The Motorcycle Diaries

[RidersOnTheStorm]

From what I heard, this movie is awesome.

Someone saw it ?

 

The Motorcycle Diaries

[Matt Pacini]

Haven't seen it, but I've heard both that it was great, and terrible.

 

Generally, I tend to pass on movies that humanize mass-murderers, but I'm kinda wacky that way.

 

Matt Pacini

[Guest Trevor Swaim]

Generally, I tend to pass on movies that humanize mass-murderers, but I'm kinda wacky that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ditto

[Dominic Case]

Generally, I tend to pass on movies that humanize mass-murderers, but I'm kinda wacky that way.

Huh???

 

Which particular mass murderer was that?

 

This particular film is about a journey through South America that Ernesto (Che) Guevara made before he graduated from medical school, and long before he became politically active. It's a story about rich boys growing up and seeing the world.

 

It does mention in the closing titles that Guevara was eventually murdered by the CIA. Perhaps they are the mass murderers that you are thinking of.

 

Or maybe you are indeed just wacky, as you say.

 

Go and see the film before you judge it. It's a good story, well photographed, and quite safe. There is no risk that you will come out of it a committed socialist, or tainted with the blood of innocent people. I doubt if it will count against you when Macarthyism increases its grip again - but then again, I doubt if it will help you much when the revolution comes and you are up against the wall!

[Keith Mottram]

Go and see the film before you judge it. It's a good story, well photographed, and quite safe. There is no risk that you will come out of it a committed socialist, or tainted with the blood of innocent people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

whilst this film is a good well acted yarn, the photography is patchy in my opinion, there are just too many styles. from epic landscape to annoying still acted b+W photojournalism. It is definately worth watching and in no way overtly political, remember this is set before Che even met Castro. Che was, at the time of this movie, just a young student adventurer and anyone who has been on a student road trip will really enjoy and empathise with the situations he and his companion get up to. It is also a very good reminder of the poverty that still exists and has changed very little since Che's time in South America (although ocasionally this point is played out about as subtely as a sledgehammer). forget the politics and remember there are two sides to every story. I did not feel that I was changed by the experience apart from the fact that I have formed a band of gorillas and have taken to quoting Marx, but I guess thats for another website.

 

Keith

[Matt Pacini]

Huh???  Which particular mass murderer was that?

"... before he became politically active. "

"... Go and see the film before you judge it..."  "... It's a good story, well photographed, and quite safe."

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Read my post again.

I wasn't referring to the movie, I was referring to the guy, Che Guevara.

I personally think lining people up against a wall and executing them is an act of mass murder, whether or not I agree or disagree with their political beliefs.

 

Rewinding the story to before when he engaged in the activities he did, to "liberate" people is a valid thing to do for a story, it also can be quite a manipulative mechanism, in my opinion (editing out the "nasty bits" of a persons' life) , and given that fact, and who this film is about, I just didn't think that it would be an objective telling of the "truth", but an act of subtle political indoctrination, which frankly, bores me.

 

I won't see this film, just the same as I opted to not watch the film that came out recently about Adolph Hitler, that took place when he was still a nobody painter, or to put it another way "before he got politically active".

 

Matt Pacini

[Dominic Case]

I just didn't think that it would be an objective telling of the "truth", but an act of subtle political indoctrination, which frankly, bores me.

Well I think you have just defined the word "prejudice".

 

You've formed your opinion before seeing the evidence.

 

Personally, I think a few more films that "humanize mass murderers" - especially with regard to their political beliefs - couldn't be a bad thing, especially in the context of the world situation today. After all, many of the people who would fall under that description have been national leaders whom the USA (and therefore Australia, fwiw) has counted among its allies at one time or another.

 

Does "know thine enemy" apply here?

[Matt Pacini]

Well I think you have just defined the word "prejudice".

 

You've formed your opinion before seeing the evidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, sure, just like anybody does when deciding whether or not they want to go to any particular movie. Surely you don't go to see EVERY movie ever released? It's not like I made that decision based on just the title alone, having never heard reviews of the film, opinions of people I know that have seen it, etc.

