Che, revisited

Yes, the ‘Che as an Insider topic’ saga continues. (See: Che debate and Che movie thoughts)

This time, it comes in the form of a stressful Benicio del Toro interview which he walked out of. Knowing the nature of the newspaper which tried to interview him, the Wahington Times, a typically moderate to right-of-center publication, I’m sure they probably asked del Toro tough questions like: “why did you choose to take part in a movie that glorifies the life of a killer,” or even tougher questions like “why did you choose to openly defend and dedicate your award to a man who, without hesitation, ended families and murdered dissenters?”

Whatever the case may be, it seems that del Toro is a little lacking as far as his knowledge on the subject. One of his quotes from the Times interview: “Not knowing much about the history of Cuba, the history of Che, not being taught anything about it. The image that I have or what has been told to me about this character is that he’s kind of a cowboy – a bloodthirsty cowboy.”

I find it not only curious but quite irresponsible that del Toro did not do significant background research before jumping on to the bandwagon for this one. Del Toro said that he started his research by reading the writings of Che; his diaries, journals, etc. So, what I can conclude from this that 1) Del Toro is an irresponsible actor for not knowing the background of the character he is to glorify, and thus, in his ignorance he agreed to play the part or 2) Benecio did in fact do more research beyond Che’s diaries, but is a sympathizer for communism, and believes the actions carried out by Guevara are a necessary evil. Instead, it may have been more reliable to delay on reading the self-reflections of Che but rather interview a surviving Cuban labor camp captive or the numerous children whose parents vanished at the hand of the Cuban communist regime.

This is not a trivial matter – the influence of Hollywood and big-name actors such as del Toro turns a relatively isolated view of Che as a hero into a major misconception among youth already teetering on the subject. It dulls what should be a strong opposition to the flaws and destruction brought about by communism and extremist values in the hands of political figures.

The only good thing I can see in the film is its length – running about 4 hours, I doubt our increasingly less attentive youth will be able to sit through the propaganda.