Skip to main content

Always blame the USA! Even if you’re wrong!


(SPOILERS) It’s easy to see why Z received the attention it did, including a rare Best Picture nomination for a non-English language film. Quite apart from being a compelling if rather dry conspiracy thriller, its fictionalised events preceded the then-current military junta in Greece, and if there’s one thing Hollywood can be relied on for – providing of course they have retired to a safe distance, brave Sean Penn aside – it’s sticking it to the fascists.

Ultimately, Z is framed against one great Hegelian conflagration of left vs right and military juntas vs democracy; when all is said and done, the state remains consolidated and affirmed, and the main players have blown away in the wind. The trick is not to be enmired in the polarities, especially difficult when it comes to the extremity of this situation.

In the minutiae of events, however, Z is frequently gripping, stirring and inspiring of outrage at machinations unfolding unchecked and even rewarded; the closing narration(s) affirm that those instrumental in bringing indictments in the murder of Yves Montand’s pacifist deputy – based on Grigoris Lambrakis – received minor sentences at worst, eventually ending up in positions of greater power, while those who opposed the same were murdered or imprisoned themselves. In contrast to the movie’s downbeat coda, the actual narrative offered initial hope, whereby the right-wing PM resigned, and the opposition were elected; this then fell apart in 1965, with a constitutional crisis triggered by the king getting rid of the PM. The king then appointed an interim government, with a military coup doing for any chance of democrats getting back in at the 1967 elections.

Z’s verité documentary style inspired many, including William Friedkin on The French Connection, Steven Soderbergh on Traffic and Oliver Stone (Paul Greengrass loves it too, but the less said about his status as a propaganda merchant for hire, the better). Indeed, Pauline Kael, who called Zalmost intolerably exciting”, nursed qualms about the Gavras approach, pondering the use of the same techniques by a “smart Fascist filmmaker… against the left of centre”. Thus, when The French Connection came along, it wasn’t so much ideology that proved a sticking point as techniques she considered were “used as ends in themselves” (rather than, say, to show how you a Fascist conspiracy works): “The purpose of the brutality in Z was moral… Here you love it, you wait for it – that’s all there is”.

It’s fair to say, then, that the impact of Costa-Gavras’ film was as much down to stylistic reasons as its rousing subject matter; you can see how innovative he was by comparing Z to Hitchcock’s attempts at realism, also in a political thriller based on actual events, in the same year’s Topaz. The rare moments in Topaz that work tend to be ones where Hitch’s stylistic excesses are to the fore. Kael wondered “Is it valid, morally, to turn actual political drama… into political melodrama, like Z?” What she was surely actually asking was whether it’s okay to do so without a respectful distance from the subject matter; she wouldn’t have batted an eyelid if the film had been based on events set fifty years earlier, or two hundred. As such, I’d suggest the issue is less one of morality than insufficient perspective.

Gavras follows the events leading to the assassination, as issues over the location of a nuclear disarmament rally – more Hegelian conflicts – escalate when police-employed goons attack leafleteers; the deputy is then fatally beaten by Vago (Marcel Bozzuffi). For me, Z only shits into truly gripping gear with subsequent investigation by Jean-Louis Trintignant’s stalwart prosecutor, in the face of veiled threats and attempts to kibosh his witnesses.

As Kael recognised, there are broad strokes here, beneath the realist “sheen”, such that “on the one hand, there are the weak and corrupt and degenerate, the bullies and criminals… the Fascists. On the other, there are the gentle, intelligent, honourable pacifists… humanitarians”. But the stylistic immediacy of the picture does much to paper over such concerns, and also ensures its frequent quirks are less egregious.

Indeed, Gavras has a sure eye on absurdity from the off, with a police speech comparing mildew prevention to the treatment of leftist leanings, bemoaning the outbreak of isms… and correlating to them with solar activity: “sunspots start to multiply on the face of the golden orb”. The military testimony is laced with hypocritical irony – “As if it’s not enough our country has been invaded by long-haired atheists and addicts. Now you want to cast doubt on our armed forces, the sole healthy elements in our country” – and the General’s (Pierre Dux) excuse for attending the Bolshoi ballet on the night of the assassination is particularly funny (“Not for love of the dance. I’m not one of those perverts. It was a chance to spot some Reds”).

Also amusing is Georges Geret’s witness, boshed on the head but undissuaded in his determination to give evidence. Funnier still is Bozzuffi’s gay paedophile assassin (as far as the movie is concerned, he appears to be both) Which he oughtn’t to be, obviously, but it’s a very funny performance, mostly because it’s so utterly unapologetic (especially when the assassin is coming over inept, such as his plaster cast disguise). Asked about his rape conviction, he replies it wasn’t really valid: “I was a counsellor at a boy scout camp”. Of his “broken” leg, he protests “It was a rich man’s fracture!” The BFI picked up on the generally iffy portrayal when discussing homosexuality as “evidence of... wickedness… Costa-Gavras’ Z… went one worse [than Rosa Klebb in From Russia with Love], featuring a gay pederast as an assassin”.

Z doesn’t delve deeply into the historical context of the country’s political strife, but in per another of Gavras’ amusing lines, one should “Always blame the USA! Even if you’re wrong!” It’s implied there is CIA involvement behind the scenes, most especially due to the threat made to dismantle foreign military bases on Greek soil. US involvement extended – in this context anyway – back to 1947 and the Truman Doctrine, whereby they were keen to support authoritarian governments in like-minded jurisdictions in the face of possible Soviet influences; the US was thus instrumental in ensuring the communists’ defeat in the civil war (1949). And in respect of their response to a potential “extra-parliamentary” solution in the 1967 election the response was “It would depend”. Which is fairly de rigueur; democracy is a must, unless it’s against our best interests.

In Kael’s celebration of Z, she commented “There hasn’t been an exciting anti-fascists suspense film around for a long time”, but it left me wondering what, specifically, she was hearkening back to in that “sub-genre”. Notably, however, she had no truck with the logical extrapolation from Z’s situation. She was thus more than happy to dismiss the “conspiracy fantasies” about JFK’s assassination, and sceptical of writer Jorge Semprun’s assertion “it happens everywhere”. Sobering to recognise how immediately a writer fell on the tediously obligatory denial of the conspiracy option even back then: “One can easily recognise the psychological attraction, for both left and right, of spinning conspiratorial systems that make things grand and orderly”. One can also easily recognise the psychological attraction for denying them. Just ask Mr Blair.

Z was nominated for five Oscars (it was the second foreign-language picture, after Grand Illusion, to be nominated for Best Picture), missing out on Picture, Director and Adapted Screenplay (from Vsassilis Vassilikos’ 1966 novel) but winning Best Foreign Language Film and, Best Film Editing. I’m mostly familiar with Costa-Gavras’ subsequent English-language career, which was (I’m using the past tense as it appears to have been abandoned), by and large disappointing. His third film will remain is his most iconic, as is often the case, and in contrast to the crowned cowboy, would have been a very fitting winner; in the event, it would be another fifty years before a foreign-language film would take that prize.

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi