Review: Che
by John NolteMy colleague Joe Lima, has written an extensive and intelligent deconstruction of Steven Soderbergh’s “Che.” There’s not a word there anyone interested in truth or human rights could argue with. For Joe, and for many, Soderbergh’s film does not transcend the insidious politics behind it.
This wasn’t the case for me.
Anyone who’s worked at any level of the entertainment industry understands that one of the great injustices of our world is that talent is not tied to virtue. Honorable people make terrible films, the dishonorable make timeless classics. If the world were just, John Wayne’s plea to stand by our allies in Vietnam would be remembered as a classic and Jane Fonda setting back for decades a clean, cheap energy source would’ve turned out laughably bad.
No fan of Soderbergh’s, and well aware of who the real Ernesto “Che” Guevera was, the film still completely won me over. As an artist, Soderbergh did his job and told his story in a way that favored the experience of a guerrilla revolution over the politics behind it. Were I ever to find the time to put together a top ten list of my favorite films of 2008, “Che” would rank in the top five.
So, at the risk of having my cherished and hard-earned Right Wing Extremist credentials put into question … my review sits below the jump:
Steven Soderbergh’s 257-minute, cinematic hagiography to Ernesto “Che” Guevera is a lie. A lie of omission and commission. A lie so afraid of its own shadow you’ll learn more about Castro’s Monster from his now iconic t-shirt image than from the film (on the shirts you can at least can see the wicked in his eyes). But this lie is also a striking cinematic achievement that mesmerizes for most of its challenging run time as it takes you into the heart of two very different kinds of guerrilla revolutions.
Part one, The Argentine, opens its story in Mexico. The year is 1956 and Cuban-exile, Fidel Castro (an amazing Demián Bichir), is recruiting to topple Fulgencio Batista, an America-friendly dictator deeply unpopular with the Cuban peasant population. Ernesto Guevera (Benicio Del Toro) is not Cuban, but he is a charismatic true believer, and soon this married doctor is on a boat loaded with other exiles headed for Cuba.
The revolution occurs almost exclusively under the cover of Cuba’s thick jungle terrain allowing the guerrillas to hide out between the planning and executing of hit-and-run operations that serve the dual purpose of demoralizing Batista’s Army and radicalizing those in the population ready to stand with anyone serious about deposing the dictator. If Castro’s insurgency is to succeed, the people must be on his side, and it’s here where Che’s medical training proves invaluable.
Medical training is just one of Che’s talents, though. A natural leader and savvy diplomat in the important arena of hearts and minds, Castro eventually promotes him from camp doctor to Comandante in charge of a full column. In less than two years from that fateful meeting in Mexico, Castro and his army roll successfully into Havana.
Inter-cut throughout this first chapter is a flash-forward filmed in black and white of Che’s post-revolution visit to New York City in 1964 and subsequent speech to the United Nations General Assembly. Between the speech and an interview with a reporter played by Julia Ormond, we’re subjected treated to Che’s political and military philosophy contextualized with what’s portrayed ten years earlier in Cuba. The genius of the film is that you need not sympathize nor agree with what you’re watching in order to be absorbed by it. Through camera placement and a stubborn refusal to give in to scope, Soderbergh makes you a fly on the wall and firsthand witness as the many, many small setbacks and victories play out that are the real work of revolutions. Each scene is another cog in the historical wheel as it turns towards what you already know is a successful outcome. Some of the cogs are gunfights and terrorist attacks, but most are small political meetings between Che and any willing party, held in mud huts or thick brush as they swat away bugs. Che’s brilliance, at least as portrayed in the film, was his acute ability to turn every move, decision, attack, and encounter into its own political animal always with the big picture in mind.
This is ground-level, grass-roots history, not even so much where the blood spills, but where the sweat pours and a movement is painstakingly built one recruit at a time. Movies are always eager to portray Big History, but true or not, Soderbergh captured the turning of the smaller gears which make up the Big History, and watching those gears meticulously find a place in a war of political attrition has never been captured in this way on film before.
Part two, Guerilla, opens its story in 1965. Castro is firmly in charge of Cuba and Guevera is eager to recreate the Cuban revolution in South America, starting with Bolivia. Using a disguise and fake name, Guevera enters the country and quickly makes his way deep into the Bolivian jungle under the mistaken assumption that what worked before will again.
