comment #1

Phatang! says ...

New York audiences cheer because they want the other people in the New York audience to hear them cheering. I'm sure the average age in the crowd was 23 and the median income of the crowd's parents was mid six figures.

That said, I'm looking forward to seeing the movie(s).

comment #2

EricGilde says ...

Bullshit. I'm a poor ass 26 year old and have poor ass parents from Iowa and I will be at the Ziegfeld, ticket in hand, a good hour before the show starts at 1pm Monday.

It's amazing when a film comes out that divides people, and that's why I'm excited. Soderbergh has made some amazing films, and some films that I haven't liked, certainly. However, the broad spectrum of opinions that has come out about Che thus far has made me feel one thing and one thing only: I have got to see this thing myself, and soon.

Granted, I might leave thinking it's a disaster, but saying that the people cheering were dumb little rich kids, which I believe is the implication, is a bit unfair.

This, to me, feels like the one real event film of the year, much more than even Dark Knight. Not to diminish that film's accomplishments, which I enjoyed immensely (though not as much on a second viewing), but Che seems to be, for better or for worse, going out on a limb in a way that no other film this year is doing or has done. And love it or hate it, you have to give props to that kind of uncompromising aesthetic vision.

It's invigorating to know that it's still possible for films like this exist.

comment #3

worrywort says ...

tl;dnr

comment #4

Bubyubb says ...

"This, to me, feels like the one real event film of the year, much more than even Dark Knight."

Kinda says it all.

comment #5

RP says ...

Jeff,

FYI, you spelled Ziegfeld incorrectly three times in your post, even with the correct spelling appearing in the logo right below for guidance.

The missing comma in the "Good" poster says "Hi!"

Signed,

Seething

comment #6

D.Z. says ...

I normally hate when Republicans do this, but I have to add that it's ironic that people in more affluent communities are the only ones who can likely afford to watch this film right now, since I imagine that they'd be the first people Che would want to overthrow if he was still alive.

Actually, it's even more ironic that Soderbergh expects to be paid for a movie about a communist revolutionary in the first place, when filmmakers in those countries either had to make these kinds of "tributes" out of the kindness of their own hearts, or they were also blacklisted or jailed.

Just saying...

comment #7

D.Z. says ...

Oh yeah, forgot to add exiled and banned.

comment #8

D.Z. says ...

Oh, and the Ocean's series and Sex, Lies, and Videotapes would be considered bourgeois propaganda. Just saying...

comment #9

LexG says ...

Did I miss something? Has Wells permanently relocated to NYC full-time? Seems he's been there for a month and had some throwaway comment the other week about "those of us on the East Coast..." like he was a resident and not on a prolonged vacation?

Much as I liked CHE, I think the folks like the above poster going in for this intense, divisive, "amazing" experience will likely be caught off guard by how "matter of fact" the film is; It's as remote and science-projecty as one should by now expect from Soderbergh, pitched more to the tune of hour 2 of "Full Metal Jacket" by way of the selective structure of Mann's "Ali" than the galvanizing experience the above reader seems to be anticipating.

comment #10

Mr. Peel says ...

So why did they have to make this so hard for people in Los Angeles? New York gets the Zigfield, but we get the Landmark? Do they not want people to get to see this thing? Why couldn't it have played at the Chinese? Does the Chinese not like people going there anymore? I know a guy who saw Punisher there a few days ago and he was the only one in the theater. What I'm saying is, I want to see CHE and it seems like I'm not going to get the chance.

comment #11

TVMCCA says ...

Re Mr. Peel's comment:
I'm surprised that CHE isn't playing at the Nuart.

comment #12

LexG says ...

Peel, CHE played the Chinese for the AFI thing and no one could read the goddamn subtitles; Seriously, a subtitled movie and a theater with no stadium seating are a bad mix; Especially when a sizable percentage of the audience were Cuban dudes rockin the Buena Vista Social Club look (thanks, FSM) and everyone was CRANING THEIR NECKS FOR FIVE HOURS; The chick in front of me had a high ponytail and I couldn't see a goddamn thing. Everyone's heads were bobbing back and forth like Wimbledon.

Though I feel you on the Landmark gripe; As a Valley/Hollywood dweller, I never get down to Westwood or Santa Monica, so all that shit might as well be fucking San Diego to me.

So much Oscar bait out there now, something's gotta suffer-- they only have 15 screens at the Arclight/Dome, so lotta good shit is being pushed to the hellhole Grove and some Santa Monica theaters I've never heard of.

And that WHAT DOESN'T KILL YOU thing that sounds awesome and Jeff loves is currently rocking the oh-so-exclusive booking... at the Mann 6 Hollywood.

comment #13

LexG says ...

Oh, and one more thing about this mysterious Landmark theater in L.A.:

They have COUCHES instead of theater seats in some auditoriums? What the fuck is that shit? So doesn't everyone make out and lie down and take off their shoes and sleep and snore and fart and text and cuddle and generally act like even more a socially retarded, thinks-they're-in-their-living room asshole than usual?

Aren't you then paying 15 bucks to sit on someone's bodily fluid stains?

comment #14

Renfield says ...

