

"I have no objection, but when dealing with a man like Che, a hagiography is not only the wrong way to go, it's offensive to the memories of those who died either by his hand or through the result of his actions."

No one seemed to have any problems with movies about John Smith and Davy Crockett...

comment #33

gansibele says ...

Travis: Idi Amin was admired and supported by most of the people of Uganda, at least in the beginning. He exploited tribal and xenophobic resentments skillfully (his expropiation of foreign properties and expulsion of foreigners were wildly popular). He was also admired throughout Africa for spearheading anticolonialist efforts and panafricanism. You could similarly say he influenced "both sides of the fence" (and yes, I've lived in Belize, Guatemala and Mexico. I've seen Che's hero status firsthand) before he "lost his way" and became a murderous dictator.

But the reality is that Amin, like Che or Castro, was a tyrannical murderer from the moment he took power. Yet he's not a symbol, nobody wears an Amin shirt and "The Last King of Scotland" is not a hagiography. Hollywood can get it right when it wants to. One day it'll get it right regarding Che.

comment #34

Mgmax says ...

"We were actually bombing Iraq before we even invaded and declared war."

That's a copout, D.Z., you used the present tense.

Of course, two days ago you were defending that very time period as representing the perfect stability and happy Iraq that Bush screwed up.

I'll withhold judgement on the Che movies till they come out, I already know that I think Soderbergh can make good movies but perversely seems not to most of the time. But the fact that the screenwriter acknowledges he left out the greatest period of brutality in Che's life is a very worrying sign that we are in for a shameful whitewash, the latest spring line from Boutique Che. Soon enough, we'll know.

comment #35

travis b says ...

gansibele: i agree with you on the che/amin comparison..but i think the reason why Amin isn't lionized like Che is because to some, Che died a martyr, whereas Amin slowly faded due to exile. If Che hadn't left Cuba and had stayed in power with Castro (possibly surviving to this day), I really doubt he'd be looked at it with the passion that he is now.

but, really, don't all violent revolutions begin this way? it's an age old story, noble, passionate rebels turn into violent, facist dictators. Che just happens to be the one most deified. Do I think these films are going to give a true portrayal? Probably not, though I'm giving Sodebergh the benefit of the doubt. If anything, maybe it'll push a few people to go on their own and do some research on the topic. That's really the best anyone can hope for when it comes to Hollywood historical epics.

comment #36

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: Actually, that was the kind of bombing which was meant to deter Iraq from fighting back, once it was invaded, not the previous situation where we bombed any possible weapons facilities Saddam might be rebuilding. It's slightly different, since one was legal, and the other was not.

comment #37

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "But the fact that the screenwriter acknowledges he left out the greatest period of brutality in Che's life is a very worrying sign that we are in for a shameful whitewash,"

But if it's an Indian killer like Swamp Fox, it's fine and dandy.

travis: "it's an age old story, noble, passionate rebels turn into violent, facist dictators."

Insert comment about Founding Fathers versus Bush here...

comment #38

The Pope says ...

Forget about comparing Che to T.E. Lawrence or Soderbergh to Lean. I think a better possibility is The Godfather Parts I & II.
The genius of both those compined stories is to display the hopes of the main character and the twisted way in which the character goes about securing those hopes. Between the hope and the action, everything goes wrong. I'm no fan of Che Guevara, but I am a fan of filmmakers who can look into the hearts of people and see what makes them tick and what makes them tragic. For people to piss on Soderbergh is ridiculous. Until Coppola made The Godfather, there was little if anything in his work to suggest he was capable of something so sublime. And yet he produced such mastery FOUR TIMES IN SEVEN YEARS. Soderbergh has the technical ability. He is also a very inteligent filmmaker. Although I don't think he has made a film on the par of Coppola's four, I am wiling to accept that he has it within his grasp now. Why? Because of the subject matter. Was Welles a great director because of his crafstmanship? Ford? Truffaut? Bunuel? No, It is becasuse they wedded their talent to subjects that allowed them to explore the human condition. As I said, I am no fan of Che and his ilk,but I do want the chance to look into his heart ... or see how he liost his humanity.

comment #39

Mgmax says ...