 

I'd agree to a point, with the last part of your statement though; we have supported some nasty characters in the past, but I think to be fair, one has to view the complexity of the situation:

 

Many "bad guys" that we've been criticized for supporting, became "bad guys" AFTER we supported them. (Bid Laden, when he was fighting against the Russian takeover in Afghanistan, being one example), or we were asked (sometime by others like the UN) for the sake of the citizens of that country (I'm not necessarily talking about military situations here, since any involvement whatsoever in another country has been the basis for our being accused of "backing evil governments").

 

But there's tons of hypocrisy on this issue, since I've heard over and over, from the same people, this criticism, and yet they will then say things like, the reason for Bid Laden's later activities is because "America abandonded them" after they pushed out the Russians.

Well, of course.

We were supposed to stay there and put McDonalds and Disneylands on every corner? Stay & spread our culture there? (something else we've been criticized for endlessly.)

They wanted to be "abandoned" after we helped them fight the Russians. That's all we were asked to do. I see no reason to stay and make them a welfare state of the US, which is basically what the world seems to want us to do with every country that can't stand on it's own two feet.

(Kinda bizarre concept, since most of these places are Marxist governments, who expect capitalist nations to prop them up because their system OBVIOUSLY doesn't work, then blame their economic problems on us if we don't...)

 

And it's the same thing now; we're being criticized for not tossing more billions of dollars on African nations that are run by dictators who are butchering their citizens.

We're supposed to give them loads of cash, forgive the debts of the money they've squandered that we've already given them, only to be criticized ten years from now for "supporting evil dictatorships".

 

It's a "damned if you do", "damned if you don't" scenario. Can't have it both ways!

 

Matt Pacini

[andrewbuchanan]

I really enjoyed the movie. It took chances, attempted something different, and wasn't the same old poop. The cinematography was at times brillliant, at times average, but was attempting something new. I liked the use of Super 16 in the film and the blend of stills (which were relative to the history fo the story).

 

However some of the comments about Che Guevara written above etc. show a gross misconception about the history of Central and South American, Che's role in it, and a profound ignorance of geopolitics. Comparing Che to Hitler is such a staggeringly foolish statement that it borders on hilarity.

 

I spent a great deal of my late teens and early 20's in Central America. I shot a documentary in Cuba in Septmber of 2001 and there I learned that, as an American I had profound misconceptions about my own country.

 

I learned that we are a nuanced country with moments of profound brilliance and instances of shameful darkness and regret. You could say that our national character has depth. Much the same could be said of Che Guavara. A profoundly wonderful and a profoundly flawed person. One who died for his convictions... which is a little more powerful than say, sitting out of a movie, wouldn't you say?

 

Matt, I would strongly urge you to read some books and learn a little bit about a character which has so profoundly effected our hemisphere before slandering his character with such abandon. Or perhaps before you explain "the complexity of the situation". As I have learned in many of my recent travels, I don't need to be an apologist for yet another ignorant American abroad or at home.

[Dominic Case]

Many "bad guys" that we've been criticized for supporting, became "bad guys" AFTER we supported them.

My point exactly.

 

Stories about people who start out as public enemy number one and end up as . . .public enemy number one, wouldn't necessarily be particularly illuminating.

 

A film about anyone who starts out with a set of values that you sympathise with, and then goes through a transformation so that they end up as a mass murderer, or a terrorist leader, or a revolutionary, or whatever, has a lot to tell us about the human condition - if only to ask who changed: the person, or the rest of the world.

 

Motorcycle Diaries only starts the story. I'd like to see a film that followed how Che Guevara's sympathy for the poor and oppressed of South America led him to his role in Cuba - and not to becoming another Mother Teresa.

 

I think I can safely watch a film and recognise that I'm invariably being shown someone else's viewpoint of a story.

[Marcel Zyskind]

We were supposed to stay there and put McDonalds and Disneylands on every corner? Stay & spread our culture there? (something else we've been criticized for endlessly.)

