Güero, the Commie Bastard?!

Let me start off by stating what a great Superbowl game it was yesterday. I actually sat through the entire game. But perhaps more amusing than the twisted ultraviolent adverts that were aired, was the fact that I received a reply to my email to local film critic, Mick Lasalle. I sent it two weeks ago after I read his review (click here) of the new flim "Che" directed by Steven Soderberg and starring Benicio del Torro. Stranger yet, he included it in his weekly "Ask Mick Lasalle" column in yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle.

Here is my original, email:

Although you might be right that the film is one big boring stroke off to Che Guevara, I think your review was way too stewed in your own politics. I think that instead, you should have just questioned why Soderberg stayed away from some of the more controversial and questionable actions of Mr. Guevara. Your political attack is weak because while you mention Castro's faults, you don't mention that Batista was a dictator and a stooge for the corporate and criminal elements of the US. Castro was/is a dictator as well but he won independence for the people of Cuba. Things might not have been so bad in that country had the US, and the powerful Cuban lobby, in Florida not isolated it. Why for instance, is the U.S. so favorable to China? They are communist and oppressive as well. This is why I wish you stayed away from the politics. It read like you have your own political axe to grind.

John Nuno Jr.
San Francisco, CA

And here is how my email was edited in his column yesterday. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like he made me sound like I'm some kind of radical Pro-Castro communist.

Dear Mick LaSalle: I think your "Che" review was way too stewed in your own politics. Your political attack is weak because, while you mention Castro's faults, you don't mention that Fulgencio Batista was a dictator and a stooge for the corporate and criminal elements of the United States. Castro was/is a dictator as well, but he won independence for the people of Cuba.

John Nuno Jr., San Francisco

Dear John Nuno Jr.: Reviewing a movie about a political figure inevitably leads to a political response because the aesthetics of the movie become tied up with the politics. For example, if you praise Leni Riefenstahl's Hitler documentary, "Triumph of the Will," you end up either saying or implying that the film's great achievement is that it makes a monster look glorious and decisive. Now, there's nothing controversial in calling Adolf Hitler a monster, but that's still a political response. In the case of "Che," three-quarters of what's wrong with the film has to do with purely aesthetic considerations, but the rest of the problem is that director Steven Soderbergh chose a dubious figure for deification and then didn't make the case for treating him in that way. Had he chosen, say, Joan of Arc, as Jacques Rivette did in "Joan the Maid," the choice would have been less discordant and would have required less justification or explanation. Of course, to say that is both a political and an aesthetic judgment, but to refrain from making it would be to duck the task of criticism. Frankly, I would challenge anyone to review a 257-minute hagiography about Josef Stalin or Benito Mussolini or Benjamin Franklin or, for that matter, Dan Quayle without dealing with the contrast between the celebratory form and the worthiness of the subject. My point is, your problem is not really with the review, because there was nothing wrong with the review. Rather, your problem is with the opinion that inevitably came through it, which is that a dictator who prevents free elections in his country for 50 years is no liberator and that the revolutionary who helped bring him into power is a bizarre subject for heroic screen treatment.

Indeed, Mick Lasalle is the critic and it's his column but I still feel his own political views overshadowed why some one like Che Guevara could develop such a following in the first place. Look, I'm aware that Guevara committed some pretty horrendous atrocities, including ones that even shocked and awed his own revolutionary comrades. I think it's completely fair for anyone to challenge Soderberg for making a 257-minute film about Che Guevara and not delve into his darker and down-right murderous and Stalinist tendencies. Mick Lasalle, however only sticks to his own views, without considering the whole context of what nefarious activities were being perpetrated in Central and South America in our country's name. National Independence is an American legacy which we all celebrate, but back then the U.S. did almost everything to crush any kind of movement in that direction, even when the leaders were primarily moderate, in order to keep a handle on the natural resources there. Needless to say, I was disappointed but probably not surprised that Lasalle didn't mention anything about our close economic ties to China, a large communist country that's also well known for it's deplorable human rights - even on a greater scale than itsy-bitsy Cuba. China also has the world's largest army and nuclear weapons. I don't think Mick Lasalle has ever made a big fuss about any films that have been produced from that country and he hasn't complained about why we show them here. He also doesn't seem to want to entertain my point that change may have come to Cuba from within itself, if we didn't isolate the country as we have and continue to do.

