Carnets de voyage

I would not consider myself to be an ultra liberal, but I am somewhat knowledgeable about what has been going on in South America for the last 100 years, and Che Guevara is a part of it. Going into this movie all I knew about him was that he is on a lot of t-shirts, and that "che", despite what ignorant people think, is not his name, it is what Argentinians say to each other like in the US saying "dude".

I am also a big fan of the purity of movies, not this Spider-man crap that is all over the place, but the true art of films, and I am fairly serious when I go into a movie for the first time. A part of this is that I watch the movie throwing all bias I might have out the window and watch it as if I had never heard of it before. That said, I believe this movie was excellent because it had superb cinematography of the beauty of South America, had excellent acting, great chemistry between the two main actors (despite Ebert saying they did not), and an overall political theme.

This movie did not get great reviews in the US, and I haven't seen reviews from Latin American countries, but I am guessing they are better. This is because many people either shied away from the movie once they heard the word Che, and if they did see it, through the whole movie they were probably thinking "commie, commie!".

I have since read up on Che Guevara, and he is actually a fascinating person to study because he began as a rich boy who through his journeys learned how much people were suffering beyond his imagination, and part of this was how he got to be so rich, by suppressing the native people. The movie does an excellent job of showing this transition from his carefree exploring until later having an epiphany about his destiny to help the people. Yes, he got extreme after a while, but the study of him is compelling nonetheless.

It is interesting to know that coffee and bananas that say "Guatemala" are still grown today by slave laborers on farms, and that the US does not mind the slave labor because they were the ones who sponsored a coup in 1951 to install a dictatorship that in history books says it was an ousting of communism, which makes it okay. This is a much bigger and important example than the movie, but it is the same bias involved: People in the United States (I don't say America because that refers to every country from Argentina to Canada, not just the US as people in this country like to think) not only don't care about the suffering of people in other countries (unless it's mentioned on Oprah or involves economic rewards) but have the nerve to call them evil when they try to better themselves, which at the time was the communist movement in South America. This is not the communism of Castro or even of the later Che Guevara, but simply to give more to the starving and suppressed that are today suppressed to make your bananas and Starbucks coffee.

Because of the biases people have towards the people of countries they know nothing about, this movie has been extremely underrated in the wake of films that comparatively suck ("Ray", way overrated) yet have been rewarded because of their popularity and appeasement to the ignorant people that attend theaters in the United States.

From director Walter Salles comes a very moving road journey which had me completely spellbound by the end and I'm sure would gain many viewer's hearts as the infamous director dives deep into many different issues.

The story centres around two young doctors going on a motorbike journey around the world, not for personal gain but for the experience. This idea was completely outstanding. It gives the audience an understanding of young people's desires, not for personal gains such as money but for an experience into real life issues and wishing to know more about the world around them. These ideas I'm sure would make viewers aspire to be like the central characters to go out and explore the world and that was a reason why I personally loved this drama, because it gives inspiration to the audience and really moves them in a way which will leave you completely spellbound.

The film centres on many issues but one which stuck out for me was the heavy ideologies of health. In the year 1950 there were many health issues present in the poorer counties such as Peru and this Oscar winning drama is able to capture these issues magnificently. The two central protagonists are doctors and are wishing to help others with their knowledge and expertise as they explore the less fortunate countries to help with the many depressing health problems the countries are experiencing. There is a very highly emotional driven scene when the lead character tries to help a very ill woman who is refusing to be treated. Tensions are always running high in the latter stages of the film when many issues are wishing to be resolved and the central protagonists are putting themselves on the line to help the ill residents of the poor countries.

Having changes in situations was a very powerful technique. The characters experience a poor life and a rich life. Audiences will see different perspectives of life in the 1950s when seeing there are poor and rich countries and are divided by the smallest differences, such as illnesses. We also see more joyous moments and highly emotional driven scenes which also gives a sense of how life is, the good and bad sides are both expressed in equal amounts which in my opinion was a fantastic move and will capture your heart as it did mine

Centred on the 1950s the film captured the essence of the politically driven time beautifully. Audiences see job issues, money problems and country matters which all juxtapose perfectly to capture the essence of the time and crate a high realism in context of the time

The acting by everyone involved is absolutely outstanding and it confused me when not one received an Oscar nomination because Gael Garcia Bernal and Rodrigo De la Serna are remarkable as the two travellers. Both dealing with their own issues we see different types of characters but similar characteristics to which made the film more believable of society where opinions are divided but also shared.

Bernal plays a character who is always saying what he feels and is never wishing to back down from anyone or anything and he pulled it off tremendously. The passion he creates as the central protagonist Guevara is utterly astonishing as he deals with asthma problems, love lives and money issues. It's a lot for him to take as he realises how serious life can be. Serna to also pulls off a classic performance as the older more experienced of the two who is always looking for that little bit more than his fellow traveller.

Using different countries such as Peru, Venezuela, and Spain allows viewers to gain an insight into the vastness of life. Using poor countries as well as rich countries allows viewers to see different sides to the world in the 1950s and was pulled off greatly. The characters can therefore experience what a posh life is like as well as what life in the fast lane gives them. The camera work is astonishing. Shooting from Venezuela, Peru etc we see different perspective of the countries. The scenery is always beautiful with shots of the towns in a poor state and the general background of the countries is to be admired. The shots of the bike on the roads are to be admired. The camera moves adjacent to the bike giving the realistic effect of the bike moving fast along the empty roads, gaining a sense of freedom and enjoyment.