They wanted to be "abandoned" after we helped them fight the Russians. That's all we were asked to do. I see no reason to stay and make them a welfare state of the US, which is basically what the world seems to want us to do with every country that can't stand on it's own two feet.

(Kinda bizarre concept, since most of these places are Marxist governments, who expect capitalist nations to prop them up because their system OBVIOUSLY doesn't work, then blame their economic problems on us if we don't...)

 

 

No, you were and are supposed to stay out in the first place. What were your interest in Afghanistan in the first place anyway? Building schools and hospitals for poor people affected by war or poppy and oil for guns? You are not the world police, but since 25% of the world economy still evolve around your economy, you still feel you have the right to police it. It is changing now though... Look forward to speaking Chinese. As soon as the last factory in the west closes, China raises the prices. Who's gonna make the cheap stuff for us now?

 

Hmm.

 

We're supposed to give them loads of cash, forgive the debts of the money they've squandered that we've already given them, only to be criticized ten years from now for "supporting evil dictatorships".

 

 

We give them cash to buy our weapons, so they kill each other, give them more cash, buy more weapons, good deal for us. But we will not sell them tractors so that they can develop agriculture, since that would not be beneficial to us. We make to much food and we need to sell it somewhere.

Of course theres plenty of developed agriculture there, but that only benifits us, pineapple, bananas and cocunut round the year... Unfortunatly the locals cannot afford this.

All dictators are still in power because we want them there. They give us our money back.

 

It's allways easy to point fingers.

Take care, all the best

Marcel

 

P.S I'm no better myself, I point fingers. BTW Motorcycle Diaries is a good film.

Edited March 17, 2005 by MarcelZyskind

[Matt Pacini]

There are many definitions of ignorance.

 

Here is one:

When someone is addressing a specific topic, a particular narrow aspect of a subject matter (which by definition lacks "complete global definition or theory or the subject matter"), to then state that the person must be ignorant of the "big picture", is just ridiculous.

I could go on and on about how I feel about the U.S. involvement in global affairs, but this post would be about 20 pages long.

And the fact that you spent time in Central America is nice, but it doesn't make you an authority on the subject.

Look at Israel. The people who have lived there for their entire lives have completely opposite views of their history, what has happened, what's happening now, and what should happen. Just spending time someplace doesn't negate the fact that people see "the facts" through their own bias and draw different conclusions about the reality of the situation.

 

To top this off, you then assume all sorts of things about what you THINK I believe and/or stand for, which come right out of your own tendency to stereotype, not from anything I've said.

Personally, I wish the US would stay out of EVERYONE else's business, but guess what? If we did that, then we would be letting people starve to death, letting Tsunami victims sort out their problems themselves, etc.

I find it hypocritical that most of the people I hear whining about the "horrible US' always sticking their nose in other people's affairs", then turn around and criticize us for "not doing enough" all over the planet (the tsunami situation being the most recent).

It's like we're supposed to break out the big checkbook whenever anything bad happens anywhere, but expect nothing in return. As far as our military involvement goes, people are very selective (hypocritical) about when they decide we should stay out of other countries affairs, especially when I hear people whom we liberated in WWII bitching that we should always mind our own business and stop using our military outside our own borders. (I didn't support the Iraq war, by the way)

 

(And now, to state the obvious):

I didn't say the film shouldn't have been made, or it was a bad film, blah blah blah. I simply stated the reason I didn't want to watch the film.

 

I didn't compare Che to Hitler.

I compared the effects of leaving out the bad things an individual has done in their lives, when telling their story, tends to make the audience be more sympathetic to that character. I simply used an extreme example to make my point (DUH!), since there was in fact a film about him recently, that was roundly criticized for exactly this; editing out the bad things about him. I thought that criticism was unfounded; if someone wants to make a film about Hitler "the artist" then that's their right. I just didn't want to watch it.

 

I personally am bored with films that preach to me, particularly if they're only telling part of the story. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've heard many people say that this film does that.

I have no problem with these films being made, I have no problem with anyone else going to see them.

I just choose not to, that's all.