LexG,

I am amazed Soderbergh agreed to let it play at the Chinese. I've read interviews with him where he's trashed the place... and justly.

The acoustics in that place is like screaming in the Grand Canyon.

Oh... and YES, fuck the couches!

comment #15

Mr. Peel says ...

For the record, I was using the Chinese as an example of how they’ve made it substantially easier for those in NY to see CHE than those in Los Angeles, not a specific hankering to see it at that theater. If memory serves, Soderbergh had the OCEAN’S ELEVEN premiere moved from there to the Westwood Village because of those sound issues, which are valid.

But my point is, I saw KING OF THE HILL in the theater, I saw friggin SCHIZOPOLIS in the theater and now I may be prevented from seeing CHE in the theater in this form? Is Soderbergh trying to get back at me for something? I’m just saying. So I’ll stay home and watch OCEAN’S THIRTEEN again. See how he likes it.

comment #16

LexG says ...

Speaking of big, standalone old-school venues and their acoustics, as wonderful and awesome as the (shh!) Vista is... I've seen movies there where I've felt like I'm missing 40% of the dialogue. I don't know if it's the wood floors or the high volume; Can't remember if it was the 2nd or 3rd Pirates movie-- I couldn't tell what was going plotwise anyway, but the dialogue was just one giant muffle.

comment #17

Renfield says ...

Mr. Peel,

I saw those films in a theater as well and completely agree with you. It SHOULD be playing at the Dome or, at least, the Vista.

But the sad truth is, the EVENT factor in going to a movie has died. It died the second Beta/VHS met Mr. & Mrs. Smith.

It sucks. I want it back. I've fought for it over my years in the business. The creative types want it... the money changers don't.

But with all this in mind, let's all just pause for a moment and take heed in the fact that Soderbergh, a man who published an interview book about Richard Lester for god's-sakes, is at home right now with Jules Asner gettin' snug.

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

Ren: "I am amazed Soderbergh agreed to let it play at the Chinese. I've read interviews with him where he's trashed the place... and justly. The acoustics in that place is like screaming in the Grand Canyon."

Yeah, I'll take that quality home video equipment sound of the Arclight any time.

"But the sad truth is, the EVENT factor in going to a movie has died. It died the second Beta/VHS met Mr. & Mrs. Smith."

I thought it died with DV myself...

comment #19

LexG says ...

Speaking of acoustics and projection and COUCHES and the moviegoing experience:

If you ever want to weep, check out some movie theater reviews on Yelp some time; When Wells derisively labels the unwashed, non-CHE appreciating masses "popcorn munchers," I don't know if he knows how spot-on he is.

Because dial up a review of your favorite moviegoing venue, and 90% of the comments are about the POPCORN and the COMFORT OF THE SEATS. "The popcorn was yummy," "The popcorn wasn't yummy." "They didn't have Pepsi at this theater." "This theater has Wasabi Peas."

THAT'S who's mostly going to movies; Not Soderbergh fans, not people who notices bad sound or projection or aspect ratios, rarely even people who grade theaters based on the behavior of clientele; Nope, it's apparently about WHO HAS THE BEST POPCORN.

comment #20

ZayTonday says ...

Just got back from the Landmark... MY GOD this movie sucked. It could have easily been cut down to 2 hours. I didn't even stay for Benicio's Q&A. I want my 4.5 hours back.

By the time the intermission came along it started to grab me because it felt like it really got going and then when I went back in the theater for the Bolivia half it fell apart for me. It felt like nothing happened in that whole second half and by the time Che was captured I really didn't give a shit.

I think it would have been better if Malick directed it.

comment #21

Renfield says ...

LexG,

Welcome to the modern age.

It SUCKS.

I once went to a Forever 21 with a lady friend of mine and walked out with the sure-fire feeling that I must now live in the North Eastern State of Denile.

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

Lex: Well, they might have a point on popcorn. If they're going to charge me an arm and a leg for something I can get a fraction of the price at a store, it damn well better be more than just digestible.

comment #23

btwnproductions says ...

I doubt this will play in Peoria. These may be the most appreciative crowds it gets.

comment #24

EricGilde says ...

Belloc,

So what I said may seem a little trite to you, but isn't it true? In terms of commercial film this year, The Dark Knight was the big one that people had to see, where theatres had lines around the block for weeks, and everyone was in a perpetual state of discussion about it.

Che is doing the same thing, just within a different trajectory. Clearly it's not commercial film, but within the smaller film community (arthouse or indie or whatever you want to call it), Che is doing the same type of beast. With the amount of discussion that's taken place over the film, the scope of it, and yes, LexG, the galvanizing nature of it, I'm more excited to check it out than anything else this season. It's gotten reviews by high-cred writers that seem to cover the entire critical spectrum. That's exciting.

I honestly have no expectations, other than a lot of time in the jungle. More than anything, I can't wait to spend tomorrow afternoon figuring out what I think of it.

comment #25

lipranzer says ...

I saw it first showing on Friday at the Ziegfeld. I'd say it was half capacity (granted, I didn't look up to the balcony seats), and the audience seemed to be very much into it (though there did seem to be a few people who left during intermission), and yes, they clapped at the end. That may be meaningless, but given they were laughing at the right places, I don't necessarily think so.