From watching this film I can say I have been inspired to get on a motorbike and explore the world. Seeing what the central protagonists saw will inspire many as it has inspired me and I have no hesitation in recommending this Oscar winning drama to anyone.

THE MOTORCYCLE DIARIES (Walter Salles - Argentina/Chile/France/Germany/UK/USA 2004).

From the director who unleashed the Oscar-nominated CENTRAL DO BRASIL (1998) on the world and is now torturing audiences around the world with Paris JE T'AIME (a joint-project with some other world-weary humanist directors), a film unlikely to increase Paris' appeal. The film seems conveniently marketed for the anti-globalist soul-searching urbanites in Europe. It will probably keep them quiet for a while, since 'having seen this film' undoubtedly cleansed many souls.

The film's first hour is spent in the extreme southern corners of the continent, in Patagonia, which plays more like a National Geographic episode with some laughably awful dramatics in between. Some time is spent in central Chile and by the 57 minute we arrive in Peru. They use a shot of exactly the same mountain in exactly the same angle (prabably very consciously done) as in AGUIRRE: DER ZORN GOTTES by Werner Herzog, near the ruins of Machu Picchu. This was one of the worst parts of the film, where our infallible heroes engage in some embarrassing chit chat, and - en passant - blame colonialism, Catholicism and modern capitalism for all misery, while talking to some local Incan descendants about how they're gonna put an end to poverty in the world.

Director Walter Salles has an indestructible believe in the goodness of mankind. I do not share this view, but such a perspective shouldn't be a barrier upfront for making a decent film. Salles, however, shows our hero as a completely one-note morally unambiguous robot. He is like a God to him. He seems to lack any questioning about his morals or world view. His view is already established at a young age and now the world has to adapt to his insights, and to this film, which does nothing but play lip-service to these, which results in even more suffering for the audience. All political views aside, the film doesn't offer the slightest assault of the senses, with two incredibly uninteresting characters. The film is largely made to tell the story of Che Guevara, or perhaps show us the diversity of South-American culture and its people, but the film's observations are alarmingly clichéd, contrived and repetitive.

Camera Obscura --- 0/10

The Motorcycle Diaries does a great job of sketching out the character of Ernesto Guevara de la Serna, without any pandering to our knowledge of who he will become. There are no cheap shots and only one 'Che' joke-to explain the origin of the nickname, which is a play on the Argentinian accent. It's a deeply felt examination of the events that inspired the development of a political consciousness, with only a few touches of the hagiography that has developed around 'el Che' and those not until late in the film. Gael Garcia Bernal is completely believable and very human in the role, and there's real chemistry between him and Rodrigo de la Serna (any relation?) who plays his friend Granado, leading to a lot of funny moments-important, as ther are many stretches of the movie where it is just them and the scenery. The cinematography is truly gorgeous, and reminded me how little of the South American landscape we ever see on film in the U.S. The cinematographer has pulled off a major feat in shooting a period film in slightly grainy, sometimes shaky hand-held. No crane shots or sepia tinting here-the film quality immerses you in Guevara and Granado's experiences and makes them feel very immediate, without sacrificing any sense of history. A film like this is long overdue, and it deserves wide distribution. While the plot revolves around Che's awakening to the social struggles of South America (which are ongoing) there is a rich sense of place, and people, and beauty here. It seems to me that this is the first South American film in a few years that is not a world-weary documentary about social or political problems (and U.S. involvement in them), to open in the U.S. market. It's about the life of Che, yes, but it doesn't forget the people and problems that lead him into political activity, and will hopefully inspire viewers to pay more attention to what is going on around them, not only in Buenos Aires, Cuzco, Havana or Chiapas, but right next door.

"The Motorcycle Diaries" (Diarios de motocicleta) works more effectively as a bio-pic than on its own as a road movie.

The scenery throughout Latin America is beautiful and the two leads are very affecting, especially Gael García Bernal as Ernesto Guevara de la Serna when "Che" is still nascent.

But it's surprising how undramatic what happens that turns a sweet, middle-class med student into a revolutionary. He was already a liberal who wanted to help leprosy patients, so what happens isn't a complete turn-around -- even when they are broke, they can wire home for more money. Rather it sets off an internal thoughtfulness that is difficult to catch on film.

Mostly just leaving his sheltered life, particularly being dropped by his wealthy girlfriend, and seeing the continent, especially his first exposure to the indigenous peoples who suffer the most in every South American country even while tourists are visiting the ruins of their ancestors, becomes the nexus of his pan-continental political ideals.

He is mostly an observer and inconsistent protester of injustice, not a victim -- it's startling that his culminating noble sojourn at the leper colony, where he can put his skills and indivisible warmth to specific good, is only for three weeks.

So there's no eye-opening "Grapes of Wrath" conflict, though he is always contrasted with his carefree companion, Alberto Granado. Their close camaraderie is well-captured and Ernesto has a profound impact on him, as we learn in a final biographical summary.

It is amusing that Ernesto contradicts the stereotype of the Latin male sensualist and is a terrible dancer to the lovely soundtrack.