This conclusion is understandable. I also bought a Cobain T-shirt at the store that sold this bag. There are many other patterns like Lennon and Rolling Stone, but there is no Dylan. Once became my boss regret. In those few years, Che suddenly joined the ranks of rock stars, which has something to do with Zhang Guangtian and Huang Jisu's "Che Guevara". The play "was rated as one of the top ten events in China's intellectual circles in 2000". After that, I heard that these two creators had gone up the mountain and went to a certain township. This great "epic drama" may be a nomination.
Now I have understood that consumption is the most powerless confession, and the possession of a symbol and object is a matter of money in the final analysis, and it has nothing to do with idealism. Shouting slogans is a bit more bullish by comparison, provided that someone listens. When shooting the movie to the next two episodes, it is a bit difficult for people to listen to it.
"Argentina" adopts the "multi-line crossing" method that Soderberg is better at, interspersing Che Guevara's trip to the United States to speak at the United Nations in 1964 and the Cuban Revolution from 1955 to 1959 alternately. The former uses black and white images, and the latter uses color images, both of which use a large number of hand-held photography, with a strong imitation of documentary colors. The alternation of the two forms a special "intertextual" effect. In the black and white part, the statement of Che Guevara in the interview became the voice-over of the battle scene in the color part, which seemed to be his interpretation of the past war years; while the guerrilla life in the color part was compared to Guevara in the black and white part. The speech at the UN General Assembly, especially his rebuttal to the representatives of Latin American countries, also formed a kind of background projection-the fruit of the revolution was exchanged for the blood and sacrifice he experienced, and he has the right to defend it in any way. His answers in the interview that seemed like a monologue: about revolution, faith, humanity, etc., parallel to his performance among the guerrillas in the picture, cleverly let the audience inadvertently accept this kind of "Guevara on Guevara" Pull" effect.
This is why I prefer "Argentina". Judging from the image text alone, Soderbergh has achieved his goal and created a sense of reality that is not lacking in doubt. But this kind of reality is not the kind of "documentary" kind of reality. The actual "Argentina" looks more like a dream: close-ups of Che Guevara's face frequently appear in the black and white part, and the contrasting images of strong light from various angles, while the close-up shots of him are rarely seen in the color part, and the expressions are also mostly Covered by the shadow of the military cap, only when he put on the famous beret did he reveal more of his face. The hot jungle and verdant corn fields are constantly and suddenly switched to the black and white city of New York. The separation and distance between these two worlds is as incredible as the victory of the revolution. But Che just wandered among them. We can't see him, just as he can't see them. It is no easier to find out which sentence of his is true, which sentence is a general perfunctory, than finding a battle of fire that will determine victory from the revolution that has been "dailyized".
The audience saw the "ordinary version" of the myth in these hallucinations: a patient who walked through the jungle with a heavy asthma, a "war intellectual" who always wanted to teach recruits to read and write, and a warrior like an elementary school teacher. The "instructor" who complained, an "iron judge" who resolutely executed deserters who harmed the people. Even a "loyal warrior" who accepts Fidel Castro's all-hands transfer without any objection. This is still a familiar heroic routine. Only under Soderberg's processing, the dog's blood is diluted by the narrative of the image. And the camera didn't let people see his expression clearly. As long as the audience knows that Che is such a person, these are all very natural expressions for him. It's over. Those vague, contemplative, and uncertain, only flashed past in the black and white world. At that time, he was no longer in the revolution.
The revolution created a myth, and the revolution itself is a myth.
At the end of the film, the dialogue between the two future leaders on the balcony was completed. Before Castro asked: "Do you think I'm crazy? It's a good thing to be a little crazy." After more than two hours, the audience saw and told him that he would continue to "liberate all of South America after the victory of the Cuban Revolution." ". Castro's answer was: "You are crazy too."
By the time "Guerrilla" started, it was already 1965. Just cut off the history of the "peace-building era". Obviously avoid the heavy and the light. However, some of the "insiders" of Cuban high-level officials here are probably only stored in the 83-year-old brain of Castro, the only insider, and outsiders can't get it. Great people such as the CIA can only play inferences based on certain habits of the M-ism party, thinking that Che, like Trotsky, has been purged by his own boss, and the farewell letters are all fakes. Fortunately, Che finally appeared in the Congo, giving a fatal counterattack to the rumors of US imperialism. At that time, he had already bid farewell to the common sense of the people on earth.
In terms of form, "Guerilla" is a "normal" movie. It was quite satisfactory, and I finished more than 300 days in Bolivia in chronological order. From entering the country in disguise, organizing the team, to moving to the jungle, it was eventually destroyed. When the plot becomes cruel, it often feels more real. Because the "victory narrative" routine is being repeatedly failed to prove that it is not a theorem-the same propaganda of a better future, administering medicine to the villagers, does not move the people one by one, but cannot dispel the doubts and fears on the dull faces The look, even more unable to make them travel across mountains and rivers. Instead, they lied and betrayed them, until the hero was executed by onlookers.
The cut is still the cut. He dragged his heavy asthma, read the book, resolved the disputes between the soldiers, strong and just. But in the face of the completely opposite situation, his strength appeared to be getting weaker and weaker. In fact, it is not that he is getting weaker, but the reality is getting stronger. Only then can the audience feel that the so-called legendary halo is just a fiction smeared by the victory ending. The same behavior, in the absence of positive results, is no longer so tall. On the contrary, there is some "formalism". Therefore, please do not believe that the process is more important than the result. For everyone who follows Che, celebrate the victory with the people, drive a jeep into Havana, be hungry and cold, march with infected wounds, and die without any precaution in a small town where birds don’t shit. , It's not the same thing at all. It is the same person. The former makes you think that he is omnipotent, while the latter makes you suspect that he has no idea what he is doing.
Only a victorious revolution can create a myth, and only a victorious revolution can be a myth.
Therefore, Che, like all people, is just one person, and the end of his life does not entirely depend on himself. There is no need to use more dramatic things such as "tempest" and "indiscriminate killing" to highlight the contradictions and complexities of this character. Even if it is as simple as a line, this line still cannot be straight. Because he is walking in such a world of ups and downs. The dense forest can be the cradle of victory, or the road to lost. At least, restoring such a cruel guerrilla life has broken those rumors about "pursuing romance": Who can think that this kind of life is romantic?
I sometimes suspect that he too was poisoned by Bolivar. The South American "liberator" liberated five or six countries in one go, during which he paid a price regardless of cost. Those who were liberated by him, unable to accept his vision of the "United States of Latin America", finally became his enemies and even wanted to assassinate him. The difference between cuts is that they are killed only when they take the first step. Helping a country drive out a colonial governor, and helping a country to overthrow the existing government and change another, after all, are two different things. The latter is not destined to be regarded as "liberated" by everyone. Bolivia, the country named after the "Liberator", unceremoniously became the burial place of the new dreamers.
The end of "Guerillas" also used a retrospective, this time it was the scene of Che and Castro sailing to the "revolutionary road" together. History has returned to its starting point, and the outcome is uncertain. It may or may not be a myth. The two "lunatics" faced the vast sea, with some sense of anxiety and dazedness in their silence. They are all just people.
One lived 44 years longer than the other, nothing more.
View more about Che: Part Two reviews