When the fuck did I go around making all these comments about Andrew Jackson or Swamp Fox movies? Where are you getting this shit? I mean, I think there is a certain statute of limitations on historical stuff, at which point it starts to be romanticized. You don't HAVE to turn every movie about Bonnie Prince Charlie into a tale of class struggle. But part of the reason you can do that is because the struggle is over, there are no longer real issues at play. (The Indians remain mostly screwed, but one more western won't change that, better or worse. And in case you haven't noticed, the last movie about Captain John Smith pretty much was a white guys trash everything they touch, Indians are noble and pure New Age lovefest.)

So I don't know where you're going on about this Swamp Fox stuff in your typical robo-response way, the last Swamp Fox movie I know of was made for the Wonderful World of Disney in 1961, but a movie about a Communist revolutionary still idealized around the world is a bit more relevant to modern life and given the astonishingly bloody result of this and every other leftist revolution in the 20th century (including national socialism in Germany, though it's by no means the bloodiest of the lot), on a scale that dwarfs every crime committed by whoever you don't like by orders of magnitude, I think it's a little more relevant that it be treated with some degree of honesty and accuracy than the Indian wars of 200 years ago, ugly as they may well have been.

comment #40

Mgmax says ...

"It's slightly different, since one was legal, and the other was not."

The only difference that matters to you is that one happened under a Democratic president, and thus anything can be excused; and the other under a Republican president, in which case any weapon to hand.

comment #41

JackTorrance says ...

I’m reminded of the episode of The Simpsons where Lisa finds out that Jebediah Springfield was a murderous pirate.

comment #42

tommysunshine says ...

Jeff, you're absolutely right that there is an absence of thoughtful, referenced replies on this site. Some of the regular people who post the most on Hollywood Elsewhere crudely hijack the plane that you've so successully piloted.

Yes, Burma Shave, I'm thinking of you. Your comment that because I take issue with what you say, I must be trying to rape you smacked of bad taste but it's somehow apt given that you rape and pillage your opinions from the net, the TV, anywhere but from your own mind.

To quote what Charlie Sheen once said about Kristy Swanson, Burma, if you had an original thought it would die of loneliness.

rape

comment #43

GonePostal says ...

What bother me about Jeff's article at the HuffPost is that he says the film doesn't even address anything Che did between 1958 and 1964, and that according to Jeff, "Guevara is portrayed by Buchman as an imperfect but admirable fellow." That characterization pretty much confirms to me that the Che films are all about advancing his "romantic" image and have no interest in actually examining the true character of the man himself. You can't be "imperfect but admirable" if you kill political prisoners and set up a Gulag system. You just can't. It's really not possible. So Buchman and Soderbergh are too cowardly to portray Che for what he became. And Jeff's helping them do that. In the HuffPost piece he has this paragraph:

"To witness such butchery is a trauma that will accompany me to my grave," Jose Vilasuso, a lawyer who worked under Guevara, was quoted as saying. "The walls of that medieval castle received the echoes of the rhythmic footstep of the squad, the clicking of the rifles, the sorry howling of the dying, the macabre silence."

Buchman and Soderbergh can't have that kind of butchery in their film. Someone might think that Che ended up causing a lot more harm than he set out to stop! Jeff at least says the righties weren't "all wrong" about Che but then ignores the first hand evidence of Che's butchery and plants the "flawed but admirable" line down in a way that seems he thinks is a fair analysis. Why is Che getting a whitewash? Why does he, of all people, deserve one? Why does Andy Garcia, or all people, desrved scorn for pointing out that Castro's Cuba is a pretty terrible place if you value any kind of freedom. Does not liking Castro=Right Wing Republican in the minds of people like Jeff? If anyone wants a more accurate portrait of Che, start here: http://www.slate.com/id/2107100/

comment #44

DavidF says ...

