Capitalism transforms everything into money, including the life of a Revolutionary dedicated to overthrowing capitalism and imperialism. The mass media has already announced the production of Twentieth Century Fox’s “Che!,” sure to be the year’s most “controversial” film, according to the Company’s advance publicity. In an attempt to head off political attacks from the left and right, the film is being labeled “an objective character study” concerned more with the hero’s personal exploits than his revolutionary ideas. In effect, there is a conscious effort to abstract the individual
from the historical context which shaped his behavior and to smother the deadly serious issues of U.S. exploitation and revolutionary warfare in an episodic romantic myth. The
appearance of reality will be carefully constructed through close attention to authenticity-the right clothes, guns, cigars, terrain, speeches, etc., will all appear on the screen in panavision. As one journalist noted (John Leonard, The New York Times Magazine, 12/8/68), “The authenticity of specifies does not add up to a general truth;” so only the substance will be missing.
The $6 million motion picture stars mar Sharif in the title role (previous successes include “Lawrence of Arabia” and”Dr. Zhivago”) and Jack Palance as Fidel Castro (he usually plays a western bad guy). Newsweek’s Joseph Morgenstern (12/9/68) explained that Puerto Rico was chosen to shoot the Cuban Revolutionary scenes “because of the island’s typical Latin American landscapes and atypical amity toward the United States. Commonwealth status has made Puerto Rico safe for Hollywood’s revolutionists.” While Fox has enough practical sophistication to choose a safe location, it feigns detached
“objectivity” when it comes to the practical revolutionary struggle. “Objectivity” means avoiding the nasty, bloody, controversial questions-most of which are rooted in the structure of this society rather than in Che’s personality. A glossy commodity packaged in the image of a handsome, sexy hero cannot explain why one Latin American needlessly dies every minute.
What comes through most clearly in the following interview (recorded in Hollywood in early January) is the overwhelming, almost unreal and maybe put-on naivete of Sharif’s
answers. Che failed not because this country had declared total war on revolutions and poured millions into the military destruction of revolutionary movements; not because
the Bolivian military terrorized the peasantry; not because the CIA hunted the guerrilla leader all over the world and endorsed his execution; not because most Americans and
foreigners are brain-washed by the movie industry which now accumulates fifty percent of its profits from overseas sales. Che failed because he made “mistakes.” Omar Sharif,
Twentieth Century Fox, and the U.S. economic system are exonerated from any responsibility. Is there any doubt that he was murdered to stifle the kind of change that threatens
the American way of life, including ridiculous movies that lull people into complacency while producing millions in profits?
Sharif’s main point is the questionable utility of violent revolutions. Obviously not against violence per se, he seems to oppose revolutionary violence because of its unpredictable effects. He overlooks the established fact’ that governments are usually the first to use violence to suppress legitimate demands, leaving any revolutionary organization little choice in the matter. The choice, which Sharif refuses to make and
Che clearly exemplified, is between revolutionary violence and reactionary violence. Interestingly enough, Sharif comes out for revolutionary change in this country; his
sentiments, however, are buoyed by an unbounded optimism in the inevitability of achieving victory without violence. In true style, he avoids facing the crucial issues while
maintaining the appearance of general support.
Interview
Q.: Mr. Sharif, what I’d really like to talk about is the way you feel about the character, Che, as you put together the part.
Omar Sharif (OS): Well, I think we did better than the script, really. I have enormous admiration for the man Che Guevara. His self-sacrifice for an ideal is a great thing. To go all the way like that, I think, is Just unbelievable. And when any man gives up all that he’s given up and goes to die in some miserable place fighting overwhelming odds, just because he believes in something, he’s got to be someone truly
important. What he fought for? I believe in that, too. But I don’t know if it was the right way to fight for it. I think that he didn’t think it was the right way either. There was no other way, and rather than have to sit back and wait, talk, which will not get you anywhere, not in Latin America, well, you have to do something triumphant. He succeeded in Cuba and thought he had a slight chance in Bolivia. I don’t think he fancied his chances very much in Bolivia. But it was what he believed in and he went ahead.
Q.: What do you mean when you say that he might have thought it was the wrong way?
OS: That it was pointless, useless. I don’t think that he believed that eventually, in his lifetime, or even in the lifetime of two or three generations after him, he
would achieve his ultimate goal. His ultimate goal was really the new man on the whole planet–all the earth, not just in Latin America. EBut it’s a philosopher’s dream, not
the practical man’s dream.
Q.: You don’t see him as a practical man?
