Che
- Thread starter NO CA$H
- Start date
Yas Kassana
Well-known member
Spielberg - yeah he is or was a genius - but no man - you need someone who doesn't use an ochestra to help the audience out in what they should be feeling. Don't get me wrong i like him as an entertainment extradonairre(exclude schlinders list) but that is it. I think you need someone like Sean Penn directing.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
NO CA$H said:
That would good if he took his 'Schindlers' game face to work. :thumbsup:
DinosaurInc
Active member
Spielberg is actually a buddy of Castro. Castro courted Spielberg and let him spend a few days in his palace<----that's the only problem I have with Spielberg.
I remember an interview with Robert Duvall explaining that he couldn't believe how many people in Hollywood had this angelic image of Castro. Castro is a dictator, pure and simple. The people of Cuba are impoverished; hell, last year was their very first public concert under communist rule (Audioslave)!!! Duvall claimed, "Don't think that I'll ever be invited to work at Dreamworks again,"
Same goes with Andy Garcia (parents were native Cubans)--he's completely against Castro and works to help Cuban immigrants.
There's so much damn blacklisting in Hollywood it's a disgrace. Granted a lot of it resulted from the unfair practices of Senator McCarthy, but any political view, when taken to the extreme, will lead to bad things. Just how bad depends on the initial philosophy....
Hudson, how will you and XCheck make it in Hollywood?
Men, arm you cameras and prepare for a Che-style Digital Revolution!!! (pretty sick, I know).
BTW...nice posts XCheck.
I remember an interview with Robert Duvall explaining that he couldn't believe how many people in Hollywood had this angelic image of Castro. Castro is a dictator, pure and simple. The people of Cuba are impoverished; hell, last year was their very first public concert under communist rule (Audioslave)!!! Duvall claimed, "Don't think that I'll ever be invited to work at Dreamworks again,"
Same goes with Andy Garcia (parents were native Cubans)--he's completely against Castro and works to help Cuban immigrants.
There's so much damn blacklisting in Hollywood it's a disgrace. Granted a lot of it resulted from the unfair practices of Senator McCarthy, but any political view, when taken to the extreme, will lead to bad things. Just how bad depends on the initial philosophy....
Hudson, how will you and XCheck make it in Hollywood?
Men, arm you cameras and prepare for a Che-style Digital Revolution!!! (pretty sick, I know).
BTW...nice posts XCheck.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
I had no idea Dino-inc
That is weird. I already accepted I'll never make it in Hollywood. I just wanna make staright to DVD stuff and keep it simple.
That is weird. I already accepted I'll never make it in Hollywood. I just wanna make staright to DVD stuff and keep it simple.
Josh_Boelter
Well-known member
Given that I already proposed Danny DeVito to play Che, now I'm thinking Spielberg (or Soderbergh) would not be a good choice to direct. Lands hand the directing reigns to John Waters.
Pale Rider
Well-known member
we could just let Uwe Boll man this beast and let the result speak for itself ;-)
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Lmao!
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Debo said:
Che Lives; obviously this guy missed the thread :lipsrseal :undecided
Stand up for what you believe in? Of course.
Che Lives? Debo just became the poster boy for this thread.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
funny, there seems to be two soderberghs; like a split personality that either makes pedestrian studio pictures or experimental art films. i loath his more mainstream efforts, including the three you listed. on the otherhand, i applaud the exploration of character and the cinematic language found in his more inspired work: Schizopolis, The Limey, King of the Hill, and Sex Lies and Videotape.John_Hudson said:
that being said, i would have greatly preferred that terrence malick make this picture.
Yas Kassana
Well-known member
Mallick is no longer attached to the project.
XCheck
Veteran
What happened?
What happened?
How did I miss this thread until now? WOOOW!
To this date, I don't understand how you can be arrested for spraying swastikas on Jewish graves, but nobody will as much as raise an eyebrow if you slap posters with sickles and hammers all over downtown.
Actually, I do understand: the Nazis lost the war. The Communists, when seeing they might end up losing the cold war, merely turned their coats inside out. There isn't a single crime or atrocity committed by the Nazis that wasn't committed by the Commies as well. Unlike the Nazis, they did it mostly on their own people.
Don't make me cry!
What happened?
How did I miss this thread until now? WOOOW!
There is A LOT wrong with any ideology that uses hatred to further its goals.Yas Kassana said:
To this date, I don't understand how you can be arrested for spraying swastikas on Jewish graves, but nobody will as much as raise an eyebrow if you slap posters with sickles and hammers all over downtown.
Actually, I do understand: the Nazis lost the war. The Communists, when seeing they might end up losing the cold war, merely turned their coats inside out. There isn't a single crime or atrocity committed by the Nazis that wasn't committed by the Commies as well. Unlike the Nazis, they did it mostly on their own people.
Don't make me cry!