I think we all get the idea. Most people don't know jack about Che, especially the people who wear tshirts or get tats with his face.

Until we've seen the movies, there is no point going on and on about the extent to which they idealize and/or demythologize him.

It's funny, however, that while people go on and on about how Hollywood is likely to portray Che that almost everyone, at the same time, bases their assessment of TE Lawrence on the Lean film and not much else.

It's worth nothing (and I'm sure DZ will be only too happy to take this bait) that Mr. Lawrence's efforts are very much related to the mess that is today's Middle East. He had a very naive view of the romance of the desert bedouin etc and likely could not foresee how oil would change things today but his mucking about in Jordan, Arabia etc. on behalf of the British Empire has not been without its conseqeuences. Consequences arguably more significant than whatever has happened in Boilvia and Cuba.

comment #45

alvysinger says ...

"It would be so nice if Hollywood Elsewhere could attract more in the way of thoughtful, referenced, fully considered replies instead of the usual grunty, snarly gorilla postings that always turn up."

It would be so nice if you could consistently deliver thoughtful, well-written pieces like this one that show your unique perspective on the cinema landscape and offer real insight instead of a daily barrage of vain, gossipy posts attacking "galumphs", fat people and Red-staters. Lose the dimestore political commentary, get in therapy to work out your own body-image issues, and start writing about movies again. Moo.

comment #46

Richardson says ...

"So I don't know where you're going on about this Swamp Fox stuff in your typical robo-response way, the last Swamp Fox movie I know of was made for the Wonderful World of Disney in 1961"

Not that it makes his lunacy any more sensible, but I believe he's referring to 'The Patriot' (the Mel Gibson one) as a movie about the Swamp Fox.

comment #47

Richardson says ...

"It would be so nice if Hollywood Elsewhere could attract more in the way of thoughtful, referenced, fully considered replies"

If you ever write a thoughtful, referenced, fully considered article -- let alone respond to the thoughtful, referenced, fully considered responses which do occassionally crop up -- it might happen.

comment #48

Mgmax says ...

Oh, you're right. I totally forgot that that was technically inspired by the Swamp Fox (what it really is is totally ripped off from the 1965 James Stewart movie Shenandoah, but that's beside the point). Ah yes, the German director showing the British committing Nazi-style atrocities in 1778 Boston. No wonder our kids have no fricking clue about why the Anglo-American tradition is a beacon in the world, when they've damn near seen gas chambers in Faneuil Hall. Thank God for HBO and John Adams, that's all I can say about that.

comment #49

Mark says ...

Mr. Wells, very nice read. Ignore the contrarian politico babblings above copied from wikipedia. Your excitement re the convergence of top-notch writing, acting, direction, and ambition is effectively depicted.

comment #50

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "I mean, I think there is a certain statute of limitations on historical stuff, at which point it starts to be romanticized."

So there's a difference between 40 years and 200? Then I guess, by your logic, there was nothing wrong with "A Birth of A Nation", either.

"And in case you haven't noticed, the last movie about Captain John Smith pretty much was a white guys trash everything they touch, Indians are noble and pure New Age lovefest."

Yeah, but the one before it was an animated white man's burden.

"but a movie about a Communist revolutionary still idealized around the world is a bit more relevant to modern life"

Tell that to people in reservations.

"on a scale that dwarfs every crime committed by whoever you don't like by orders of magnitude, I think it's a little more relevant that it be treated with some degree of honesty and accuracy than the Indian wars of 200 years ago,"

Our imperialistic wars set the tone for the commie hatred of all things Western. It's relevant to why the Third World hates us today.

"The only difference that matters to you is that one happened under a Democratic president, and thus anything can be excused; "

I didn't say it was excusable, just legal. If we're going to argue about morality, bombing a country which is a victim of one of our puppet dictators is wrong, no matter who's giving the orders. However, at least Clinton didn't lie about why he acted.