 

OK, getting off the political aspects of the conversation, and onto cinematography:

 

I saw a good documentary on PBS a couple weeks ago on Fidel Castro (where I saw footage of the executions I mentioned earlier, which is probably what got me a bit riled up to begin with! Seeing these guys begging for their lives, lined up in front of trenches and gunned down... not a pretty sight).

Anyway, it was a good film. Not biased either direction, it showed both sides of the situation fairly, I thought.

It was interesting watching all this news footage and interview footage shot on film, up until the 70's, which they switched to video for news reporting.

Oh man, what a difference! The film footage looked terrific (if sometimes horrifying) compared to the video footage.

Just terrible!

 

Matt Pacini

[Jonathan Spear]

I smell oral diahrreah...

[Tim Tyler]

I personally am bored with films that preach to me, particularly if they're only telling part of the story.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've heard many people say that this film does that.

 

It's not preachy at all. In fact, I was disappointed that there were only a couple of short scenes that seemed to influence Che in ways that probably lead him to become the man he later became. It?s really just a good road movie.

 

You?re right about it ?only telling part of the story?. I felt it ended too soon.

[Matthew McDermott]

Regarding Motorcycle Diaries only telling part of the story: It's been a while since I read Che's actual diaries, but I seem to remember that he wasn't nearly so sympathetic towards the poor in the beginning of his trip as the film makes it out to be. His views certainly changed as the trip progressed, but in the beginning he makes few remarks about them that aren't disparaging. I guess a gradual change in character is harder to portray than a dramatic one...

 

I also forgot that they kept crashing the bike. It's just as humorous in writing as on the screen.

[Guest Y.M.Poursohi]

In my opinion the film was weak in its delivery. To separate the different elements, I have to say some of the cinematography was nice, the landscape shots, cows in the background and using natural colors as their main color-palette. But story and the structure and the dialogue was cheesy. Some one pointed out earlier that it's a film about rich kids discovering South America. While that was the idea the film was loaded with political undertones as to why Che did what he did later on. There is a point where he says "oh all this injustice to these poor people", come one give me a break. Is this revealing or just talking at you as the audience member. Also the clichéd use of black and white snapshots of the natives made it worst, trying to humanize the indigenous population. Aren't they human enough, why do they need to be photographed/filmed in a cheesy way showing their innocence/misery, so that we can have sympathy.

 

Looking at how the film was put together and who put it together, it is evident that "Motorcycle Diaries" is one of those films that caught the wave of South American films and stories getting attention in the States, you know the producers using the fame train. They wanted to make an exotic movie with a pretty boy and they did. But having all those strong and polarized political inserts just made the film unbearable. The producers got confused over genre, and while I respect filmmakers who don't need genres, I think a popcorn movie is supposed to have its genre cleared before making it. So it is a road movie, oh wait it's road movie with a lot of politics involved, no it's a road movie about how bad land owners are, or a road movie where poor people have health problems. You see the story was loaded, and overloaded with, naive, touchy feely, snapshots of life on the southern part of the American continent.

 

And for god's sake if I see another "Che" T shirt I am gonna scream. Che is not a person or a story anymore, it (he) is a brand, just like grunge-rock and that's why it appeals to some people (in my neighborhood rock star wanna bes wear Che t shirts). The film in its entire naiveté caters to the desire of being rebellious and adventurous, while criticizing the evil forces that oppress people. Nothing wrong with a politically charged, cheesy, badly written movie. But when ideas or ideologies are talked at you rather than hidden in the story it becomes repulsive.

 

Just my rant on cinematic mediocrity

Yousef

 

BTW: CHE was a totalitarian, he did murder people, so did the CIA. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Jonathan Spear]

""Looking at how the film was put together and who put it together, it is evident that "Motorcycle Diaries" is one of those films that caught the wave of South American films and stories getting attention in the States, you know the producers using the fame train. They wanted to make an exotic movie with a pretty boy and they did. But having all those strong and polarized political inserts just made the film unbearable. The producers got confused over genre, and while I respect filmmakers who don't need genres, I think a popcorn movie is supposed to have its genre cleared before making it. So it is a road movie, oh wait it's road movie with a lot of politics involved, no it's a road movie about how bad land owners are, or a road movie where poor people have health problems. You see the story was loaded, and overloaded with, naive, touchy feely, snapshots of life on the southern part of the American continent.""

