Che? Meet Barry

email this story
read comments (11)
post a comment

"I've just watched the entirety of Che,"says HE reader Yu Zun, "and absolutely, unequivocally loved it! I cannot imagine watching the two films separately. Did the film's monk-like aesthetic distance and commitment remind you at all of Barry Lyndon? I feel that both films, in their hands-off portrayal of the central character, ultimately present the most compassionate portrait we can ascribe to a human being. They can only be judged, if at all, through their actions, and by the viewer's lens, and not by the generic filmmaker's sermon.

"This -- i.e., the sermon -- consists of the dramatic, narrative elements that are supposed to humanize the hero. It's the basic building block of a well-made and involving narrative film. But the stuff of great movies demands more -- a personality and deeper thought beyond that label, and Che and Barry Lyndon do not partake in that sermon. They forego what we expect to find in a film that's centered around one character. Che and Barry Lyndon are as removed from us as the people that live under our roofs. I thought that decision, in both films, was a very brave, perhaps even stubborn, choice.

"So Erenst Che Guevara's actions simply ARE, and the man behind the action becomes a contradiction through what he does. In a way, the film is the character. There is no sermon, there is no gospel -- just the facts. The film pays high respect to the viewers, by acknowledging that we are merely interpreters of identical facts -- no more, no less. Whether it's a high-art fuck-you or an act of faith, I suppose, depends on who you are."

Somebody Finally Said It<< previous | next >>Oxford Wifi-gate

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 7, 2009 at 11:57 AM

comment #1

George Prager says ...

Poseur alert.

Posted by George Prager at February 7, 2009 12:57 PM

comment #2

Sabina E says ...

whaaaaaat? btw, I saw CHE 2 weeks ago.... it's definitely a mind-blowing masterpiece, very well done. I think that was del Toro's best performance, ever.

Posted by Sabina E at February 7, 2009 1:20 PM

comment #3

MindlessObamaton says ...

Hey, can anyone tell me why Kat Dennings has a profile in the NYTIMES Magazine this weekend in their Oscar "Great Performances" piece? It makes no sense. Never hearda the broab.

Posted by MindlessObamaton at February 7, 2009 1:54 PM

comment #4

Markj74 says ...

Barry Lyndon. What a film.

Posted by Markj74 at February 7, 2009 2:56 PM

comment #5

George Prager says ...

Brian Eno on BARRY LYNDON:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OKEkxu00wY

Posted by George Prager at February 7, 2009 3:17 PM

comment #6

Chase Kahn says ...

I'm right there with him, but I wasn't sitting there thinking 'Barry Lyndon' -- no way. Part Two really makes Part One even better, I think it's like the glue holding the whole thing together -- just brilliant.

And John Patrick Shanley will give you a sermon if that's what you're looking for.

Posted by Chase Kahn at February 7, 2009 3:52 PM

comment #7

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Brian Eno commenting on Stanley Kubrick? Who cares? What's next, Brett Ratner giving his opinion on Roxy Music?

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at February 7, 2009 4:31 PM

comment #8

bfm says ...

I think he's saying that other directors tend to turn their biopics into sermons but that Soderbergh didn't. I think. Maybe.

Posted by bfm at February 7, 2009 4:56 PM

comment #9

DarthCorleone says ...

I think maybe it's what bfm is saying - or that it's just a generalization about biopics in general without any specific remark about this one.

Or maybe he has a negative opinion about Che the human being, and because Soderbergh didn't vilify him sufficiently, he feels that's sermonizing. Conversely, he could also have a positive opinion of Che and feel that Soderbergh did not pay him enough credit. Just another possible interpretation...

Posted by DarthCorleone at February 7, 2009 6:43 PM

comment #10