It’s challenging, but still interesting trying to keep up with Cannes when you’re not there – to read things right, to try and take the correct temperature and try not to fall prey to hyperbole one way or another.
Anywoo, things aren’t looking perfectly rosy for Steven Soderbergh’s 4 hour, two-part ‘Che’ biopic (“The Argentine,” and “Guerrilla”). But they’re not looking absymal either. Though, the film went from being the most nervous and almost-maniacally anticipated film of the French film festival to being a polarizing effort that has enamored some critics (Jeffrey Wells for one was practically left exasperated), left others tepid and forced others to call it an ambitious, but “noble failure” (Anne Thompson).
Many are suggesting the films are just too damn long and unwieldy and many are suggesting it’s back to the drawing board whereas editing is concerned. Others are positively breathless over its scope and lead actor Benicio Del Toro.
Quarterbacking on Anne Thompson’s review, Spoutblog (who never saw the film) reads her review and posits we may never see the apparently long-lasting and unmanageable Cannes cut. They could be right, but comparing a film you’ve never seen to the utter disaster that was “Southland Tales” seems rather baseless, but Thompson did heed warning about taking an unfinished film to Cannes and historically how it was wounded a film’s reputation (sometimes for good).
“Soderbergh didn’t think he could finish the film in time for Cannes. Why don’t these guys ever learn? Remember Richard Kelly’s Southland Tales, Wong Kar Wai’s 2046, Vincent Gallo’s The Brown Bunny, and Edward Norton’s Down in the Valley? DON’T TAKE AN UNFINISHED MOVIE TO CANNES!!!! Wait. Give the film the time you need.”
Cinematical’s James Rocchi seemed to appreciate the artistry of the films without trying to calculate how the mixed reactions will play out and frankly, this sounds pretty appealing.
“Bold, beautiful, bleak and brilliant, Che’s not just the story of a revolutionary; in many ways, it’s a revolution in and of itself. I can’t predict how all of the questions and possibilities about Steven Soderbergh’s Che will play out, but I can say — and will say — what a rare pleasure it is to have a film (or films) that, in our box-office obsessed, event-movie, Oscar-craving age, is actually worth talking about on so many levels.”
Another Cinematical viewpoint, Kim Voyer, says despite some of the naysayers, the film is still destined for the coveted top award (and do remember, Cannes does love challenging films; this isn’t America).
“Consensus among many of the very smart people I know here at Cannes (well, except for Variety, apparently) is that Che will almost definitely win the Palm d’Or, and if Benecio del Toro doesn’t win the Best Actor Oscar come January, there’s something wrong with the world.”
Variety’s Todd McCarthy seems to be the negative review everyone is talking about. He calls the film, “defiantly undramatic,” and says that “no doubt it will be back to the drawing board” for the film.
“If the director has gone out of his way to avoid the usual Hollywood biopic conventions, he has also withheld any suggestion of why the charismatic doctor, fighter, diplomat, diarist and intellectual theorist became and remains such a legendary figure; if anything, Che seems diminished by the way he’s portrayed here. Neither half feels remotely like a satisfying stand-alone film, while the whole offers far too many aggravations for its paltry rewards. Scattered partisans are likely to step forward, but the pic in its current form is a commercial impossibility, except on television or DVD.”
Glenn Kenny, writing for Indiewire seems to echo the sentiment of staid, non-drama (or at least history not being over-dramatized forthe sake of audiences), but with positive results (though his review is rather critical overall).
“Good thing then, as far as my opinion is concerned, that Soderbergh doesn’t have a rabble-rousing bone in his body. ‘Che’ benefits greatly from certain Soderberghian qualities that don’t always serve his other films well, e.g., detachment, formalism, and intellectual curiosity.”
Even Anne Thompson who threw the aforementioned and early critical molotov cocktail says the film isn’t unsalvageable; though again, she seems to think us pleebs will never see this cut ever [ed. and she’s probably right, but then again, what film isn’t cut and changed after a Cannes screening?]
“The good news: there is plenty of fine material here to be edited into one releasable long dramatic feature…One thing is likely: it will not be released as it was seen here. And it will not sell overnight–unless a distrib promises to help Soderbergh to find his movie.”
Peter Hammond from the Envelope said some people left after the first film was over and the crowd “noticeably thinned out.”
“A little less than half the seats in my 50 seat or so section were suddenly empty along with dozens of others scattered throughout the upper regions. Perhaps those moviegoers had dinner reservations somewhere? Or maybe they just knew how it was going to end. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: You can’t please everyone in Cannes.”
Keep in mind, hack one-sentence review zingers like, ‘The Game Plan’ – A comic touchdown for The Rock!,” and “‘Rendition’ – Guaranteed to get your heart racing!,” earned Hammond a spot atop of the list of the year’s worst film critics in a 2007 online poll.
Jeffrey Wells, who has done an amazing job tracking all the moments of ‘Che’ pre-reaction and aftermath, has a quote from director Steven Soderbergh at a press conference after the screening.
“I find it hilarious that people always complain about movies being the same, and then when something different comes along — a film that deals the cards in a different way — they say why isn’t it more conventional?,” Soderbergh said, honestly sounding a little defensive from our armchair vantage point.
As Spoutblog notes, David Poland wasn’t a fan of bloggers or journalists who felt compelled to weigh in immediately thus increasing the chances that “Soderbergh cuts the film under Cannes pressure – even though there is no consistent correlation between Cannes response and US release success.”