 

So it has to fall into a category you're familiar with?

 

Pfft..

 

Next.

 

---

 

""And for god's sake if I see another "Che" T shirt I am gonna scream. Che is not a person or a story anymore, it (he) is a brand, just like grunge-rock and that's why it appeals to some people (in my neighborhood rock star wanna bes wear Che t shirts). The film in its entire naiveté caters to the desire of being rebellious and adventurous, while criticizing the evil forces that oppress people. Nothing wrong with a politically charged, cheesy, badly written movie. But when ideas or ideologies are talked at you rather than hidden in the story it becomes repulsive.""

 

Grunge isn't a brand.

 

The fact that you and a whole bunch of other people don't listen to that kind of music (which is a crock by the way... people still =love= Seattle 90's grunge...MTV doesn't.... now what does that make you?) doesn't --

 

Eh. This isn't worth the effort..

 

Where's my Che t-shirt?!!!

[Guest Y.M.Poursohi]

"So it has to fall into a category you're familiar with?"

 

Not at all. Like I said, I enjoy films and filmmakers who don't need genres or categories. BUT, that film was made to fit into a particular genre to attract an audience. This becomes clearer when you see the rising young man super star as the lead. They weren't thinking about just a story they wanted to make money, which is understandable and valid. Thus they entered the domain of genre films.

 

"Grunge isn't a brand"

The fact that you and a whole bunch of other people don't listen to that kind of music (which is a crock by the way... people still =love= Seattle 90's grunge...MTV doesn't.... now what does that make you?)"

 

Grunge became a brand, and that's a fact and moreover it became a CLICHE. Sure you have bands that were innovative and creative in the way they treated the music and the music business. But then again their own anti-establishment MO became the establishment itself. No I don't watch MTV, or TV. But back when I did, I remember every other band wearing the long shirts and screaming about pain and misery, it just reminded me how so many "artists" learned and memorized the mood of the day. I still like maybe two bands that are grunge, but because of the overuse and overstuffing of songs with similar themes it (grunge) became boring.

 

 

 

Y

[Matt Pacini]

Hmmm... looks like I may have been right about this movie after all.

 

Grunge is a "genre", and genre's are branding, whhether you like it or not.

A title of a type of artwork is "branding", so when you say "grunge" or "rap" or "Metal" or "classical", people have a fair idea of what you're talking about.

 

And I have to agree with you about the Che t-shirts.

My reaction to them, is about what my reaction would be if they started wearing Stalin T-shirts.

But hey, Stalin wasn't cool looking, so it's not likely to happen.

 

MP

[not valid]

Im really disapointed that i missed this film on the big screen. I am really looking forward to seeing it. Being a socialist myself i feel i will go into this film with an element of respect and pre judgment of the Che character but i still have heard from countless sources that it is a very well put together film and is definetly worth a watch.

After all Che is one of my idols (hence my avatar) so i suppose it would be an injustice if i didnt see the film.

Edited April 29, 2005 by Jake I

[Ger Leonard]

This has become an interesting, revealing thread. Motorcycle diaries is a flawed film but it bravely humanises a man who has been wrongly lauded and wrongly vilified. Some of you feel it distasteful to humanise Che but lets not forget that he was human, and in this film a young man on a journey that would shape his ideals. Like all idealists, harsh realities would dawn at a price for many who came to share his ideals.

To damn this film without seeing it or to damn che without looking at the big picture is foolish, prejudiced and hypocritical in the extreme.

I too detest the fetishistaion of Che, as the the symbol of rebellion... this film serves to bring him back to earth to ground the man in his humanity..

[Matt Pacini]

"...Some of you feel it distasteful to humanise Che but lets not forget that he was human, ..."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As was Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, and let's not forget the greatest evil villain of all time (according to some who frequent this forum)... Bush!

 

Excuse my sarcasm, but all human beings are.... human.