Josh_Boelter
Well-known member
Would you consider Stalin a true Communist, XCheck? I'm not defending Communism as an ideology, but I was always under the impression that Stalin and even Castro have strayed way beyond the original ideology. But then, I haven't read the Communist Manifesto, and I wasn't in Czechoslovakia during the Iron Curtain days, so I'm certainly no expert.
Certainly, Che lives. He lives in the hearts of clothing manufacturers who are making a pretty penny off of Che t-shirts in the name of Capitalism. Kind of amusing.
Certainly, Che lives. He lives in the hearts of clothing manufacturers who are making a pretty penny off of Che t-shirts in the name of Capitalism. Kind of amusing.
Rasquachemedia
Well-known member
No state has ever lived up to the ideas of the manifesto. The manifesto was propoganda used to inspire workers to fight for their rights and inevitably lead a revolution. Marx's theory on communism will not be found in the manifesto. In fact the blue prints to communism were never well developed by Marx. He was always vague and general.
Marx's work was always dedicated to being critcal of capitalism. Defining it and laying out how it works structurally, why and how it is unstable, and attemtping to expose its vulnerabilities for the sake of its demise.
Political leaders have used the term communism to identify the social-economic systems they tried and did establish, but these were far from even the general notions of communism introduced by Marx. In fact Marx, during his time, was very dissappointed with the direction taken by some/many "communist leaders". Many of them were political opportunists that sought to concentrate political power into their own hands, while still exploiting the masses. This was completely counter to Marx's beliefs and vision. This is not to say that Marx did not advocate violence. He saw violence as the only means as taking capitalists out over power and bringing an end to capitalism. He was a revolutionary who believed that violent revolution, led by a working class that was consience of their exploitation and oppression and understood the structural forces that maintained such a system.
So in this respect, no state has ever been communist (in Marxist terms) but many used Marx's work and ideas to justify their actions and establish their platform.
Capitalist political leaders have used the term communism to condemn states and groups that either opposed them or were considered a threat to their political and economic power. The idea of communism was also used as a campaign of fear and social control (domestic and foregn).
Che was an anti-imperialist who was critical of the Soviet Union. This is what, in part, led to Che and Castro going their seperate ways. Che saw the USSR as embarking on a seperate imperialist campaign. The Cold War was a war between the U.S. and USSR, on which would dominate the world. Castro was "pragmatic" and went with the USSR because the U.S. gave them no aid, support, and of course were not happy when Cuba nationalized both land and factories.
The Cuban Revolution was not a communist revolution. That is, the revolution was not fought on those ideals. The plan was not to overthrow the Bastista and replace it with communism/socialism. This is not to say that they were not in opposition to the exploitation and mafia like government under Bastista (who was a dictator who recieved U.S. support). The U.S., inititially, did not take a strong position against Castro and the Cuban Revolution. In part because it was not communist to begin with. But when land was nationalized, Cuba became an "enemy" of the U.S.
Che was popular, worldwide, in the 1960's because of his ideas, poetic speeches, writings, theories on revolution and anti-imperialism, for being a revolutionary (in action-not just arm-chair) and guerrilla fighter. Part of the romanticism behind Che was that he was a privileged intellectual who took up arms and fought for working class people. Very uncharacteristic of his peers throughout the world.
His popularity today is very different. His image and name have become an icon for people who have no idea of who he was, did, and believed in (in large part). I would argue that mainly younger people (teens and young adults) just think its cool to wear a t-shirt or button. But of course there are those who know more about him.
I would say that many (on either "side") don't know about his role in executions. It's hard for many to believe that or accept it. I presume because executions seem to be a bad thing, even in a nation (U.S.) where we have the death penalty. This is somewhat ironic because even those who don't really know the history at least (?) know that he was a guerrilla fighter, so I would figure they would realize that he killed people when fighting the revolution.
But Che, in the eyes of a younger generation, is so disconnected from historial reality. His face and name has become a commodity for profit and a "brand" of coolness.
As far as modern day Cuba is concerned, it is quite interesting that many do not connect the poverty in Cuba with the U.S. embargo. Although Cuba poses no military threat and does not carry the poltical weight to endanger U.S. hegemony/power it is still considered an enemy. Why? Because they are anti-democratic in the eyes of U.S. elites and Cubans that fled/left after the revolution. Yet the fact that the Batista regime was far worse is rarely if ever considered. Furthemore, the U.S. rhetoric that Cuba is anti-democratic is moot when one considers the fact that the U.S. supported dictatorships in Central America and funded their military during campaigns of violence against unarmed civilians (in Iraq too-Saddam was a good friend of the U.S. during the most heinous crimes he committed against his own people [a five year period] and provided Iraq with military aid such as arms, tanks, and chemicals).
Marx's work was always dedicated to being critcal of capitalism. Defining it and laying out how it works structurally, why and how it is unstable, and attemtping to expose its vulnerabilities for the sake of its demise.