Having learned from the fall of Batista, Bolivia’s President, Rene Barrientos (the always excellent Joaquim de Almeida) is quick to request the help of the United States and wastes no time in dispatching his army to hunt down insurgents. Once the American CIA informs him that Guevera may be leading them, Barrientos wisely redoubles his efforts.
The contrast between Cuba and Bolivia is what makes the second part so interesting. Everything that went right in Cuba thankfully went wrong in Bolivia. Unlike Fidel Castro, Che doesn’t have the gravity or diplomatic chops to bring disparate groups of revolutionaries together and when the Bolivian Communist Party refuses promised help, the writing is on the wall. Ultimately, however, this revolution is doomed by those small but important cogs. Internal squabbles among the men, peasants lacking the bravado of those in Cuba, and the asthma that’s troubled Guevera since the beginning, all contribute to Che and his small band of guerrillas hunted, run to ground, captured and eventually executed.
Che is not a film for everyone, even those who might sympathize with its politics. Even though I managed to get swept up, there are more than a few slow spots and the casting of Matt Damon for a one scene cameo might qualify as spell-breaker of the year, though Lou Diamond Phillips as the head of the Bolivian Communist Party runs a close second. But overall, if you can give yourself over to it, Che is a one of a kind experience, though that’s not necessarily a good thing.
Less than one minute of the four-plus hours gives us a glimpse into the true nature of Castro’s Monster. In his United Nations speech Che is adamant that the executions will continue but because Soderbergh offers no context to the very real horrors that were playing out in Cuba, the statement sounds more like bravado than the promise it really was. Other than an odd moment near the end of Guerilla when a weary, asthma-plagued Che stabs a stubborn horse to death, we get 256 minutes of Saint Guevera, patiently caring for the sick, sharing his food, going without, and fighting for the common man.
It’s a testament to Del Toro’s presence as an actor that he’s able to hold the screen over four hours playing a fairly one-dimensional character, but he’s really not the star of the film, the process of fomenting revolution is. As is Soderbergh’s audacity. The man’s a liar and a filmmaker whose work I haven’t much admired, ironically, until now.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
47 Comments
It appears you have stunned your audience into silence, John. I’d say something snarky along the lines of “So THAT’S how it’s done,” but, hey, I believe in what you’re trying to do here and all….
I suppose even a pile of bull$h!t can be made into a wondrous statue.
I felt Soderbergh’s gift was evident in his very first film (before Sex, Lies…but I forget the name…he was in it). He had the stuff, and he keeps getting better. Plus, he married an old friend of mine, and I’ve always heard he’s good guy. On the other hand, I think the two of them helped coach my ex through our break-up… hmm….
4 hours and you loved it, huh?
Great, now I have to see this thing. Thanks a lot, man, thanks a lot.
I remember a panel with Richard Corliss and Roger Ebert where they talked about reviews that had contradictions in them. But how that was not a bad thing. Rather it was something that opened up the possibility for better quality debates because the critic was able to see and grasp both sides of an argument and give the viewer a stronger insight. At least that’s what I recall taking away from the panel.
Anyway, your review does this. And I appreciate that.
John, this is why I’m proud to be conservative: because of folks like you, who are honest enough to give the film good marks on it’s artistic merits alone, instead of grading on an ideology curve. That being said, I’ll never watch this lie, just like I’ll never watch Birth of a Nation of Triumph of the Will (though I have watched Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, both while I was in Iraq, of all places)
On the bright side, you did point out that the movie worked for YOU. However, as a critic, I’d hope you could balance that out against the fact that every other legitimate review I’ve seen has talked about how insanely boring this movie is. At over 4 1/2 hours, encouraging anyone to see it could be viewed as a war crime under Obama. Be careful, comrade.
Seriously – who in God’s name watches a 257 minute movie? Who? This film might be the darling of Hollywood, but I guarantee you it won’t be seen by many Americans. No one wants to sit for that long, no matter how entertaining the film might be. 257 minutes? You’ve got to be kidding.
google “the real cuba”
Yes. And Der Fuehrer was a marvelous dancer! And he could paint a whole apartment in an afternoon! Two coats!
This is, in short, an outrage and you’ve just lost an early supporter. You’re obviously more interested in continuing to get invited to the right parties than you are in seeing that art is used in the service of truth. Art cannot be separated from context. Never.
Sign me off of “Big Hollywood.” It’s still the same small-minded cozy little village after all.
Can’t wait for the “extended DVD” release, six hours uncut, including a 20 hour commentary track of Soderbergh pleasuring himself to a copy of Mother Jones.
I’ve followed John Nolte since he was blogging as Dirty Harry. I’ve been a fan of his for a couple of years at this point. This, however, might just tear it.
Art, even well-made art, in the service of an evil cause is not good art. Even Mr. Nolte has to be intellectually honest enough to admit that — but since there’s barely any acknowledgment in this review that the subject of this brilliantly made hagiography of a film was a Satanic little son of a %!+(* in real life, I have to wonder what happened to the author’s intellectual honesty.
And what left-wing lunatic thought “‘CHE’ ONE OF YEAR’S BEST FILMS” was a good headline to put on a blog like this one?
Bill Murphy — and Bill Hicks — had it right. Go on ahead, John, it’s only your dignity.
John, don’t let people like Bill get to you (not that I think they stand a chance!). You’ve done the right thing and the honest thing by giving us your true opinion of this film. I’m sure it is worth seeing – maybe not in a theater, given the length, but definately on Blu-ray.
If we are all to appreciate and learn from well-made films, we must all be forthright and candid about their quality and value. Great drama is great drama, regardless of the politics. I despise the anti-military tone of Full Metal Jacket, but I love the movie. When we label terrific movies bad because we disagree with the politcs (or label bad movies works of art because we like the politics) we just look dumb.
And we make it harder to learn from the masters.
Ace review John… I’m thinking I might have to re-evaluate an invitation a friend made to see the movie.
Jake and Bill Murphy: I’m curious about what you would have had me do.
Should I have not written the review just because I liked the film?
Should I have lied about how I felt about the film?
The easy out is to question my motives and assume I’m concerned about my standing on the Hollywood cocktail party circuit. Because, you know, one positive review of a Leftist film will wipe away my name on the Big Hollywood banner.
So if you can do it without stooping to personal attacks surrounding my motives, I’m honestly curious: I greatly admired a film made with monstrous intentions. I’m a reviewer.
Be my Jiminy Cricket.
Hitler had Leni Riefenstahl,and Che had Soderbergh….art as the handmaiden of evil…nice going,Harry
I find the Che worship somewhat hilarious. With all due respect to the Cubans and others who suffered at his hands, how can you not laugh at the psychosexual aspect to all this. Politics notwithstanding these dimwits are engaged in a kind of creepy necrophilia above all else.
I, for one, envy John. I am completely unable to parse out politics from prose, especially when the politics of something is such a lie, even a “lie by omission.” I’ve seen great movies before that were ruined for me because what they said was a complete lie. Perhaps my conscience outweighs my love of cinematic delights. Perhaps I can hope that a grandiose experience awaits me in the future, such as this movie apparently is, that speaks of something I can get behind and rally to.
But more to reviews in general, I don’t look at them and consider your baggage. I look at them as a telling of your story with the movie and whether or not I could imagine myself having the same experience. I’ve read reviews that called a movie poor, but piqued my interest because I could imagine responding in the exact opposite manner. For instance, the Seven Pounds review. In this case, you’re first line sealed the deal for me that this is a movie I will never watch.
John’s review on this site is a case study in the difference between the conservative and liberal worldviews.
Liberals have never been more homogenous or dictatorial in pushing their agenda then right now. If you’re a liberal, here are (some of) your marching orders:
* Bush lied, people died
* Abortion is a sacred right
* Anyone who doesn’t think marriage should be redefined is a judgmental
homophobe
* The debate over global warming is over
and…
* Che was at worst a controversial enigma, and at best a hero
One of the things that makes me proud to be a conservative is that, unlike the other side, there is honest-to-goodness diversity over here. We’re not all marching lockstep to the political pied piper.
Jake and Bill,
You missed the point. John never defended Che the man. He went out of his way to observe that lack of context was one of the film’s flaws (as have most reviews I’ve read about it). He simply stated his opinion that the film itself was made so well that it spoke to him on another level.
Like some others who’ve posted, I also have a harder time extricating my politics (and my Christian convictions) from my ability to objectively view some films – which itself is kind of absurd, I suppose. Since when does objectivity have anything to do with appreciating art?
I digress.
The point is this. The conservative philosophy is a big tent. There’s room for many different iterations under this roof, and there ought to be room for HEALTHY debate as well. We shouldn’t resort to name-calling and scorn the first time “one of ours” takes a view slightly contrarian to the conventional wisdom.
If you’re looking to join the Borg, check out the Daily Kos or watch MSNBC. Over here, resistance is not futile. Sometimes it just makes you think.
Scary, no?
Oh, and John? I’m still not gonna watch Che.
Cheers.
“Should I have not written the review just because I liked the film?”
No, you just shouldn’t have “liked the film.” I cannot speak for anyone above, but the notion that film makers should not be chided for playing fast and loose with (objective)truth in the service of “art” when their subject has historical significance is a non-starter for me. The ability to combine a compelling film with a substantial degree of historical accuracy is as much an element of art and praiseworthy film making as any other aspect. This is, after all, a time when substantial numbers of people are “educated” at the movies, making reverential distortions such as “Milk” and “Che” all the more problematic.
Artists have a tendency to believe they’re above are morality because they believe their art is bigger than themselves thus they can get away with all sorts of inhumanity:
Leni Riefenstahl is a genius director however the work is evil.
Roman Polanski is praise as a genius director even though he is a child-rapist.
Richard Wagner wrote eight measures of exquisite music however he molested hundreds of innocent boys.
Al Franken is hilarious in a giant diaper however he is financially funded by George Soros-the evil man who uses his wealth to help the United Nations Starve-and-Rape-the-Children-for-Power and brown-nosers who suck up Al Franken’s anal cavities, such as Tom Hanks, are not humanitarian if they are helping to hide the evil people who use the United Nations to Starve-and-Rape-the-Children-for-Power.
(At some point the Entertainment industry, in general, must face itself and realize their product does to some extent instill evil inhumanity; all the worship will not fade this fact into black. You cannot idolize horrific evil such Che and expect to be absolved from any participation.)
Congratulations, John Nolte, you have learned a valuable lesson about what this site is REALLY about. It’s not about a real debate about movies, TV, pop culture, or entertainment. It’s rapidly degenerated into the same echo chamber circle jerk mentality that sadly characterizes ultra-partisan websites. Some of the commenters at least that have acknowledged that movies don’t necessarily have to walk lockstep with one’s politics in order to be a good movie.
I respect the fact that you had the backbone to say that you liked the movie even if you didn’t like the man. Personally, a four hour movie has to be something special to justify sitting through it (Seven Samurai is one that leaps to mind), and despite Soderbergh’s demonstrated skill, this one looks like a miss to me.
I can’t help but wonder what some of the clowns posting on this board thought about Clint Eastwood’s “Letters from Iwo Jima”….
Pete, let’s debate this question:
Do you think Art is above humanity while morality is below the Artists?
If yes, why?
I’m now looking forward to “artful” movies about Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, John Wayne Gayce, etc.. Evidently “art” is what counts. Forget truth. If it looks good, it is good. Good grief.
I want to make sure I’m misreading your initial question. Are you framing your initial take on Che as a Soderbergh=Riefenstahl groove? I’m not really sure such a comparison is exactly 100% valid. Riefenstahl was actively cooperating with and was funded by a totalitarian regime to produce pro-regime propoganda. Soderbergh is independently producing a movie that may or may not be offensive hagiography (depending on who is watching or reacting to it). Personally, I could give two figs about Che Guevara, so I won’t be wathing the movie.
Frankly, making a four and a half movie about ANYONE is probably going to be as successful a venture as Che’s invasion of Bolivia. It should be no surprise that this movie couldn’t find a distributor.
Actually, Brownie, there was an artful movie about John Wayne Gacy. I forget the title, but Brian Dennehy played him. It was quite good.
“Riefenstahl was actively cooperating with and was funded by a totalitarian regime to produce pro-regime propoganda.”
So when Oliver Stone makes his movies funded by Hugo Chavez is he considered indepentent?
You bring up a good point though, who funded Soderbergh’s four hour extravaganza? Most of the gazillionaires in Hollywood are totalitarian in nature anyway, so name the names.
If the left has taught us anything (very little of use, actually) it is this: EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL.
So while I attack Che and its misguided crew, I would viciously attack a movie sympathetic to Goebbels and Goering without even seeing it.
I would also relentlessly villify those involved. But that’s judgmental old me.
The fact that such a hideous concept, as a movie sympathetic to Nazis, could be regarded as well made, finely acted “artistic triumph” is an even more unacceptable outcome for me.
No amount of sophistry defending the process will move me on this point.
Conservatives either need to get effectively political with the culture, or get used to acting like Lear, forever.
“If the left has taught us anything (very little of use, actually) it is this: EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL.”
Speaking of Lear, the Left even has the audacity to rewrite Shakespeare by adding scenes which Shakespeare never wrote all for POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY.
The provincial and myopic arrogance of today’s Artist is what is killing Art.
The Poet is dead, long live Hollywood.
(One thing I love about Shakespeare, he wrote so fine a script there was no need for acting)
If I may interject a bit of logic here (which is something that Conservatives ought to be familiar with), a movie review is a subjective opinion. Subjective opinions are just that–subjective.
As to this notion that art made by evil people isn’t art, well News Flash: we’re all evil people. (Simple enough to prove. Have you ever done something that you thought was wrong at the time but you did it anyway? Would a good person have done such a thing?)
All art made by human beings will be tainted by evil. Does that make it worthless? Not at all. Imagine how worthless it would be if we were evil AND unable to be artistic!
Furthermore, evil is almost necessary to tell a good story. You have to have conflict to make the story work. Good verse evil is an interesting story; good sitting around doing nothing is boring.
Finally, if you’re upset that Che is a work of fiction that happens to be well-done in the eyes of Mr. Nolte, then I sure hope you don’t watch anything but the History Channel and read nothing but biographies. Because all fictions movies are lies. The only difference is this one pretends to be true (like any Michael Moore movie), but educated, intelligent people know it’s B.S. It’s no different than watching The Dark Knight or Forrest Gump.
Which one of Stone’s films was “funded” by Hugo Chavez? The only real reason W was funded by a studio was because a) Stone had a low budget b)World Trade Center stayed under budget and made money. As underwhelming as W was as an artistic film and at the box office, because Stone didn’t go nuts with his budget it still made money.
As for the funding of Che, I’m not sure how Soderbergh did that exactly. The film actually had a very low budget compared to direct studio projects. What I do know is that the film was unable to find a real studio distribution deal after it was shown at several festivals. I’m not entirely sure that Soderbergh is going to do the DVD/Theatrical Run/On Demand simultaneoulsy like he did with Bubble a few years back.
I’m rambling, but I must repeat that what Soderberg is doing with Che is not at all akin to Riefenstahl or Eisenstein.
SYN, what are you talking about with King Lear being “rewritten”? Do you mean when Kurosawa filmed Lear as a Japanese warlord epic called Ran?
Mr. Nolte…Che was not a doctor! That’s a myth exposed many times by Humberto Fantova over at frontpagemagazine.com. In a scathing review of the History Channel’s documentary, Fontova notes, “Despite numerous attempts nobody has managed to locate any record of Ernesto Guevara’s medical degree. Shortly after his capture, Che admitted to his captor’s commander, Captain Gary Prado, that he (Che) was not a doctor, but “had some knowledge of medicine.”
I haven’t seen “Che” and don’t intend to.
But I HAVE seen numerous brilliant films that distorted the truth, or bent the truth to further the director’s ideology.
To use one example, I think the central premise of Oliver Stone’s “JFK” is preposterous at best… but I sat through that film for three hours, engrossed from beginning to end.
Conservatives can and SHOULD dismiss the notion that there was a massive conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy. I WANTED to hate the film, and to dismiss it as the work of a deranged, paranoid commie. But you know what? I couldn’t! For all its dishonesty, “JFK” was the work of a master filmmaker, at the peak of his talents. A critic who pretends otherwise is not worth listening to.
“Che” may be a repulsive masterpiece in the same way.