But now, there I am, in his column, in print, sounding like some kind of pro-communist supporter. Shit like this in the 1950s could have got me blacklisted or my phone bugged. But maybe, that's only assuming I had any influence...which I don't. And did I mention that I haven't even seen the movie? It looks interesting but I hear it's a snooze-fest...

Related Posts:
ON THE ROAD TO REVOLUTION:THOUGHTS ON "THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES"

LEFTIST REVOLUTIONARY CHICKS ARE HOT!

ON THE ROAD TO REVOLUTION: THOUGHTS ON "THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES" BY ERNESTO "CHE" GUEVARA

So in light of the 50 year Anniversary of the Cuban Revolution and the recently released Steven Soderberg films: "Che Part 1" and "Che Part 2", I've decided to post this little review/essay about Ernest "Che" Guevara. I wrote it last summer, just after my wife and I were wrapping up our "failed" business venture in San Diego and I just never got around to posting it. So if politics and history bore you, don't read it! And equally, if you are a political and historical expert, don't criticize me!

July 2, 2008

So a few weeks ago, whilst preparing to leave San Diego, I finished reading "The Motorcycle Diaries" as I'm fascinated as anyone else with Sr. Ernesto "Che" Guevara. He's a much more complicated man than the rebellious icon he's been made out to be. Many of his observations are right on and others well...let's just say he was a man of his time and place and some of his musings would by today's standards be considered, perhaps slightly, racist and homophobic. But to be fair, those things are minor compared to his overall view of the world and it's problems and the solutions he felt were necessary.

The issue I have with Guevara’s ideas is that he felt that individualism should be eradicated for the good of all people- an idea that, to me, is an extraordinary contradiction of his own character. As I see it, his life (and he would probably stab me mercilessly in my bourgeoisie throat for saying so) was more American than anything else. After all, here he is, a young Argentinian doctor born into an upper-middle class of Irish/Spanish descent, who can afford to put his professional career on hold and live a life of adventure: tear-assing across the beautiful vastness of Latin America. That’s sounds more like Jack Kerouac than Karl Marx. So in his speech to Cuban medical graduates (in the last entry of the book), he goes on to condemn the power and will of individualism – the very vital quality that allowed his own social and political transformation. So I have to ask, how did he feel about denying this freedom of choice to others?

So when it comes down to it, I think the people who mindlessly wear t-shirts and hats with Guevara are just that - mindless. Equally, so are the right wing conservatives who seem to have no shortage of books, documentaries and web sites painting him as a blood thirsty, cold blooded murderer.

The first group seems to ignore that Guevara did indeed oversee hundreds of executions- without trial and berated and belittled his own fellow comrades who thought there should be some sort of justice by way of trials. He was also known for having the families bare witness to the executions of loved ones. They also seem to ignore or overlook that Guevara had no mercy with the Indians, who fought on the side of governments he was trying to undue. Not taking into account that these poor Indians fought not out of ideology, but of economic necessity – to feed their families. In deed, in some of his own writings, Guevara admits to succumbing to bloodlust and enjoying the excitement of battle. That said, it' no surprise that he would leave the tedious, day-to-day business of running Castro’s Cuba in order to chase revolutionary glory in Bolivia, where he was killed in a manner not unfamiliar to his own tactics.

The second group, on the other hand, tends to ignore the context of the time and place in which Guevara lived. During that period, the US had a notorious habit of using its C.I.A. to dismantle democratically elected governments all over Latin America. Putting in their stead, military dictatorships that ruled with unspeakable brutality and oppression. While they belittle Guevara, they don’t often expound upon the "greatness and compassion" of American “friendly” leaders like, Fulgencio Batista, Carlos Castillo Armas or Augusto Pinochet. I mean, let’s face it, these guys and others like them, were evil, scum-sucking shit bags of the first order and they had no reservations about raping and fleecing their own country with reckless, gleeful abandon. Our government was there and they were ready and all too eager to assist. It’s also apparent that the Guevara detractors easily overlook, or dismiss similar actions committed or permitted by the US, such as the recently reported mass executions during the Korean War.

