comment #1

Glenn Kenny says ...

If Eugene had shot with a wider angle, you would have seen me standing to Soderbergh's left, eagerly looking for the exits.

Actually, what's in that clip is pretty much as heated as it got, and it was pretty close to the beginning of the Q&A. Still, it was kind of intimidating up there at that point, and as the video shows, Soderbergh handled it like a champ.

comment #2

ZacharyTF says ...

comment #3

ZacharyTF says ...

I copied and pasted the embed code, but it disappears when I post it. Weird.

comment #4

MickTravisMcGee says ...

It sounds like the ruckus is mostly being caused by one or two loudmouths in the audience who can't stay on topic. As angry as I am about Bush and some of our government's practices, why the hell was that guy bringing those things up?

Where's a bro with a taser when you need one?

comment #5

swordandpen says ...

Basically, these are morons who want to watch movies that reaffirm their beliefs. Whatever issues you had with the movie (and I had a few), Soderbergh was never attempting to use the movies to editorialize but to let people come to their own conclusions. How difficult is that to understand?

You wish some people would be more outraged by stuff that happens in real life than an image projected inside a movie theater.

comment #6

BurmaShave says ...

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao you ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

comment #7

Jay T. says ...

What a bunch of fucking geniuses...

comment #8

gansibele says ...

It's a weak point. Just to use a handy example, Idi Amin, especially teh Idi Amin portrayed in "last King of Scotland" would have said his murderous and brutal acts were necessary as well. The difference is that the film does not washes its hands of rendering that judgment, as "Che' does -and if it had, everybody would have been screaming whitewashing. If Soderberg really believes what he is saying in the clip, then he basically chickened out. He chose a hagiography instead of a complete portrait of the man.

comment #9

D.Z. says ...

swordandpen: "Whatever issues you had with the movie (and I had a few), Soderbergh was never attempting to use the movies to editorialize but to let people come to their own conclusions."

So does that suddenly make Stone's punch-pulling Bush movie legit now?

gansi: "Idi Amin, especially teh Idi Amin portrayed in "last King of Scotland" would have said his murderous and brutal acts were necessary as well. The difference is that the film does not washes its hands of rendering that judgment, as "Che' does -and if it had, everybody would have been screaming whitewashing."

Makes you wonder how people would feel about Che if he was black...

Anyway, Soderbergh seems to have taken his style of spin from Karl Rove...I can't wait until he makes an "objective" Pol Pot movie next...

comment #10

btwnproductions says ...

Ziegfeld! Ziegfeld! :)

comment #11

swordandpen says ...

Those who feel Stone was punch-pulling in "W" weren't paying attention just like those who feel "Che" heroicizes Guevera.

I'd rather not see a movie that rams a particular viewpoint down my throat, regardless if I agree with that viewpoint. I appreciate filmmakers who think I'm smart enough to come to my own conclusions.

comment #12

D.Z. says ...

swordandpen: "I'd rather not see a movie that rams a particular viewpoint down my throat, regardless if I agree with that viewpoint."

Yeah, well, when the FOX News and Clear Channels of the country call the shots, you have to fight back with your own message, plain and simple. It's because they managed to lump anyone with an even remotely liberal view-point with the Maos of the world that they've brainwashed the public into believing that unions who expect more compensation are a bigger threat to the economy than overpaid CEOs who are horrible managers.

comment #13

gansibele says ...

Is there a point, or even a multitude of points, in between hagiography and "ramming a particular viewpoint down my throat" and could reaching some of those points have made "Che" a more compelling movie? Isn't conflict and nuance what makes great cinematical characters? What's the point in portraying a one-dimensional zealot like Che if it's not contrasted? Sometimes right is right and it's not a matter of taking sides. This is a guy who described the ideal revolutionary as a "cold killing machine". It's like making a movie about Robespierre without a beheading.

I would like "Che" more if Soderbergh had taken his own advice ("whether you agree or not") and had the intellectual honesty of showing Che commanding a fire squad executing people sentenced in kangaroo courts. It would have shown the courage on his part to face the Che myth-buyers that compose a large part of his natural audience as well. Get stones thrown at you from both sides and then you are doing something right.

comment #14

TonyR says ...

Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy,OMG！！！！！！！
Let's go to *******INTERRACIALLOVING.COM*********. There are many beautiful black or white women and men chatting on that community which designed to help ethnically diverse singles meet new friends and make dates.

comment #15

Glenn Kenny says ...

Thank you, Tony R. FInally, a comment that says what has needed to be said the whole time.

comment #16

EricGilde says ...

I thought it was pretty great, and didn't feel like the film made a hero of Che. He was a leader, certainly, but I felt like a lot of Soderbergh's work attempted to make him seem like less of a hero. It's the way that the film is as long and deep as it is, but strangely non-dramatic throughout. It isn't Lawrence of Arabia. There aren't powerful closeups at just the right poetic, climactic moment. There isn't a whole lot of sympathy for the man, or his fight, or his death. It's just a version of it, observed, very patiently and very specifically. Che is responsible for a lot, and he accomplished a lot, but Soderbergh isn't interested in making a saint out of him.

comment #17

swordandpen says ...

D.Z., honestly what you said was the radical liberal equivalent of the right wing talking points we've been hearing for too long and too stupid for me to reply to.

ganisbele, Eric above states how I was going to respond. The movie clearly doesn't make Che a saint. And it does address the execution by him being unapologetic about it. Whatever you feel about that is what you bring to the movie. I would say the way Soderbergh portrayed this has nuance. The movie is more about the process of guerilla warfare and not a standard biopic that hits every key moment of his life.

Once again, I'm not really sure what including that scene in this particularly distant approach to the man would accomplish outside of appeasing people who feel movies should reflect their beliefs and ideologies for them to be appreciated.

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

swordandpen: "D.Z., honestly what you said was the radical liberal equivalent of the right wing talking points we've been hearing for too long and too stupid for me to reply to."

Supporting unions is being a radical liberal?

comment #19

gansibele says ...

"Whatever you feel about that is what you bring to the movie." that in a nutshell is my problem with the movie.

comment #20

affiliatesreview says ...

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

comment #21

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 system