Gone: "You can't be "imperfect but admirable" if you kill political prisoners and set up a Gulag system."

How about if you support a "democracy" in which black people who've been chained and sent across hazardous and inhumane sea voyages are considered property for labor?

"Does not liking Castro=Right Wing Republican in the minds of people like Jeff?"

I imagine not liking Castro has more to do with not liking Castro's refusal to turn his country into a sweatshop like China. And why is Castro any more wrong than the Sauds or Qadaffi?

comment #51

Mgmax says ...

"So there's a difference between 40 years and 200? Then I guess, by your logic, there was nothing wrong with "A Birth of A Nation", either."

Um... Birth of a Nation was about events which were 40-50 years old at the time. So what was your point again? Do you even know? Or does it just spit out automatically?

comment #52

Mgmax says ...

Oh man! A D.Z. Classic:

However, at least Clinton didn't lie about why he acted.

That's right! Try to name one instance when Clinton lied. Just one! I can't think of one, can you?

comment #53

D.Z. says ...

The events were 50 years old, but the cultural values behind those events was a lot older.

comment #54

Mgmax says ...

Lamest. Copout. Ever.

comment #55

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: Oral sex =/= weapons of mass destruction or uranium from Niger...

comment #56

BurmaShave says ...

D.Z., you do know that THE PATRIOT was not about the Swamp Fox Francis Marion for the precise reasons you are talking about. Fictional character. Perfect comparison of course.

And here I was hoping you talking about the Seagal movie.

comment #57

Adonis says ...

Wells,

You rarely, if ever, respond to the thoughtful who post on Hollywood Elswhere. Sure D.Z., and Burma, and Milkman go off on random hopped up tangents to get rises out of people...

But surely there are enough intelligent points made in your threads on a regular basis. On this post alone, I'd point out Gansibele and Gone Postal, in particular.

But Wells, You never EVER issue mea culpas regarding your blantantly wrong, offensive, insenstitive statements.

When a host of people pointed out your complete ignorance and utter lack of journalism regarding Kal Penn, i.e. Kalpen Modi, you never said a word. This after saying a man you've never talked a word to, nor gone to his class at UPenn, nor spoken to those that attend his classes: "Ape gene," "Moron," "Dumbas," "At his core."

Then when a few call out your utter lack of historical appreciation for the thousands that Che fucking butchered and tortured, on multiple continents, you accuse us of being cattle?

I protest. I strongly object to your refusal to acknowledge that you write innane, indefensible one-liners on hot-button issues CONSTANTLY, and when people take offense, you label them as "not understanding' the genius that is Wells.

You are an interesting, even talented reviewer Wells. You are, however, fading in my estimation as an intellectual and human being.

comment #58

Adonis says ...

It's been awhile since I read Che (for a class at Duke), but the Slate article had one of the more memorable quotes:

"Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become..."

Suppose you saw that quote, randomly... you think of an idealist?

comment #59

Richardson says ...

"But surely there are enough intelligent points made in your threads on a regular basis. On this post alone, I'd point out Gansibele and Gone Postal, in particular."

There used to be more, but Wells generally only responds if he feels insulted enough, and always comes off poorly when he does.

So the intelligent people went to places where they could have intelligent conversations, and left the rest of us to marvel at how bizarrely inane the conversation by the remnants are.

comment #60

Richardson says ...

Watching DZ argue reminds me of my favorite scene in 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail'.

DZ: (stupid crap)
Somebody else: Hey, that's stupid crap, shut up already!
DZ: Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!

comment #61

tommysunshine says ...

Adonis, Burma etc., you don't like Wells' lottery, don't buy a ticket.

comment #62

Richardson says ...

tommy - as far as I can tell, Wells is the one complaining about the lottery which he set up; people are just trying to explain to him where he's gone wrong in setting it up to be the way he, apparently, wants it to be.

comment #63

Adonis says ...

