so I finally saw 'the motorcycle diaries' last night. I thought it was beautiful, it went straight to my heart, too, I think, whatever the broad implications of his life afterwards. I felt a deep admiration for his intense spirit of solidarity and idealism and his extraodinary commitment to the eradication of injustice. it was a very simple movie, understated, and thus quite powerful in that it allowed the weight of this man and these early experiences of his to be appreciated by the viewer instead of trumpeted by an overdone narrative or ill-conceived melodramatization of events. I also might pick up one of his books soon -- perhaps his writings on the cuban revolution.
I was reading a little more about his life (hence the qualifier above about the broad implications of this life afterwards), and it made me wonder a bit about the nature of revolution and the ideals that are embodied within such a movement. I think of the passion and the intense belief in an ideology that foments an uprising of this caliber, like cuba, and what it becomes with time. I think of fidel castro now and the image that comes to mind is of the man in deteriorating health falling down last month or two months ago on stage, a humiliating image captured and replayed around the world. there's this complacency that seems to set in very rapidly, perhaps inevitably, after 'winning,' after triumphing in an endeavor of such ideals, of such weight. is it inevitable, I wonder?
cuba did not become this ideal place where injustice was eradicated. nor did the USSR, nor has china (far from it). I don't doubt the gravity, the sincerity of the movements, not after examining the lives of the revolutionaries that led them. I hope that I won't have to become that cynical that the historically 'great' revolutions, whatever our revised conceptions of them, must be classified as mere exercises in manipulative mass politics undertaken by a few to seize power. perhaps it's the power that corrupts, a notion long held. perhaps the charisma of the revolutionary cannot be expressed when not in resistance, when actually in power--within the very institutional construct against which he has been fighting so passionately, so forcefully, with such desperation and belief. and perhaps the people like che guevara, like gandhi, like martin luther king, are so rare, so elusive, that those that follow them (since their lives seem to be inevitably cut short), those charged with the responsibility of fulfilling the ends of their movements once they have triumphed, can never live up to their greatness, to the purity of their ideals (assuming, perhaps wishfully, that their ideals were never corrupted).
is the movement the end in and of itself? that would be a little disappointing, I think. is it naive (even in the context of revolutions) to believe that a system of ideals can not only overthrow, but perservere? history seems to have said yes so far.
