Che: Part One

The first part of Steven Soderbergh’s biopic and not bad at all. Obviously, you need to see part two as well Discuss this article

© ITP Images

Watch just the first part of Steven Soderbergh’s Che and it may feel like an odd, faintly flat biopic. But when you see the second part, you’ll realise that Soderbergh didn’t set out to make a biopic in any conventional sense of the term.

For one thing, of course, he didn’t need to tread the path of traditional portraiture, as Walter Salles’s The Motorcycle Diaries has already dealt with how Che’s encounters with suffering and injustice as an Argentinean medic transformed his political awareness. Moreover, while Ernesto Guevara (Benicio Del Toro) is undoubtedly at the centre of Soderbergh’s diptych, he’s not the main focus of interest. Rather, this is a film about the process of revolutionary struggle.

Part One – spanning from 1955, when Guevara first met Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir) in Mexico City, to 1964, when he visited New York to address the United Nations assembly – mainly chronicles the guerilla campaign fought by a tiny, initially ragged band of rebels against the army supporting the Cuban dictator Batista.

Flashing backwards and forwards in time, it frames the guerrillas’ slow-but-miraculous progress towards a decisive victory in Santa Clara within a discussion (based on Guevara’s speeches and writings) of revolutionary strategy, in terms of both practice and theory. During this time the pragmatic strategist Che becomes ever more crucial to Castro. But at the same time he’s just one component in a campaign dependent on the growing support of Cuba’s peasant population.

Although you won’t be able to appreciate the complexities of Soderbergh’s epic by merely watching this first part, we highly recommend that you do, and then see Part Two when it is released here. Soderbergh is interested in what it entails to fight for revolutionary ideals: not just courage, cunning, expertise, loyalty, but the hardships, sacrifices… and the cost of mistakes. It’s not a Holly-wood-style movie – it demands patience and proper attention – but it’s a great film, and rewards magnificently.

Time Out reviews films anonymously and pays for meals. Of course, we cannot guarantee the accuracy or independence of user reviews.