a gut statement on politics in greece
MICHAtL SMITH - . . . „
“Z" tells the story of the assas
sination of Gregorios Lambrakis, a
deputy of the Greek EDA (Union of the
Democratic Left) in 1963. These are
the facts: Members of a fanatical
right wing organization murdered
Lambrakis. Some government offi
cials were apparently involved in the
plot. The police tried to cover up,
dismissing the affair as an unfortunate
traffic accident.^ Popular sentiment
was aroused in Greece, however, and
eventually the government of Presi
dent Caramanlis fell. Those directly
involved in the murder were sentenced
to rather short prison terms. George
Papandreou tookover the government,
but, six months later, there was a
coup d’etat. The former Prosecutor
Generjtl under Caramanlis, who had
been forced to resign by Papandreou
because of his possible connection
with the Lambrakis murder, replaced
Papandreou. The general and colonel
who had been implicated in the plot
were then “cleared” of all charges.
These facts are the basis of “Z,”
but the film is no documentary, at
least not until the very end. Instead,
it follows the well-established fic
tional format of the typical mystery
thriller. The good gfuys and the bad
guys are delineated at the outset.
The assassinated deputy is pictured
as larger than life, while the mur
derers are perverts and dupes. The
general and colonel, who are behind
the plot, appear as sinister buffoons.
This opening section of the film, I
think, presents such stereotypes that
it would not be dramatically success
ful were it not for the hyperactive
camera work and crisp editing that
maintains suspense until the deputy
is attacked the second time. After
this point, however, the pace sags
and some flaws in the film become
particularly apparent. While the depu
ty is in a coma, his wife arrives.
Overly emotional scenes ensue. She
walks about her husband’s hotel room,
for example, sniffing his shaving lo
tion and being generally distraught.
Short, two or three second flash
backs are inserted as she thinks back
to her dying husband’s caress and to
her daughter’s answering the phone
to take the terrible message about
the “accident.”
This overt sentimentality serves no
real purpose, and it is accompanied
by some gimmickry. When the deputy
finally dies, a brief shot through the
door of the operating room shows the
doctor throwing a sheetover the body.
It is repeated three times, with the
doctor casting the sheet in dramatic
fashion.
This sort of emotional heavyhand-
edness is evident elsewhere in the
film in the u^ of sound. As the
camera follows the two murderers
shortly before the crime, the sound
of the deputy’s speech, being broad
cast to the restless crowd outside the
hall, is overlaid in so pointed a fashion
as to make the whole sequence seem
contrived. “The poor are manipu
lated,” he is saying. “Now it’s as if
it’s every manfor himself.” And also,
just before the deputy walks through
the angry mob to get to the lecture
hall a thumping heart beat intrudes
on the sound track.
Later in the film, though, the pre
sentation becomes more direct.
Costa-Gavras exploits the detective
motif to its fullest as the investiga
ting magistrate, pla,yed with appro
priate woodenness by Trintignant,
puts toKether the oieces of the puz
zle, catches the suspects in their
lies, and presses charges despite the
danger to his career and life. This
action sets up the audience in fine
fashion. We become engrossed in the
unraveling of the murder mystery
plot and are savoring the dual satis
faction of having the plot fully re
vealed and also seeing the real vil
lains humiliated.
But here the main body of the film
abruptly stops. A brief epilogue fol
lows. Not only is the optimistic con
clusion reversed, but the very form
of the medium changes. We are rudely
snatched from the comfortable frame
of the fictional murder mystery and
instead hit with straight documentary
techniques of slides and narration.
The effect is startling, and it’s this
epilogue that lifts the film well above
the level of hackneyed entertainment
(or propaganda, as one frate Agnew-
type reviewer has labeled it).
This ending, and other parts of
Ihe film too, reminds me of “Blow-
Up.” The plots of both films recon
struct crimes and rely on photographs
and photographers as a way of sepa
rating (or blurring) reality and mere
suspicion. Both end by pulling back
from the central action in an uncon
ventional way. But, while Antonioni
concludes with a comment on the illu
siveness of reality, Costa-Gavras is
after something different. Reality is
obvious at the end of “Z.” What’s
lacking is Truth, with an intentional,
moralizing capital T, and Justice.
Although this is not an actor’s pic
ture, Marcel Bozzufi as Vago the
homosexual murderer and Geroge
Geret as the witness are outstand
ing. Also the camera work is re
markable, employing not only a frene
tic series of different camera angles
in almost every scene but also a lot
of close-ups with the camera track
ing, which puts the viewer continually
in the center of the action. (In one
brief fight scene in the back of a
truck, the camera is variously posi
tioned in the truck bed, in the cab,
in the bed looking forward into the
cab, on the front fender, in a trailing
car, with the final scene composed
of these shots all scrambled together.)
The music by Theodorakis, who did
“Zorba the Greek,” is also fine.
All this means that “Z” should be
seen. It’s heavyhanded in places, and
it’s not, as the New York Film Critics
have it, the best picture of ’69, but
it’s a pov/erful gut statement on the
political situation in Greece and the
potential for similar occurrences
Rer'rinted from the Carolina Anvil.
Feb. 28, 1970.
•Z' » DIRECTED BY COSTA-GAVRAS *
SCREEN PLAY BY JORGE SEMPRUN AND
COSTA-GAVRAS FROM A NOVEL BY VISSILI
VASSILIKOS * MUSIC BY MIKIS THEODORAKIS
• PHOTOGRAPHY BY RAOUL COUTARD •
EDITED BY FRANCOISE BONNET * STARRING
YVES MONTAND, IRENE PAPAS, AND JEAN-
LOUB TRINTIGNANT.
elsewhere. In addition, there’s the
bonus of enough action to full^ satis
fy the James Bond entertainment
types and enough screen goodies to
. interest the film buffs.
*
4-
*
*
*
»
»
»
*
»
♦
4-
4
4
»
♦
»
»
*
*
♦
*
»
♦
»
»
*
*
★
»
*
♦
^ Nature's weak have already died,
♦stream's are clogged with wastes from
♦manfe industrial enterpriser. Her skiei
j£i-e 'JO-. I'le with man's carbon fumes
♦and her var:t countryside suffers from
^excessive litterinfr. No lonfrer does
jnature have the aesthetic apoeal she
jonce had. But more imnortant, soon
Jsho will be unable to support the life
♦cycler, she once did.
J Man in his naterialistic endeavors ,
♦has offset nature's ecological bal-
Jance. All youth of al] nai.i^ns are
Jcryinr out. They feel the frustration
)^of f ■r'inr future extermination of all
♦mankind. It is ‘operative that not
♦ ,iust v.'e the youtl?, but all people
Jacknowledire the ecoloe'ical realities
jof contemporary life. Should the pro-
Jblems of our environment continue to
»be nef>:lected, earth will be known by
»future inhabitants as "the dead civi-
♦lization".
4. Although presently we at Elon are not
♦a:' heavily infer:ted with the problem
»of pollution as are the more metro-
Jool;s areas, we will soon b« confront-?
♦ed with massive anmounts of chemicals
Jin ni;r waters, skier;, and bodies.
JMnny of these chemicals cause birth
^de^’pcta, cancer, mental disorders and
Jvari -^us other deterients to our health.
J If the present trends of pollution
Jarp left unefTected, all life on earth
♦ will c«=ase to exist in 35 years.
J As studi-'nts, we at Elon have a
♦ com”'’tment to our fellow man and to
'Jour environr-'ent. Soon we will he
Jtakinr ecolofrical actio'-s to alienate
♦ the po31uti-n situation.
V uirn-r '
He)