OS: Well, I think that he was a practical man with a great philosophy. Being a practical man he knew what he wanted to achieve was not possible, not really. But some people
cannot just sit and do nothing about what they believe in. It’s like when you send a food package–well, you don’t know if it gets there, you don’t know what it’s going to do. It’s going to feed some hungry people for maybe a month. It’s not enormous; poor people are dying all the time. But you can’t just sit there and not send the food. But most people do sit there and don’t send the food package and then give their steak to their dogs. And they don’t even know how to begin sending that steak to Biafra. Well, he was not one of those people. He was one of those people who got all the steaks he
could find and wrapped them up and wanted to send them to Biafra. The people who are against him are people who believe he was too violent, that lots of lives were uselessly
destroyed, and that may be true. But what’s the other alternative? It’s a very big question which is very difficult to answer because we don’t know if it’s worth it or not.
We don’t know if it’s ever going to happen–his dream–or not.
Q.: Do you think that the Latin American situation requires armed struggles?
OS: I think it requires education–that is what might do it in the long run. Bat it’s difficult. They are at the moment a very violent lot in Latin America. We all tend to be violent people under such conditions. And it’s difficult to just talk to people to convince them of anything, to be rational with them. Much more education is needed for us to get anywhere.
Q.: Well, what message do you hope the film will give to the American public’about Che?
OS: There is no message in the film, I don’t think. There is a slight, obvious message, which is the mere fact that Che’s life was a failure. That is a kind of message. He achieved nothing, really, except by his death, because he was martyred afterwards. But I don’t see any other message. I ust see a happening. Here’s what happened to this man: he lived, he did this and that, he died. What comes out of it now is that a lot of young people are carrying his picture, the American revolution maybe. All the serious students take Che Guevara as a part of their revolution, and all these anti-establishment people are taking part in the American revolution that’s going on right now. So his example becomes another part of all the messages that have come out of all of history up ’til now.
Q.: Do you think that Che’s analysis of the problem of Yankee imperialism comes through in the film?
OS: Not really. The film doesn’t have time. It’s not very theoretical. The film is really an illustration of the facts of his life. The fact of the man comes out through the facts of his life. But we don’t go into long exposes of his actual philosophy, or his analysis of the Latin American situation. We just see what happened to him from the moment he landed in Cuba to the moment he died.
Q.: Well, the reason I ask the question is that I wonder if, in putting together the character, you got into this?
OS: Yes, by all means, but we don’t mean to get at that in the film. His analysis of how revolutions are made, of how guerrilla warfare is fought, which was his specialty, is, however, carefully examined.
Q.: Does it worry you personally to see members f the new generation around the world using Che as a symbol?
OS: It’s very understandable. I like what’s happening among youth in general. I like very much what the new generation is doing. I think it’s a fantastic step. Che belongs to everyone. What harm can come to any of them?
Q.: But as a symbol, though, does this mean that youth are becoming more violent?
OS: No, they are not. You see, the violent aspect of Che’s life is not really apparent. Take the Cuban guerrilla campaign. It’s practically a nonviolent campaign, really.
The whole of Che Guervara’s philosophy about guerrilla warfare is that all fighting has got to be in a friendly environment and that you’ve got to rally the people around you so that you gain victory not by killing all the soldiers of the opposition, but by just expanding the idea of the revolution among the people. Then the idea gets widespread
among the people, and then the revolution has succeeded automatically. Because when the people want something, they don’t have to go. through violence, really, if it’s widespread
enough. That was his idea. It’s not a violent idea, really. You do have to use your weapons to keep alive, because the others will be chasing you while you are trying to indoctrinate the people. His mistake in Bolivia was that the people didn’t care and he knew it, so he was fighting against his own rules, he was not following his rules which
he had set, which were that guerrilla warfare cannot possibly succeed unless you have the people.
Q.: Well, what about the fact that Che was responsible for signing thousands of death warrants for enemies of the revolution?
OS: That is the norm because, you see, he was a real revolutionary. The real revolutionary must believe that in order to build the new regime, you have to destroy totally
the old. It’s the only way. You can’t compromise if you are a real revolutionary. A real revolutionary has to get rid of all that was before and build everything new. You
have to destroy the bad structure that was before you and build a new one. For Che, then, it was something that had to be done. He had no pity because his dream, his philosophy,
was too great to count ten people, or fifty people, or a hundred people. That is the subject for discussion, whether one likes Che or not. He sees that the world exists,the human race exists, for a million years, and perhaps it is going to exist for another hundred million. This is Just the infancy of the human race, and even if you destroyed the whole human race, nothing but good could come out of it, because it’s lousy as it is now. That is his philosophy. And that’s why it doesn’t matter how many people have to die now during the construction of the new man. He was an un-sentimental person, which is what the revolutionary should be.
Q.: Is the film a put-down of Che, then?
OS: The film will not be a put-down of Che. This I’m sure of. I give you my personal guarantee. I think that it can only spread and enhance his image. But, it may be -in the end, because of the futility of it all-a put-down of the idea of stirring up new revolutions, violent revolutions in Latin America. But not of the man himself.
Q.: Do you feel that this idea should be put down?
OS: I really don’t know if one should or one shouldn’t, whether it’s worth it or not. It’s worth it if it’s going to get someplace, but if it’s not going to get someplace,
it’s not worth it. If it’s possible to achieve its objectives, yes, but not if it’s futile.
Q.: Of course, the revolutionary says that it is not futile.
OS: Yes, but he is impatient. He wants it all to happen now. And of course, thousands of people can starve while you are waiting for progress and reform. But if you don’t succeed, then you have killed people and you have not done anything. That’s the whole problem for me, whether one should or should not.
Q.: You’ve been involved in two pictures now which have to do with this question. Dr. Zhivago is the other one.
OS: Yes, there is an interesting point of view there, because Pasternak wrote Zhivago as a doctor, even though it was an autobiographical novel. Che Guevara was a doctor, too. But there is an enormous difference, because the doctor in 2hivago is the person who didn’t like the revolution. He wasn’t an aristocrat or anything like that. When the
first slogans of the revolution came, he approved them–as a poet, because a poet is normally a socialist. There are very few really creative people, artists, who are not socialists, or progressives, very few. So Zhivago, the poet, approved of the slogans. But when he actually saw the revolution at work, people suffering and dying, the doctor in him came out and disapproved. By contrast, the doctor in Che Guevara is suppressed. He’s not, or never really was, a true doctor, because if he were, he could not have fought in the revolution. A real doctor cannot do that.
Q.: At what point do we see that? Is it early in the war, in an early battle, when he’s under Fidel’s orders not to fight and in the heat of the battle he picks up a gun and goes ahead and does fight?
OS: No, this is not the crucial point in the film, because his choice has been made before. He made his choice straight after the landing, when he had to choose whether to carry the large pack of medical supplies or ammunition, and he chose to take the ammunition and leave behind the medicine. Actually, his choice for revolution was made years before that.
Q. Does the film show a conflict between Che and Fidel?
OS: Yes, they don’t really fall out. They do dispute the particular issue of the Russian missile crisis. I know that Che had enormous admiration for Fidel, because he had been all through the revolution with him, but he became somewhat disenchanted with him. Their goals were so different. Fidel was a Cuban and was fighting for his own nation. Che was from Argentina and had a whole world-wide set of objectives. Once the revolution succeeded, Fidel was satisfied to work for the Cuban society, but Che must have grown very restless almost immediately. And Che must have kept before Fidel his
larger laeals. That must have been uncomfortable for Fidel after a time. It’s like having to live with your conscience. Because Che was incorruptible, uncompromising, beyond political motivation and totally sincere in his commitment to his ideals.
Q.: Then you see Che as almost in a state of innocence. He’s incorruptible, has the global insight, and is, in some sense, a victim of his own idealism.
OS: But he knew all the time what he was doing and what had to be done. He knew what the price was and even how high the stakes were, and so he wasn’t so innocent. He’s the sort of man you would rather not have against you.
Q.: From the American point of view, he’s not on our side at all.
OS: But the American point of view is changing. There is no telling, as a result of this decade, what the American point of view will be for long.
Q.: A lot may depend on how the new generation keeps working at these ideas we’ve been talking about.
OS: I have a great deal of confidence that they will succeed, because they are good ideas and you cannot take good ideas and for long suppress them without their penetrating
the society. Great changes are going to happen. The sons of Wall Street are now appearing in new ways before their own fathers.
Q.: Wont the time ahead be one of increasing conflict in America then?
OS: But this is a young country, you see, and the American revolution is still taking place. The young of today understand more about this than any other generation, and
so even though they may face a counter-revolution, they will eventually come out on top. The revolutionary youth today are really demanding that the Constitution be applied to the letter, that the rights of man be applied to the letter. They only want what they were promised.
Q.: Do you think that our country will let the youth proceed without a great deal of conflict, even violence?
OS: Yes, I think so. I think that what the youlh are asking for will eventually prevail without too much violence. There may be specific incidents, but not too much widespread violence. Not here. There’s too much u:Zcation. Violence usually happens in uneducated places. The students will win, because they are right. You must be on their side, because they are right.
Q.: Do you think that the hippies are making a contribution in this?
QS: They’re fantastic What they stand for is fantastic. They are demanding great standards, freedom for everybody. They are preaching love–that’s what it’s all about. I love the hippies.
Q.” Do you have any opinion about the black youth movements in our country, like the Black Panthers in Oakland, Eldridge Cleaver, and so forth?
OS: No, I really have no knowledge about them. Listen, I want to make this much clear: before doing Chel I was not really interested in politics or national or international problems at all. I had to become that way–to study and to learn-for Guevara. I am that way now. It’s just a beginning for me. I’m starting to read the newspapers now. I’m alive to new things, to events, to what’s happening everywhere. Che, in a way, has
brought me to this point. And that’s a good thing–to be committed to ideals of justice for the people of the world. I’m just beginning to learn what this means and how it
can be achieved. We should be grateful to Twentieth Century-Fox for having the courage to produce a controversial film like this.