My wife knew Che. Her family hid Fidel’s battalions on their coffee farms in Oriente province. Che was a psychopath whose own men were terrifed of him. They never knew when his temper would explode and
he would shoot one of them. A movie praising him is an obscenity.
It’s about perspective folks…
I know of a patriotic, conservative American who was saddened by the toppling of Saddam’s statue. He is a sculptor.
I pretty much avoid movies that are alleged to be “true” or “based on a true story” because of too much artistic license. I would rather watch a bad fictional movie than a good “true” movie that I know isn’t.
Jake was here said: “Art, even well-made art, in the service of an evil cause is not good art.”
I couldn’t agree more with that statement.
I think back on Mr. Nolte’s opinions on “Munich”. Now, I really don’t care what he believes or writes, but I think it’s interesting that he completely dismisses that film based on some moral ambiguity he saw in it … but embraces this love letter to a murderer based on its filmmaking chops.
Of course, maybe he didn’t see any artistic merits in “Munich”. There’s no way I want to ignite a “Munich” debate now … it’s just what hit me as I read this review.
“The man’s a liar and a filmmaker whose work I haven’t much admired, ironically, until now.” No irony here, just a bit of moral confusion.
The issue is one of critical moral maturity. In the matter of a film grossly misrepresenting an historical figure of such notorious turpitude and false legend as Che, to say you were “swept up” in the story may be an admirably candid admission but also seems to indicate a certain critical moral lapse. Something to keep in mind if you expect more from a film critic — such as resistance to such seductions and degradations.
I heard that Soderbergh shot this with a Red camera system. Am I the only who finds that ironic. I am more curious how the ‘Film’ looks than the actual content.
SYN: “Speaking of Lear, the Left even has the audacity to rewrite Shakespeare by adding scenes which Shakespeare never wrote all for POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY.”
Gadzooks sire, thousest be correct.
I just checked this line from King Lear (the best Bard none):
I grow, I prosper; Now Gods stand up for Bastards.
It has been Politically Bastardized to:
I grow, I prosper; Now Gods stand up for the spawn of non-tradional families be they transgenderd, single moms or inter-species.
I think it works quite well?
Watch your back, buddy. Your “readers” are the direct descendants of the morons who turned the lions against the Christians. Can’t you hear the growling in the background?
John does not need defending, however, those who expect him to fudge his reviews just because the subject matter stinks (can we say “sucks” here?)
are doing a disservice to John and to cinema. How can we believe his reviews if he has to be a propaganda reviewer for conservatives? You can’t pay me to see “Che” but I do need to know whether it’s good cinema or not. Let Nolte review; we use the reviews to decide if we want to see the movie.
Thirty-three days after opening, total gross as reported by BoxOfficeMojo.com is $293,708. The people’s academy has spoken.
If only Jason Apuzzo had helmed this project! That would be a classic.
Okay, I will speak up here, because I admired John for having the guts to write about the movie he saw. For a true cinephile, there are a lot of movies like this, no matter which side of the aisle you are on. Someone brought up The Birth of a Nation, a movie so racist it prompted a man named William Simmons to revive the Ku Klux Klan. It is also a stunningly beautiful and important work of art, a landmark in cinema. As is Riefenstahl’s Olympia, Eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible Part 1, Kalatazov’s Soy Cuba … I could add some movies that are problematic for a feminist, I mean, the list goes on.
John is looking at the film’s language, its story, its style and presentation. You can’t ignore that, not if you have any aspirations to be a real critic, let alone an artist, right or left. Nor can you accuse John of ignoring the political implications. There’s no way anyone came away from his review thinking that he admired Che Guevara. He’s talking about the Soderbergh movie as film, and he is also fulfilling his duty to explain what repulses him about the film’s POV.
I thought this review took guts.
And I’m going to add one more thing. When John complains about the Iraq-themed movies he despises, what he is usually saying is that the movie is didactic. It’s advocacy, with all the elements stacked and a little Aesop-like conclusion affixed. What I see here in the comments is the viewpoint that a movie has to advance a preconceived agenda or it’s worthless. I may not agree with John on a lot, okay a WHOLE lot of stuff, but I think we both agree that’s the death of cinema.
[...] Hollywood » Blog Archive » Review: Che unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptA lie so afraid of its own shadow [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.