July 7, 2005
Thanks to the Fourth of July I’ve been on vacation. So I’ve decided to do something I haven’t done in a year – cover only one movie. Since I’m covering just one film, I decided that it better be a damned fine film.
I had some ideas and I got it into my head that I would like to do something classic like METROPOLIS or BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN. Then I realized that I am at my parents’ house and all I have at my disposal is the friendly neighborhood Blockbuster.
So I go in and the selection isn’t as bad as I remember or expected (even in this relatively small Blockbuster). The foreign section contained a surprising amount of films I’ve previously covered.
But the most noteworthy find was actually in the new releases. There was a Miramax version of INFERNAL AFFAIRS. That itself is unremarkable since I knew Miramax had theatrical and home video rights to the film. But the problem was that in between muted pictures of the film’s stars Tony Leung and Andy Lau (which blended into the background so as to be practically unnoticeable), was a giant picture of a hot Asian woman with a gun who never appears in the movie. It wasn’t even some sexier picture of one of the actresses in the film, but some totally unrelated woman I’ve never seen before. I was pretty horrified by the whole event and wonder about the legality of such a thing (are there no actual laws about truth in advertising?).
 |
Anyway, back to Blockbuster – So I wanted a Classic. But needless to say, Blockbuster carried no silent films whatsoever so my original ideas were out the window. In fact, I found it difficult to find any films in any section older than 1967 (although there were a few). So I choose a film that is a Classic and was made after 1967 and fortunately happens to be foreign. It was the Oscar nominated film – Z. Directed by the Greek director Costa-Gavras (no first name), it was made in French and shot in Algeria.
The film starts with the bold statement: "Any resemblance to real events, to persons living or dead, is not accidental. It is deliberate." The movie represented real events that took place in Greece in the early 60s (although I’m sure when they happened, it was in the Greek language but alas). But having it be in French and shot in Algeria helps give it a sense of placelessness. These political altercations are common in many places and this lack of setting helps universalize one country’s folly.
 |
The film is about the death of an activist (Yves Montand – LE CERCLE ROUGE) on the night of his big rally. His people had heard his life was threatened and tried to get the police to do something. They showed up to keep the peace but did nothing to help him. The rally nearly turns into a riot, before and after this event, when not everyone can fit into the hall and protesters abound in the streets. I’m sure if you pay careful enough attention you can figure out which groups are the right wing or the left wing or the communists or whatever, but I could never figure out what group believed in what. Which was really for the best, because it doesn’t matter what their extremist beliefs are. This furthers the sense of universality because you can just plug in the political situation of your own country and feel like you are watching a movie about your homeland.
I will now use one of the most overly used phrases of our time – “This film is as relevant now as it was then.” By which I mean it’s a film about various outspoken and zealous political groups and extremists and these days we sure have some of those. Political unrest seems to be a simple fact of life. Things may calm down for a whie but they always seem to come back. People believe so fiercely in an idea that they don’t even blink when asked to kill for it.
 |
The film also stars Jean-Louis Trintignant (who soon after goes on to be terrific in THE CONFORMIST, a film that I believe can cite Z as an influence) as a investigating judge who stumbles upon this case. While it may seem obvious that the event was an assassination, the police have declared it an accident. That the supposed assassins were simply drunk. Everyone’s alibi checks out but the judge does his job plain and simple. And as new witnesses come forward and the stories of the suspects gets more suspect he reluctantly continues on to find the truth. And he finds a bigger conspiracy that expected and never backs down although never shows any passion and zeal for his work. He’s simply an honest man.
Watching this film immediately brought to mind American equivalents like ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN and JFK. An event happens, an official story is released but someone finds out there is more to it and is determined to get to the bottom of it. Like those films, this one is told relatively realistically and slowly goes through each step of the story and the process. And like those films, even if you know what the outcome of the story is already, you can’t help at be outraged by the actions taken by people in power.
 |
Yves Montand and Jean-Louis Trintignant were pretty well known European stars. And to give the film even more power, Greek actress Irene Papas was cast as the activist’s wife. She was a bit of an odd addition because it doesn’t seem like she actually speaks French. But she added a real emotion center to a movie that often otherwise felt a bit cold. For both her and the character of her husband Costa-Gavras imployed an interesting flashback narrative device. Such as in the recent film RUN LOLA RUN, the camera would look into their eyes and show flashes of their past. It helped flesh out a very straightforward story to see what these figures remembered and thought about each other.
The stylistic aspect of the flashbacks fit in very well with the overall style of the film. Bright colors, some instance of fast cutting and a generally exciting visual style help elicit the feeling of the 60s (or what I imagine it was like since I wasn’t there). You can feel like you are part of the demonstration. The excitement and fear are both tangible.
 |
In the interest of getting a full picture of the events there are not only the character of the activist an all of his compatriots, and also of the assassins and some of their group but also of the police and even a reporter (Jacques Perrin – CINEMA PARADISO, THE CHORUS). The large amount of minor characters makes the film a bit confusing at first watch but helps make the event seem large, affecting many. The reporter character is relentless, a seeming expert in taking pictures of people while not pointing the camera directly at them (he holds it by his side so they do not know they are being photographed). Nothing is off limits for him in his search for a great story – he finds his way into the bedroom of a window shortly after her husband has died and into the hospital room of a protected witness. A great portrayal of a reporter – both heartless and out for himself but also the bringer of justice. Perrin shows us a charasmatic chameleon with no scruples but you kind of like him anyway.
The corrupt policemen characters are often played for comedy in this film. It doesn’t lighten the weight of their actions but attempts to make them look like buffoons in general. Throughout the film they employ a constant analogy outlined in the opening speech that shows their particular outlook on the world.
The ending is the most startling part. The actual narrative ends on a happy note, a note of victory but the cards at the end that tells you what happens to everyone and emphasizes that their revolution was temporary – simply a fleeting moment of victory for the common man that it’s unclear that the common men even knew about. These end cards also reveal the meaning of the title which will shock you in it’s own way.
This film was a big critical success at the time of it’s release – nominated for 5 Academy Awards inclusing best picture – winning best foreign and best editing and was nominated and won many other awards at Cannes, the Golden Globes, the BAFTAs and elsewhere. It’s easy to see, in 1969, that a film so abashedly political would be so successful.
But the film really holds up. It’s visual style is innovative and it’s story is fascinating. If there is any complaint is that the film, with a running time over two hours, can seem a bit slow (I noticed yawns not only from me but also from the people I was watching it with). I think it was important to tell the story as matter of fact-ly as possible but it does seem to drag things out. Occasional spurts of action occur to keep you awake and interested and if you’re well rested while watching it, which I admit I was not, then you can spend all those extra moments in meaningful contemplation of the heavy subject matter. The only other problem is that the sound is terrible. There’s a 5.1 mix of the mono soundtrack but it still sounds bad.
And if you’re really industrious, the history presented in the movie is complex and interesting. The American government supported this militaristic Greek government at the time and perhaps caused a coup or two. The history of American intervention, whether secret or public, goes back quite a long time and this is a less well known instance of it.
 |
The problem with these political films is that usually only people with similar views actually see them. For whatever Michael Moore’s message was with FARENHEIT 9/11 – the only people who saw it were people who already agreed with him. He wasn’t about to change the opinions of a nation, I’d be surprised if he changed the opinion of one person. Z does and doesn’t suffer the same fate. It clearly appeals to activists and modern liberals and they might be the most interested in the story. But since it’s a well crafted film and one that sticks strictly to the facts, it could interest other types of people. It’s hard to argue with the way the story is presented that there were some dishonest elements of the government.
But I have no interest in getting any more political here at Poop Shoot, it could go on all day . I think the real message of this movie and many other overtly political films is believe whatever you want to believe, just be reasonable. Fanaticism and extremism of any kind seems to bred lack of reason. Also, while Blockbuster may be low on the old time classics, they evidently have a small, but vital, stock of new ones.
E-MAIL THE AUTHOR |
ARCHIVES