Tommy,

I've been reading Wells now for 5 years or so... I like a lot of his insight.

However, these issues (and most importantly, Wells' reactions to them) have gnawed on me more and more. Here's a man who has posted on Hollywood leading men and their body types, what... 50 times this year? Then has the audacity to TAKE DOWN, and simply wish into oblivion the thread where he shows a picture of himself at a lecture... because we poked fun at how different (i.e. heavy) he looked compared to his head shot on the site.

As Richardson points out, it's Wells' surreal perspective on how intellecually vapid we all must be that makes us post...

comment #64

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: Speaking of cop-outs, why haven't you signed up for a war you believe is right?

Burma: Actually, it was based on him, but they changed his name at the last minute.

Adonis: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become..."

So that's different from the values of the thugs we graduated from the School of the Americas because...?

Richardson: Someone already did that analogy.

comment #65

BurmaShave says ...

DZ, stop trying to balance an equation. More than one thing can be really bad.

tommysunshine, stop trying to suck your own dick.

comment #66

Mgmax says ...

"Mgmax: Speaking of cop-outs, why haven't you signed up for a war you believe is right?"

Because they probably don't need middle-aged marketing guys in Iraq. Why haven't you gone underground and started bombing recruiting offices, comrade?

comment #67

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Because they probably don't need middle-aged marketing guys in Iraq."

I thought those are the people who are running the war.

"Why haven't you gone underground and started bombing recruiting offices, comrade?"

I imagine because I'd be no better than the ones bombing civilians.

comment #68

Mgmax says ...

You'd be imaginary too?

comment #69

kidkosmic says ...

At the end of the day/thread, Wells can take comfort in the fact that D.Z. had his back. I can imagine that faraway battle weary stare in Jeff's eyes even now.

There's blood on your back. Do you want a Doctor?

comment #70

D.Z. says ...

It's not about defending Jeff. I just don't like hypocrites who only go after Che, because he was a communist, while they conveniently ignore the mass-murderers we've supported over the years in the name of fighting communism. (And our own revolutionaries were no saints, either.)

Really, if Che was for "free market" capitalism of Batista or the Shah, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because you'd be looking for the next leftist to criticize. And these are same users who tried to diminish John Lennon's worth only a few months ago, just because he was against the Vietnam War. But they still won't actually vote for candidates who care about the families of vets who died in or were crippled from that war[or the one we're in now], because they care more about "less government", even if that means less medical coverage and disability compensation for the troops they allegedly "support".

comment #71

Mgmax says ...

"Really, if Che was for "free market" capitalism of Batista or the Shah, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because you'd be looking for the next leftist to criticize. "

Yeah, well, when Hollywood makes the movie glorifying Park Chung Hee's rule over South Korea, we can criticize rightist authoritarians. In case you forgot, we're talking about Che because his f'ing glamor boy shot is at the top of the thread.

comment #72

gansibele says ...

Funny , I don't remember EVER seen a movie romantizicing Batista or the Shah or a t-shirt with their damn picture everywhere I go.

comment #73

Adonis says ...

D.Z. reminds me of Mr. Dursley... wildly wavng his finger in the air after what he feels is an absolutely terrific counterpoint.

comment #74

Mgmax says ...

Hollywood loves movies about workers who stand up and form a union despite oppression from the bosses.

So when's a Solidarity movie coming out?

comment #75

Josh Massey says ...

"You'd be imaginary too?"

The first time I've laughed out loud today. Gracias.

comment #76

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "Hollywood loves movies about workers who stand up and form a union despite oppression from the bosses."

Except for that blacklist...

comment #77

Mgmax says ...

Maybe someday they'll make a movie about that, too.

comment #78

JuJuBe says ...

I still can't believe that in 2008 so many people are ignorant about Che Guevara or the whole Cuban revolution, for that matter. Please read a book. Thank you Jeff for the article.

Post a Comment