I'd like to go on but I don't really have the time to properly analyze and write all that I would like to in regards to the diary itself and the man. But to sum this up quickly, I'll only say that it’s just not helpful to understand Mr. Guevara by reducing his rebellious image on bumper stickers or t-shirts. Guevara is just too complicated a figure - in death as he was in life.

SIDEWALKING: THE MISSION STENCILS

The graffiti stencils :anyone that has to walk the garbage strewn streets here in the Mission has probably seen them, or if not, they've seen photos in the local blogs or read about in yesterday's Chronicle. It's not really known who is doing them....I don't don't think it's lower income Latinos...they are busy working and taking care of their families, I don't think it's the homeless people, they are busy collecting cans and doing whatever else they do. So who is it? Political activists? Performance artists? People who hate their parents? I don't know but what's clear is that it is an ineffective attempt to solve the real problems in the Mission.

I think they should put their cardboard stencils and spraypaint cans away and do something more constructive for the neighborhood; for instance, pick up all the trash that sails downwind from Cesar Chavez Street. The amount of coffee cups, plastic bags and paper is incredible.

Do these sidewalkistas want to create some catchy and clever slogans they think will make the ordinary Mission resident rise up and fight against the evil doing gentrify-ers? Do they think we are going to "smoke 'em out" of their refurbished Victorian TICs? It's ridiculous. These are anonymous rebels fishing for a cause and they are as irrelevant as the stenciled statements they spraypaint.

Why Hillary

So I've been taking some flak from friends for not yet getting on the Obama-rama Love Train of Change. I still support Hillary. Yes, that's right...that "polarizing" woman that everyone loves to hate but I honestly think she is best candidate out of two great choices. I don't even think that Obama and Clinton's ideals and goal are substantially different. I do like the man. Let's face it, Obama does indeed inspire and he gives great speeches but I don't know if that is going to be enough to get through to November.

So far Obama has captured the imagination of the public and media but what happens if, more like when, he is the only game in town? When his voting record and background are raked through the coals of the press, Karl Rove and conservative talk radio? So far, it seems like they have been going very light on Mr. Obama but every single day Matt Drudge can't resist an anti-Clinton article or using the worst possible photos he can find. And so he doesn't bore himself, Drudge will use the same tactics on an easier target like Bill Clinton and lately he must sigh in relief that daughter Chelsea now seems to be fair game.

Despite Obama's lead in delegates and apparent popularity, the right wing media hasn't taken any pause in shit bricking Hillary day and night which raises the questions, why do they still consider her to be such a threat? Why treat Obama with such kid gloves? Why do they seem to feel more at ease with Obama in the running?

While with Hillary, after 20 years of constant attacks, there is nothing new that the right wing movement can dredge up. The well is already dry and what more can they do? Dust off Ken Starr and open up the Whitewater files again? Probably not. For this reason, I feel more confident about about Hillary. What do the "vast right wing" conspirators have in store for Mr. Obama? Do they somehow consider him a smaller fish to fry? I don't know and I would not want to have to find out the hard way.

That said Hillary and her people have not handled this campaign well. Making attacks on Obama has not helped her cause, yet she keeps doing it anyway which makes her appear like the angry, sore loser who can't resist a cheap shot be it worthy or not.

Reality is a bitch, however, and it appears that Hillary may have to come to terms with her ambition and step down. She has to think about the party and not let it be divided for the Republicans to take advantage. In short, their goals and views are nearly identical but one thinks they can implement changes through inspiration and the other though experience. Obviously both are needed and hopefully these two will handle their differences gracefully and leave the party strong. And if Hillary steps down, I also hope that Obama can keep up the inspiration for a next eight brutal months and possibly beyond.