As for myself, I think Soderbergh, in essence, was trying to do his own BATTLE OF ALGIERS, and while it's not quite as good as that, I thought it was very good in showing how a revolution could be built from the ground up in one place, yet totally fail in another. Del Toro showed both Guevara's charisma and his ego. I don't think it's the best film I've seen this year, but I did think it was brilliant, and likely it'll end up on my top 10.

comment #26

Glenn Kenny says ...

I was the moderator at the Q&A in question, so perhaps I can provide some useful information.

Re Phtang's supposition "I'm sure the average age in the crowd was 23 and the median income of the crowd's parents was mid six figures." Not quite. I was pretty impressed with the diversity of the crowd, which spanned all age groups and had very strong Latino and black components. Largely left-leaning, but not entirely. During the first fifteen minutes I was a bit concerned about a fight breaking out, as there were a few people in the middle of the house screaming about Che being a murderer and others coming back with "He was a revolutionary." Things eventually calmed down. I really wish I had recorded the thing because Soderbergh's answers—which, incidentally, address a number of the insipid "ironies" D.Z. thinks he such a smart guy for bringing up—were remarkably eloquent. Most of the questions were about Che and politics and reactions to the film—I actually expressed gratitude at the first film wonk question, about the Red camera, when it came up.

The Ziegfeld didn't exactly provide world-class accomodations for the Q&A—no chairs, and a single microphone to share. Because I didn't want to favor the front of the house as far as questions were concerned, I did quite a bit of Phil-Donahue-esque roaming of the aisles. Soderbergh seemed genuinely blown away that A) the screening had sold out and B) that so many people stayed for the Q&A. (I was surprised about the latter as well, and more than a little intimidated.) He was so gratified that as we wrapped, he said, "I'll sign any program that anybody wants me to." He was immediately mobbed, to the slight consternation of the group of friends that wanted to get him out of there for supper.

In any case, a pretty memorable event.

comment #27

ZayTonday says ...

BTW although I HATED the movie I was blown away by how awesome everything looked thanks to shooting digitally with the RED ONE camera. There was SO much detail, even in low light. They need to do EVERY movie from now on with this camera. It looks better than 35mm film (not IMAX though, TDK I'm looking at you) and it's bound to be WAY cheaper in the post production process.

comment #28

Bubyubb says ...

"I normally hate when Republicans do this, but I have to add that it's ironic that people in more affluent communities are the only ones who can likely afford to watch this film right now"

That's okay, they're also the only ones who'd want to.

comment #29

Phatang! says ...

Glenn: Thanks for that insight. My post was motivated by Jeff's suggestion that applause from a New York audience is somehow meaningful (as in it helps to validate his adoration of the movie), when, in my experience, New Yorkers are just as full of shit with their movie tastes as the rest of the country (though certainly in a different way).

But clearly I expressed my point in a reductive (and arguably obnoxious) way, as your experience of the event demonstrates.

comment #30

D.Z. says ...

Glen: "I really wish I had recorded the thing because Soderbergh's answers—which, incidentally, address a number of the insipid "ironies" D.Z. thinks he such a smart guy for bringing up—were remarkably eloquent."

Well, you were there. Care to provide a summary? And if my observations are so insipid, then why don't you sell your camcorder and donate it to the masses for the revolutionary movement, buddy?

comment #31

Glenn Kenny says ...

I don't own a camcorder, D.Z. And I sure as fuck am not your buddy.

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

Glenn: Oh, a cell phone camera, then? You still didn't answer my question about the contradiction of the whole thing, though.

comment #33

Glenn Kenny says ...

There is no contradiction. Just because you make a picture treating the life of a particular figure, it doesn't automatically mean that you share or endorse the ideology of that figure. As it happens, I suspect you're too stupid to grasp that; hence, pointing it out to you isn't gonna do any good.

Soderbergh is completely aware of the fact that he'd have no place in a society run by Guevera. Just so you know.

comment #34

D.Z. says ...

Glenn: "Just because you make a picture treating the life of a particular figure, it doesn't automatically mean that you share or endorse the ideology of that figure."

The running time would indicate otherwise, especially since Soderbergh already made a young Che flick just a few years ago.

"Soderbergh is completely aware of the fact that he'd have no place in a society run by Guevera."

And I'm sure Riefenstahl felt the same way.

comment #35

The Hoyk says ...

DING! D.Z. succumbs to Godwin's law!

Good night. Game over. Drive home safely.

comment #36

D.Z. says ...

Hoyk: You're right. Hitler's the only person who's ever been bad at liberating people, while Che was a strategic genius. Oh, wait...

comment #37

D.Z. says ...

I just find it funny that he screwed up as badly as Bush in Iraq, but he's the one who gets the accolades.

comment #38

D.Z. says ...

Oh yeah, I got something wrong. I just forgot it was Walter Salles who did Motorcycle Diaries.

comment #39

affiliatesreview says ...

really good post :) Thank you
Best regards!
----------------
Free pc games
Affiliate review

comment #40

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability network