The Lost Honour of Katharina Blum (1975)

“Typically bourgeois novels.”

An introverted young German girl named Katharina Blum (Angela Winkler) meets a man at a party. Unaware that he’s under police surveillance, she takes him home for the night. When the police raid her flat the next day, expecting to find Ludwig (Jurgen Prochnow), they discover that he’s slipped away. Since Katharina is now their only lead, they begin to pressure her about Ludwig’s whereabouts.

The Lost Honor of Katharina Blum examines exactly what happens to a young woman whose privacy is ripped away by an unscrupulous journalist Werner Totges (Dieter Laser) who’s in cahoots with the police. Following leads given by the police, Totges invades every aspect of Katharina’s life–harassing her dying mother, interviewing a disgruntled ex-husband, and basically feeding her private information to anyone who cares to buy a paper. Katharina–who was nick-named ‘the Nun’, becomes the target of threatening and suggestive phone calls. Even the titles of her books come under scrutiny.

The film examines how one young girl whose life squarely fits the norm, inadvertently transgresses. Once she is no longer the norm, and she’s seen to be acquainted, connected or possibly sympathetic to a terrorist, she’s vulnerable to the various power levels placed in society–neighbours, former friends, newspaper readers–all become the jurors of her morality–until she as effectively isolated from society as Ludwig. The film raises some interesting questions about journalistic ethics, but in these days of tabloid sensationalism, the film’s shock effect is numbed. Instead, the outrage remains the tainting of the reputations of Katharina’s relatives and employers–nice people who just try to stand by her. In spite of the fact that the film is a bit dated, it’s still relevant today–especially in light of the recent allegations of illegal wiretaps and surveillance currently being conducted by the Bush administration. The film is based on the novel by Heinrich Boll–a journalist who wrote an article in Der Spiegel questioning whether a bank robbery was really the work of the Red Army Faction. Boll suffered the consequences of his stance. The novel and the film are the results of his experiences and a criticism of the tabloid sensationalism tactics of the Springer Press. DVD extras include an interview with directors Volker Schlondorff and Margaretha von Trotta, excerpts from a documentary by Heinrich Boll, and an interview with the cinematographer. In German with English subtitles.

Aristide and the Endless Revolution (2005)

 “This is not about anything but the ideology of the Far Right wing that now controls the U.S. government.”

In 2004, Jean Bertrand Aristide, only the second democratically elected president of Haiti, was ousted from power by either a coup d’etat or a rebellion (depending on who you talk to). Extremely popular with the Haitian people–especially the poor–Aristide, in exile in South Africa, maintains that he was kidnapped by U.S forces and coerced to sign a letter of resignation. The documentary Aristide and the Endless Revolution from director Nicolas Rossier examines the many questions behind Aristide’s removal from office.

The film covers Aristide’s beginnings as a Catholic priest. He served as President of Haiti 3 times–in 1991, in 1994 to 1996, and from 2001 to 2004. Haiti–a country racked with poverty with an average worker earning just 38 cents a day, and with 1.5 doctors per 11,000 people–has a tumultuous history of coups, dictatorships, and presidential oustings. Aristide sailed into office in 2000 with 91% of the vote, and the film includes footage of the vast crowds of Haitians who clearly loved Aristide. Aristide and his supporters maintain that he threatened the status quo by confronting American interests in Haiti, and that his forced removal shows that “popular democracy” is only allowed under certain circumstances. The film includes footage filmed just three weeks before the coup that sent Aristide from office. One remarkable thing–the film shows footage of various speeches Aristide made to the people. The cameras pan the cheering crowd, and then the camera contrasts the frozen faces of those seated in the podium behind Aristide. These people are not happy campers.

Both sides of the argument regarding Aristide’s removal from office give their point of view in this remarkably well-balanced film. There’s Bush stating that Aristide resigned, and the former Secretary of State arguing that Aristide “willfully misruled.” On the other side of the argument, there’s representative Maxine Waters arguing in Aristide’s defense. Numerous lawyers and human rights officials, and Noam Chomsky add to the comments. Perhaps one the most interesting points the film makes is that Haiti was approved for a bank loan but this was blocked by the U.S. who in effect “imposed a freeze” on the loan. But in spite of the fact Haiti didn’t get the money, they were still liable for the interest. A lack of funds in the coffers led to a destabilization. The coup–according to Aristide supporters–was led by about 200 criminals who were armed with weapons provided by America.

This interesting documentary while ostensibly focusing on Aristide’s removal from office also examines the larger question about the people of Haiti. Some of the footage is graphic–bloodied bodies abandoned in the streets, street fighting, and police brutally beating various Haitians. Aristide and the Endless Revolution allows the viewer a glimpse of a much-ignored country and its troubled society while forging one’s own opinion of what really happened in Haiti. DVD extras include: an update on Haiti’s 2006 elections, political documentary trailers, an interview with Aristide, an historical timeline, and text interviews with the director and economist Alex Dupuy.

Why We Fight (2005)

“They want to spread democracy around the world on the point of our bayonets.”

Using footage from Eisenhower’s farewell speech to the nation, director Eugene Jarecki’s documentary film Why We Fight includes the departing president’s warning: “we have been compelled to create a permanent armament industry of vast proportions. We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.” Eisenhower, according to interviews with family members, struggled with the growing Military-Industrial Complex, and as an old soldier, he was alarmed by its explosive expansion following WWII. The film examines the roles of all the players in the war food chain–from those who make the bombs, those who design the bombs, those who drop the bombs, those politicians who make the decisions to drop the bombs, and those contractors who profit so well from carnage. On the other side of the coin, the film also includes footage of the results of so-called “precision guided missiles” (and as it turns out, they can be wildly inaccurate), and this includes some fairly gruesome photos of the morgue in Baghdad.

On another level, the film examines the background stories of two people touched in different ways by the war in Iraq. There’s a very sincere New Yorker, Wilton Setzer, a retired policeman who lost his son in 9/11. At first, he sought revenge for his son’s death, and like many Americans, he somehow connected the war in Iraq to the bombing of the Twin Towers. Setzer was flabbergasted when he heard Bush admit on television that there was “no connection” and his sense of clear outrage is shattering as he realizes that both his grief and patriotism have been exploited. Another thread follows the story of William Solomon, a young man who decides to enlist in the army following the death of his mother. One of the most interesting observations the film makes about enlisting is that “self-interest” is used to gain recruits, while paradoxically they are then expected to pay the ultimate “self-sacrifice.”

The most powerful statement the film makes, however, is the complete, startling emotional and moral disconnect of those involved with the war-machine of the Military-Industrial Complex. The film interviews humble assembly line bomb makers, and one woman who charmingly says she’s rather be “making toys” for Santa Claus, agrees she’d rather not think about the ultimate goal of the bombs she helps make. Similarly, pilots interviewed gently smile as they recall how proud they felt to be involved in the first air strike in the war on Iraq. Even a weapons designer–a woman forced to flee the debacle in Vietnam, is now ironically employed to design and create weapons that are crafted for maximum destruction. The film follows the war food chain through the huge corporations that benefit from war, the lobbyists, congress and the politicians who need to feed the voters at home with jobs from the Military-Industrial complex.

Undoubtedly, the film is so good because director Jarecki calls upon such a range of participants. Those interviewed include Richard Perle from the so-called New American Century Project, McCain, Gore Vidal, and various military advisors and historians. Lt. Gen Kwiatkowski who resigned from the Pentagon when she could not stomach the disinformation campaign that raged prior to the invasion of Iraq sums it up beautifully: “Why we fight? Because not enough people are standing up and saying I’m not doing this anymore.”

Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers (2006)

“Why do they have Cadillac Escalades in Iraq?”

While American and Iraqi families continue to bury their dead and comfort their wounded, the HUGE companies who continue to profit from the extended fiasco in Iraq are laughing all the way to the bank. Yes, those bank deposits in the billions keep rolling in, and shares in companies such as Halliburton and KBR keep skyrocketing. It’s odd, isn’t it, that one slice of the American population (i.e. those in the military) are told to continue to sacrifice, while the CEOs take home fat multi million dollars salaries. Robert Greenwald’s documentary, Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers makes it clear exactly who is cashing in on the slaughter, maiming, and destruction, and it isn’t pretty.

A large portion of the film takes a look at the relatively lowly civilian contractors employed by various companies in Iraq, and then interviews the families of those killed over there. The survivors of those killed–and injured–in Iraq–are understandably bitter as they argue that their loved ones were knowingly placed in dangerous situations by Halliburton, for example. Too large a portion of the film focuses on this aspect of things, and that was unfortunate.

Another section of the film focuses on the civilian contractors employed to interrogate–which is a euphemism for torture–prisoners at Abu Ghraib. While several low-ranking soldiers have been court-martialed for the treatment of Iraqi prisoners, the film reveals that there’s NO accountability for contractors who “interrogate” and kill in the process. They simply walk away from the situation. Various interrogators are interviewed–as well a translator who argues that the translators employed are often not proficient in the language, but that there’s no evaluation of language skills.

The very best–and strongest part of the film focuses on the nitty-gritty details of some of the financial abuse taking place in Iraq. One civilian who was employed by Halliburton breaks down when he explains that contaminated water (tested for malaria, typhus, and giardia) is knowingly given to the troops. Another soldier explains how Halliburton charges $99 for washing a bag full of dirty clothes. And details are given of the burning and destruction of $80,000 vehicles that lack a spare tyre or an oil filter, for example. No oil filter–no problem–just destroy the old vehicle and bill the taxpayers for a new one! Apparently, the system of “cost plus” encourages these companies to run amok with expenses. And that’s underscored by the luxuries the executives of these companies reward themselves with every chance they get.

The documentary also traces the crony system that thrives between the politicians and the companies who are reaping billions off the blood of others. Dollar amounts running into the billions flash on the screen as company after company rake in the profits. This is beyond scandalous–it’s downright criminal. When is someone going to pull the plug on this thievery? And I’ll add my own experience of bills from the war–a friend’s unit stationed in Iraq was given a satellite phone and guess who is going to get the 4 million dollar phone bill?

Pit Sense Versus the State: A History of Militant Miners in the Doncaster Area by David John Douglass

“Trade unionism is the enemy of the real unity of the proletariat which rears its violent head every time the masses of individuals band together against work, against forced unemployment, and against being policed, bossed about and insulted by two-faced functionaries.”

The slim volume Pit Sense versus the State: A History of Militant Miners in the Doncaster Area, written by David John Douglass, the National Union of Miners (NUM) branch delegate at Hatfield Main Colliery, is an overview of the miners’ strike of 1984-85. The book includes additional background material (pre-and post 84-85) to place the miners’ strike in the relevant context of its time. The author argues that while other accounts exist of this period, Pit Sense Versus the State is written partially to burst some of the myths propagated about the strike.

The book isn’t a memoir. Written over nine chapters, this is an account of the strike–how it began, how it continued and how it ultimately ended. Douglass mainly charts the strike through the union actions. Chapters include: Extract from the Picket Log, The Strike Co-ordinating Committee, and Area Executive Meetings. We see which strategies worked, which didn’t, and some of the bitter infighting that occurred before the strike ended. A major point of contention became whether or not those sacked for strike activities should be reinstated as part of any agreements made.

There are some great moments here. Hatfield miner, Purvis, for example, was charged with the “serious offence” of “an act likely to cause disaffection among the police force” when he asked three policeman: “Why don’t you join us and rule yourselves?” That little speech got Purvis three months hard labour and a fine of 100 pounds from a magistrate who judged Purvis was a man of “extreme opinions.”

The book also includes charts from the years 1939-1946 showing the number of labour disputes in Britain during those years, and how many of those disputes were in the coal industry. With the numbers fluctuating from 37.6%-60.3%, it’s easy to see why the miners and their unions were targeted for destruction by Thatcher’s government. Douglass states “the government had called in a no-holds barred contest….it was our social ideology and vanguard position in the working class as a whole which they were out to defeat, not just defeat but bury, as a warning to any others who would dare contrast our values against theirs.” Indeed Douglass argues that the destruction of the Miners’ union effectively “destroy [ed] a cornerstone of the whole labour movement.” While the author is quite clear that the miners’ strike was part of the class war, he also is clear that not all those within the union felt the same way: there were some “loud supporters of Law and Order” who saw the police as “upholders of a system they themselves believe[d] in. The confrontations seemed to be evidence of a class war they had long ago convinced themselves didn’t exist. The confrontations were a living evidence of extra-parliamentary action when they had set their eyes on parliament as the only means of redress for all wrongs.”

Douglass describes how the miners planned a “guerilla type campaign in which diversity and decentralization was a strength.” And through some clever planning, and in spite of spies and infiltrators, the Home Office was kept guessing as to exactly where to send the largest contingent of police to face the picket lines. But divisions within the union soon reared, and inevitably this weakened and ended the strike. While there were some (including the author) who were prepared to go all the way to ensure that those sacked for strike activities were reinstated, there were many who didn’t think it was their problem. Douglass includes a final statement on unions–the good and bad side of organizations that “become bureaucratic, conservative and obstructive” and argues that unions are organizations that “May not take us as far as we want to go….but in many cases we can take it as far as it will go, at which point we’ll adapt it or change it for something else.”

In spite of the fact that Douglass includes NO personal information about himself in these pages, his character seeps through, and while he ends the book on an optimistic note, a sense of his disappointment for what happened to the miners and the pits is inescapable.

The book includes a glossary, and it comes in useful. A cast of characters (and the positions they held) would not have been amiss here.

Phoenix Press
112 pages

Storm the Skies (1996)

“Exile was not enough.”

The documentary Storm the Skies digs into the life of Ramon Mercader, the assassin of Trotsky and argues against the idea that Mercader was a disillusioned Trotskyite. The film begins by tracing the life of Ramon Mercader’s mother, Calidad. Although she came from a wealthy Spanish family, in adulthood, she became a committed communist and an enemy of her class–even robbing her family’s own factories at one point. Married off to a wealthy man, she rejected a great deal of her domestic life–and her hubbie dragged her off to bordellos so that she could understand what male-female relationships were all about.

Mercader’s mother sent her children from civil war Spain to the relative safety of the Soviet Union. Here, the so-called “war children” were treated well and given a stellar communist education, and it’s emphasized that even at this point, Mercader was treated as a special case. The film argues that Mercader was a committed KGB agent when he undertook the mission to assassinate the exiled Trotsky. The film traces his relationship with Trotskyite Sylvia Ageloff, reveals Mercader’s various identities, and how he penetrated Trotsky’s household in Mexico.

Some parts of the film seem quite disconnected from the main narrative–for example, the film begins with footage of the Rolling Stones performing in Barcelona in 1975, and while it’s always great to see this band, the exact relevance to the subject at hand remains unclear. Also when describing Calidad’s marriage, the filmmaker tosses in some ancient footage of rather large women engaging in hanky panky at a Spanish bordello–again, the footage seems irrelevant. Also the exact relevance of the interview with a Spanish actress who visited Mercader in a Mexican prison remains cloudy. One of the biggest faults with the film, however, lies in the fact that those interviewed are never identified. Documentaries usually identify those interviewed with a few words at the bottom of the screen. This device is completely absent from the film, so it’s impossible to identify those interviewed–although a few people identify themselves by giving statements such as they guarded Trotsky, etc.

There’s some marvelous footage in the film–Trotsky’s funeral, and scenes of Trotsky’s house, and it’s possible to see the security reinforcements Trotsky added to the house (raised the wall, built guard towers, etc). Unfortunately, the film vacillates between treating Trotsky and then Mercader as heroes. Of course, some of those who are interviewed were in Trotsky’s innermost circle, and worshipped the man, so a certain amount of the hero-worship factor is unavoidable. When tracing Mercader’s life post prison the film asks the question whether or not he was a hero to kill Trotsky or just another pawn of Stalin and the Soviet government. By the time the film ends, there’s an overwhelming sense that Mercader is supposed to be a great hero for bumping off Trotsky. The film doesn’t elaborate on the subject of Trotsky’s many crimes to humanity–that’s clearly not the subject of the film–but instead of being caught in the argument that one of these two people is a hero, the time would have been better spent on relevant information and filling in some of the gaps. After all some of us don’t see either Trotsky or Mercader as heroes and would prefer more background information on the subject matter. The film only briefly touches on the involvement of Diego Rivera and Frida Kalho, for example, and this section could bear much closer scrutiny. In Spanish with English subtitles.

Noam Chomsky: Imperial Grand Strategy

“Only a stable, prolonged U.S troop presence and a weak Iraqi army will allow us to nurture democracy.” (Wolfowitz)

Noam Chomsky is back, and he’s in fine form in all three sections of this DVD. In Part I, Chomsky delivers a lecture at the University of Manchester on 22 May 2004. The approximately 140 minute lecture Imperial Grand Strategy focuses on the war in Iraq, and argues that the U.S occupation there is part of an overall strategy and doctrine. Chomsky stresses that the current Bush administration is not the originator of the idea of the right to use pre-emptive force to “ensure access to markets and resources,” and he traces the doctrine back to 1941. Chomsky examines Clinton’s interpretation of the doctrine, as well as Kissinger’s acknowledgment that while the doctrine was theoretically fine, it certainly shouldn’t be “universalized”–in other words, dominance through military power should not extended as a ‘right’ to all countries.

Chomsky also argues that the current war in Iraq–which ostensibly was supposed to stop or at least corral terrorism–has served to acerbate terrorism, and quotes John Schlesinger’s observation that while 9-11 created a “global wave of sympathy” for America, the invasion of Iraq created “a wave of hatred.” Indeed, Chomsky argues, recruitment for terrorism has increased, and apparently the Iraq War has served as a marvelous recruitment opportunity for al-Qaeda.

So what is this “war on terror” all about then if it doesn’t stop or squash terrorism? Well Chomksy has plenty of answers to that question–”the point is controlling the resources,” he argues, and it’s a “demonstration” of the Imperial Grand Strategy. Chomsky backs this argument up by examining America’s often erratic, illogical treatment of terrorism–the bizarre and continued focus on Cuba (4 people track the financial resources of al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, yet 21 are assigned to Cuba, for goodness sake!).

This is an intense lecture packed with information, and Chomsky also covers “the chain of violence” that led from the Israeli assassination of Yassin straight to the murder of 4 contractors in Fallujah, and onto the U.S assault on Fallujah. He also covers the arrest of protesting Iraqi labor union leaders, and Bush’s Messianic Vision to bring ‘democracy’ to Iraq. Democracy is a splendid noble word, but it evidently has been hijacked to mean something else. But then again, I suppose it might be more difficult to get Americans to swallow a war that was spreading “imperialism in the Middle East.”

The second lecture The Assault of Freedom and Democracy was delivered December 3, 2003 at Merrimack College and lasts for about an hour. Chomsky examines ‘the assault’ which he argues is conducted by Bush Administration reactionaries. He stresses that policies created by this administration (Patriot Act I and II) must be kept in perspective by remembering what other societies face, and he also discusses some of the less pleasant U.S domestic policies enacted in the past–such as the nefarious COINTELPRO. Chomsky again dissects inconsistent U.S. policies on terrorism noting that self-admitted terrorist Orlando Bosch was given a presidential pardon and allowed to live in the U.S. Also America doesn’t seem to have a problem with the undemocratic, despotic ruler of Uzbekistan who boils his enemies alive–something apparently a British ambassador recently objected to and was recalled for.

The third section on the DVD Questions about Anarchism is an hour-long informal interview held between Chomsky and Barry Pateman and recorded on Feb 17, 2004. With Pateman posing questions, Chomsky offers his views on a range of issues such as primitivism, the control of attitude and opinion, class politics, violence, and modes of peaceful change. This is an extremely enlightening interview, and Chomsky’s statements are startlingly thought provoking. He remains–in spite of current, bleak global events–guardedly optimistic about the future, and as always, his lectures are delivered with his characteristic dash of dry humour.

Innocent Voices (2004)

“The men who gave you that gum are training our soldiers to kill us.”

Innocent Voices is set in the turmoil of El Salvador in 1980. The story is told through the eyes of Chava (Carlos Padilla), an 11-year-old boy who lives in a shantytown located just outside of a small village. With the exception of a mentally handicapped man, there are no adult males in the shantytown–just women and children. The mothers eek a living in various ways. Chava’s mother (Leonor Varela), for example, struggles to raise her three children by sewing and selling simple clothing. As for Chava’s father, well he disappeared years earlier, and he may or may not be in America. This leaves Chava as the ‘man of the house’–a responsibility he takes seriously.

The shantytown is located slap-bang in the middle of the conflict between the El Salvadorian army and the FMLN guerrillas. Nightly battles rage between the two sides with the shantytown caught in the middle. Machine gun fire ripping through the straw hut is a common occurrence, and the army provides an uneasy presence. Soldiers grab screaming young girls off the street (we can imagine what for) and there’s a curfew in place. Anyone found outside post-curfew is shot. Period.

Probably the most shocking aspect to the film is the El Salvadorian army’s recruitment drive. They simply occupy the school, call out names of children and haul them off. When boys turn 12, they are automatically shanghaied into the army, and incredible scenes record the poignancy of this travesty. The school is also a battleground for fights between the guerrillas and the army, so the children are literally in the middle.

There are glimpses of American advisors, and the film notes that one of those sent to train the El Salvadorian army is fresh from Vietnam. But the film doesn’t really do more than hint at America’s involvement in the debacle, and mostly it veers away from politics and instead concentrates on Chava’s story. As with most films that chose to tell a story from the child’s point of view, Innocent Voices slides into sentimentality. The film tries to show how Chava and his band of friends try for a moment or two of normal childhood, and this is usually achieved at great cost. The film also follows Chava’s romance with a little girl, and I thought these bits were overdone. Based on a true story, the film is in Spanish with subtitles and directed by Luis Mandoki.

Black Rain by Georges Simenon

“If things go on like this, take it from me, there’ll be a revolution.”

Author Simenon was an extremely prolific writer–producing over 200 novels and 150 novellas in his lifetime. He is perhaps best known for his Maigret series. However, many of his novels falls into the romans durs (”hard novel”) category, and these psychological novels are–I think–the best of Simenon’s works. The novella Black Rain does not seem to fall into the romans durs category–it’s not hard-edged enough for that.

Black Rain is a reconstruction of a child’s memories. The narrator, Jerome, now an adult, recollects a specific period of time, when as a 7-year-old boy he lived with his mother and father in a small town in Normandy. As the son of shopkeepers, Jerome lives over the shop with his parents, and their collective lives are run by routine. Jerome is a solitary child, and his imagination is captivated by another little boy who lives nearby. The other boy, Albert, lives with his grandmother in a room above the seed merchants’ shop. Although the boys have never spoken to each other, Jerome, now an adult, can remember childhood moments when he saw Albert’s face “flattened against the window” staring out at him.

Jerome’s life of strict routine alters when his parents invite the corpulent and unpleasant Aunt Valerie to move in. Aunt Valerie is mired in a legal wrangle over a house she owns. Aunt Valerie hints that perhaps Jerome’s parents will eventually inherit the house, and this elusive promise acts as the stimulus for Jerome’s father to invite Aunt Valerie into their home. So Aunt Valerie moves in, takes over Jerome’s room and immediately begins dominating the household.

These are troubled times. The anarchist Francisco Ferrer is executed in Spain and news of his death reaches Normandy–a region already plagued with strikes and social unrest. Then the news breaks that the police are searching for Albert’s anarchist father, and the town seems to split in two–those who want him hunted down and killed, and those who sympathize. Aunt Valerie falls into the posse mentality while Jerome sympathizes with the poignant vision of the sickly Albert. Jerome tries to make sense of it all, and at one point asks his Aunt “what’s a strike?” She replies “it’s when workers won’t work anymore,” and “they throw things at policemen and go about with razors hamstringing horses.”

This well-structured novella charts Jerome’s memories of that period–recalled now in his adulthood and laced with his mother’s fragmented “falsified” memories and explanations. Jerome is just an innocent bystander in all this, but as children often do, he magnifies both his responsibility and his ability to affect events. Simenon shows, brilliantly, how traumatic incidents that occur in childhood–even if they are merely observed–can haunt us for the rest of our days.

El Che: Investigating a Legend (1997)

 “His absolute distaste for the slightest privilege.”

The documentary film El Che: Investigating a Legend is an overview of Guevara’s life. The film plots Ernesto “Che” Guevara de la Serna’s early life, includes rare footage of his middle-class childhood in Argentina, and charts his revolutionary career up to his death in Bolivia in 1967 at the age of 39. The documentary blends interviews, photo stills, music and narrative to create a fascinating picture of Che. These interviews include personal details and memories from family members, fellow guerilla fighters, political figures, and some footage includes speeches made by Che.

A fair portion of the documentary examines Che’s childhood, and his struggle with asthma. This early exposure to disease, the film argues, led to Che’s interest in medicine, and his determination to become a Dr. But Che left his entire medical career behind, and he was soon devoted to politics. From his youth, Che maintained the view that the “designated enemy is Imperialism.” The film explores Che’s political career, his friendship with Fidel Castro, his role in the guerilla war against the Batista government of Cuba, and Che’s subsequent role in Castro’s Cuban government. Che is shown to be an intelligent man, with an incredible amount of personal discipline. He was devoted to social reform, and possibly at his very best when he was a guerrilla fighter in the jungle–here he established literacy programmes, a radio station, and guerrilla training camps.

The latter part of the documentary–and arguably the most fascinating section–describes Che’s role in the new Cuban government, and the portrait shown is a man still devoted to social revolution. But Che–although a Marxist–didn’t appear to ‘fit in’ to the new Soviet-influenced Cuba, and this resulted in an odyssey for Che that ended with his death in Bolivia a few years later. There is one great scene of an empty chair next to Castro, and this was footage taken when many were speculating about Che’s whereabouts. These final years and Che’s death are clouded with different versions of events, but the true version of Che’s death seems quite clear from the interviews in the documentary.