[4.2]
Riveting. A seductive mix of cinematic elements (the Morricone-influenced score, the sweeping wide action shots) with documentary-style realism. While director Costa-Gavras is almost universally known for the film Z, I had never heard of this other terrorism film of his, which may indeed be better. Even though STATE OF SIEGE deals with a nationwide crisis and features epic scenes of hundreds of people, much of the movie feels like a hermetic, personal affair. And that’s probably thanks to the plot, in which three government officials are kidnapped by a terrorist group and held hostage as the group tries to negotiate with the government to release their comrades. The most riveting scenes take place in the group’s underground hiding spot, where they interrogate the American, an official for USAID, and the tense conversation eventually reveals just how complicit he is in supporting the police’s brutal tactics against the group. Costa-Gavras does an exceptional job of assembling the various elements of the story, which whiplash between the terrorist cell as they decide how to deal with the hostages and the reporters and government leaders who are dealing with this national crisis. The footage and editing are crisp and clear, with the ample use of location shooting and hundreds of extras helping to completely immerse us in the story. The plot is a thinly veiled re-enactment of real events involving the Tupamaros guerrillas in Uruguay, though filmed in Chile for obvious political reasons. The scenes often have the feel of a procedural, especially the initial kidnapping sequence, which shows each group of guerrillas as they set-up their traps and perform their complicated switching of cars and decoy bystanders. The intricate process, shown over and over, is fascinating in its detailed depictions of well-executed planning. Though Costa-Gavras clearly takes the side of the guerrilla fighters, showing numerous scenes of the police abuse and state violence that wreak havoc on the leftists, he also doesn’t shy away from forcing us to question the terrorist tactics. There are lengthy scenes in which the characters debate whether or not to kill an official, after it becomes obvious the government will not give in to their demands. Though they are plotting murder, their conversations and unease with this decision gain our sympathies. This group has the courage of their convictions and make their decision through democratic means. In a fascinating sequence, one of the guerillas boards a bus, waiting for other members of the cell to show up to cast their vote on whether to execute the hostage. These guerillas don’t know each other, as it is imperative to keep secrecy as much as possible for safety, so they have to use a coded phrase to recognize each other on the bus. Like the kidnapping scene, we see the scenario of someone boarding the bus, saying the password, and then casting their vote over and over. The repetition reinforces the organizational structure.
Though the film’s visual style is relatively clear, Costa-Gavras does jump around in time frequently, showing us flashbacks of the government official’s first arrival in Montevideo, then further back to show his actions in other Latin American nations. The sequence of events can get slightly confusing, but enough of it is understandable by the end. As the only real star in the movie, Yves Montand is fantastic as the calm American official Philip Michael Santore. He is treated well enough by his captors and he responds in kind. For most of the movie, Santore and his masked interrogator engage in histrionic-free conversation, in which Santore defends his role as a mere consultant with the Uruguayan police force. The interrogator is clever though, never revealing that he already knows the answers to the questions he is asking, but every time he suggests Santore is lying, Santore responds that the evidence against him is mere coincidence. Finally though, Santore realizes that the guerrillas already know everything about him and the secret American program of training Latin American police in brutally repressive techniques and assisting them in clamping down on leftist dissent. With the jig up, Santore lashes out, blasting the group as filthy communists, and proudly defending the violence used against them. This scene is riveting, as Montand’s cool, mild-mannered performance is shattered so abruptly, revealing the raging anger of a right-wing thug.
STATE OF SIEGE is filled with suspenseful and violent scenes, and I was continually shocked at the sudden twists in the plot. Though I am aware of the history of mass killing and disappearances, it is a very different thing to see it. Whole groups of leftists are gunned down in the street, in public, with no repercussions. The assassinations and executions are performed by government officials who make only the slightest effort to hide their involvement. They know the USA has their back, and that they can do whatever they want. There is a brief moment in which it looks like the government is backed into a corner, forced by international pressures (because of the various nationalities of the hostages) to concede to the terrorist’s demands, but in the end they stay firm, and with a slim opportunity to destroy the guerrilla cell (after tracking down one member), they take it. In the final scene, we see a new American official step off a plane (in a scene that mirrors the same events of the past), sent to replace the murdered Santore, with the cycle of violence sure to continue. Costa-Gavras’ film is one of the few to show us the inner workings of a guerrilla cell, to understand their methods and also their ideology, and to allow us to gain sympathy for their mission. We don’t want them to kill Santore, but by the time they come to their decision to do it, we understand the rationality of it. It has to be done. While most movies revel in the chaos and unpredictability of terrorist violence, Costa-Gavras has us question which violence should be labeled as “terrorism” (the kidnappings by the guerrillas or the state’s assault and murder of its own citizens), and lays bare the highly rational system behind the fighting. This is a powerful film, and one that is sadly still relevant today.
burning retina 