Political leaders have used the term communism to identify the social-economic systems they tried and did establish, but these were far from even the general notions of communism introduced by Marx. In fact Marx, during his time, was very dissappointed with the direction taken by some/many "communist leaders". Many of them were political opportunists that sought to concentrate political power into their own hands, while still exploiting the masses. This was completely counter to Marx's beliefs and vision. This is not to say that Marx did not advocate violence. He saw violence as the only means as taking capitalists out over power and bringing an end to capitalism. He was a revolutionary who believed that violent revolution, led by a working class that was consience of their exploitation and oppression and understood the structural forces that maintained such a system.
So in this respect, no state has ever been communist (in Marxist terms) but many used Marx's work and ideas to justify their actions and establish their platform.
Capitalist political leaders have used the term communism to condemn states and groups that either opposed them or were considered a threat to their political and economic power. The idea of communism was also used as a campaign of fear and social control (domestic and foregn).
Che was an anti-imperialist who was critical of the Soviet Union. This is what, in part, led to Che and Castro going their seperate ways. Che saw the USSR as embarking on a seperate imperialist campaign. The Cold War was a war between the U.S. and USSR, on which would dominate the world. Castro was "pragmatic" and went with the USSR because the U.S. gave them no aid, support, and of course were not happy when Cuba nationalized both land and factories.
The Cuban Revolution was not a communist revolution. That is, the revolution was not fought on those ideals. The plan was not to overthrow the Bastista and replace it with communism/socialism. This is not to say that they were not in opposition to the exploitation and mafia like government under Bastista (who was a dictator who recieved U.S. support). The U.S., inititially, did not take a strong position against Castro and the Cuban Revolution. In part because it was not communist to begin with. But when land was nationalized, Cuba became an "enemy" of the U.S.
Che was popular, worldwide, in the 1960's because of his ideas, poetic speeches, writings, theories on revolution and anti-imperialism, for being a revolutionary (in action-not just arm-chair) and guerrilla fighter. Part of the romanticism behind Che was that he was a privileged intellectual who took up arms and fought for working class people. Very uncharacteristic of his peers throughout the world.
His popularity today is very different. His image and name have become an icon for people who have no idea of who he was, did, and believed in (in large part). I would argue that mainly younger people (teens and young adults) just think its cool to wear a t-shirt or button. But of course there are those who know more about him.
I would say that many (on either "side") don't know about his role in executions. It's hard for many to believe that or accept it. I presume because executions seem to be a bad thing, even in a nation (U.S.) where we have the death penalty. This is somewhat ironic because even those who don't really know the history at least (?) know that he was a guerrilla fighter, so I would figure they would realize that he killed people when fighting the revolution.
But Che, in the eyes of a younger generation, is so disconnected from historial reality. His face and name has become a commodity for profit and a "brand" of coolness.
As far as modern day Cuba is concerned, it is quite interesting that many do not connect the poverty in Cuba with the U.S. embargo. Although Cuba poses no military threat and does not carry the poltical weight to endanger U.S. hegemony/power it is still considered an enemy. Why? Because they are anti-democratic in the eyes of U.S. elites and Cubans that fled/left after the revolution. Yet the fact that the Batista regime was far worse is rarely if ever considered. Furthemore, the U.S. rhetoric that Cuba is anti-democratic is moot when one considers the fact that the U.S. supported dictatorships in Central America and funded their military during campaigns of violence against unarmed civilians (in Iraq too-Saddam was a good friend of the U.S. during the most heinous crimes he committed against his own people [a five year period] and provided Iraq with military aid such as arms, tanks, and chemicals).
Let's try not to get too far into the weeds here, guys.
Rasquachemedia said:
With all due respect, Che broke from Castro because he believed the U.S.S.R was not pure enough. Besides the commercial aspect of the relationship, Che believed they were betraying communist ideals. He believed Maoist China was a truer example of where Cuba should go. In fact, Che's communist zealotry is one of the reasons Castro put him in charge of prisons (a filthy task many of his commanders didn't want).
Besides Che (from many accounts, and his own journals) executing Christians and Gays etc...He also institued forced labor camps. At first it was voluntary, but it was not long before volunteer work became a little less voluntary: the first forced labor camp, Guanahacabibes, was set up in western Cuba at the end of 1960. This is how Che explained the function performed by this method of confinement: "[We] only send to Guanahacabibes those doubtful cases where we are not sure people should go to jail ... people who have committed crimes against revolutionary morals , to a lesser or greater degree.... It is hard labor, not brute labor, rather the working conditions there are hard."
This camp was the precursor to the eventual systematic confinement, starting in 1965 in the province of Camagüey, of dissidents, homosexuals, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Afro-Cuban priests, and other such scum, under the banner of Unidades Militares de Ayuda a la Producción, or Military Units to Help Production. Herded into buses and trucks, the "unfit" would be transported at gunpoint into concentration camps organized on the Guanahacabibes mold. Some would never return; others would be raped, beaten, or mutilated; and most would be traumatized for life, as Néstor Almendros's wrenching documentary Improper Conduct showed the world a couple of decades ago.
I am not opposed to a film about the man, but the full picture is salient. If not only for veracity, but for Che's many victims.