I don't see the relevance of that statement, and I certainly see no evidence of those who disagree with me softening their criticism of their personal un-favorite poloticians, because they "see their humanity".

 

Humanizing someone who literally lined up other human beings and machine-gunned them into mass graves is exactly what I have a problem with.

I think it's a monstrous chapter in human history, but for some bizarre reason, when it comes to politics, words DO speak louder than actions, and people conveniently ignore the deeds of their "hero", because they have a profound need to hang onto the ideology, even though it has clearly brought incredible sorrow and death to so many.

The fact there aren't mass quantities of people trying to get INTO Cuba is fairly good evidence of this.

 

MP

[Jonathan Spear]

"""I think it's a monstrous chapter in human history, but for some bizarre reason, when it comes to politics, words DO speak louder than actions, and people conveniently ignore the deeds of their "hero", because they have a profound need to hang onto the ideology, even though it has clearly brought incredible sorrow and death to so many."""

 

Damn straight.

 

Even after everything that's happened -

 

Their are still whites who's ancestors were slave owners living in the USA who STILL see the world as white vs. inferior.

There are German and Austrian politicians who STILL praise Hitler and the SS, and detest immigrants, Jews, etc.

Their are religious "leaders" who have condemned and are STILL condemning their own people to their deaths.

 

It never ends.

The Human Virus is still alive and kicking.

And you can't kill a virus without becomming a murderer yourself, because if even one innocent civilian is killed in the process, then you've defeated the purpose and are just as guilty as "they" are.

It's a vicious cycle that never ends.

 

George Bush could care less. It's all about logistics and statistics (and oil) to him anyway.

But what if that one innocent civilian happened to be, say, our president?

He becomes a martyr and IMO, there's nothing worse than a martyr.

 

Take Jesus for example.

Is one man (or God for that matter) worth millions upon MILLIONS of innocent lives.

Since His death, how man non-christians have been slaughtered in His name, in the name of Christianity and in the name of the Church?

Paul sure seemed to think so and so do many "Good Christians".

The same can be said about the Jews, Muslims, etc.

 

God is the problem here.

If we disown God, we embrace Truth and humanity because all in all -- we're the product of evolution.

Uber-developed primates - and their's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

On the contrary.

It's a gift.

You could've been born an ant.

 

-JonS

[Ger Leonard]

Excuse my sarcasm, but all human beings are.... human.

I don't see the relevance of that statement, and I certainly see no evidence of those who disagree with me softening their criticism of their personal un-favorite poloticians, because they "see their humanity".

 

I appreciate your passionate (if somewhat sarcastic) response.

My point is simple. It is important to recognise that so-called "evil" actions are often perpetrated by those who began as idealists with a passionate and noble cause, by those who saw injustice and we compelled to take action. However you feel about what happened in Cuba after the revolution, The Motorcycle Diaries shows us the man being shaped by a genuinely noble cause.

 

Many of the most hideous crimes against humanity have been perpertrated by those under the banner of a noble cause once it becomes twisted by the mechanisms of power.

That is our all too human tragedy.

A tragedy we should never forget..

 

There are far more offensive films being made that we watch with our popcorn !

[Matt Pacini]

I agree with you 100%.

 

My regret and sorrow is that in spite of everything that anyone does to try to lift the human condition, it seems to get twisted by zealots either IN that movement, or in an opposing movement, and the end result is always the same:

Innocent people die.

Governments get bigger and more oppressive.

I guess a big problem I have with the whole "revolutionary attitude", is that as I see it, it is an immature person suddenly taken too seriously, because they attach their need to rebel against "something, anything" to what is possibly a justifiable cause.

 

I was listening to an NPR show about 6 or so years ago, where they were interviewing this girl who was some sort of peace activist.

She was saying it was too bad that the present generation didn't have something like the Vietnam war to protest, like her parents did.

I couldn't believe my ears!

This whiny 20 year old actually wished there was a war, with people dying, so SHE WOULD HAVE SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT!

Of course, the interviewer didn't call her on this at all, but praised her "dedication to peace" or some nonsense.

People like this are just as responsible for war as anyone.

 

MP