Half a year after the restoration of democracy in Argentina, a fragile new government has yet to start legal proceedings against the military leaders who ran the dictatorship using illegal arrests, torture and disappearances. Victims in the tens of thousands. Where should these officers, so impressive in their intimidating uniforms, be tried? Military court? Civil? Government prosecutors? And who’ll take the job and the risk: the threats, the smears, the sheer workload. It all falls to State prosecutor Julio César Strassera (aptly named, no?), forced to staff up with legal aides fresh out of law schools since so many of the more experienced lawyers lean fascist. A classic moral dilemma story, seasoned with family drama, tough investigations in the field and dramatic courtroom revelations taking up the second half. Effective historical stuff, consistently interesting and clearly developed even for non-Argentineans. But, oh dear, such ‘solid citizen’ filmmaking. The film not only takes place in 1985, it might have been shot then. When the end credits roll, naturally with period photos of real protagonists, you expect the title card to read: Directed by Alan Pakula . . . or maybe Sidney Pollack. (Count your blessings Stanley Kramer never comes to mind.) In many ways, this period feel represents quite a witty response to the subject matter, and it largely works. But was it intentional from director/co-writer Santiago Mitre? Even his choice of actors, perennial award nominee Ricardo Darín as State Prosecutor and Peter Lanzani as his untested assistant, might easily have been Gene Hackman & Willem Dafoe as they were for director Alan Parker in MISSISSIPPI BURNING back in 1988 . . . when this film probably should have been made.
SCREWY THOGHT OF THE DAY: One thing Mitre doesn’t shy from is showing just how popular Fascism could be with the masses. Something the movies generally don’t like to confront.
No comments:
Post a Comment