The Night Of The Long Knives- Costa-Garvas’ Z- A Film Review
DVD Review
By Sam Lowell
Z, starring Yves Montand, Jean-Louis Trintignant, directed by Costa-Garvas, 1969
No question in this wicked old world it is a tough dollar in many places to be an oppositional politician, to expect to be able to practice a democratic way of dealing with politics in peace, to expect by the force of argument and organization that you can, if conditions dictate such an outcome, take the reins of government-peacefully. More often than not, certainly more often than we who live in functioning democracies have come to expect those expectations are foolhardy, can only lead to bad ends. That is the premise behind the film under review, Costa-Garvas’ Z, a thinly veiled story about the pre-conditions for the military coup that occurred in Greece in the late 1960s, the night of the long knives.
Z was the kind of film, an activist’s film that was calculated to make any red-blooded leftist see red, hell, any consistent democrat rage at the screen. Call down the heavens on the government vilified in the film and those within the government who were probably even then plotting to take the democratic breathe out of Greek politics. In those days, those 1960s days when half the world, certainly half the young “first world,” were enflamed against the American government-driven Vietnam War this kind of film had a ready-made audience. If you wanted to continue to carry any leftist credentials, wanted to be considered “hip” or “with in” in youth nation you had to have seen the film-and drawn the requisite conclusions. Oh yeah, and rage at the injustices portrayed on the screen too. Don’t forget that part.
Here’s the source of the rage. A humanist oppositional politician, a doctor, played by Yves Montand then the perfect actor to play an oppositional leader, in a European country had been scheduled to give a major speech favoring nuclear disarmament at a large arena. (The film was in French with English subtitles and the country for obvious reasons was not identified as Greece due to the recent coup which occurred during just prior to the release.) At the last minute the venue was denied the organizers by a sleigh of hand of governmental agents and from there the wicked hand of the government, the military/state security parts of it anyway held the upper hand. The die was cast. The good doctor was allowed to give his speech at a small hall where governmental agents using private right-wing thugs gathered to create some kind of scene. Do bodily harm to the doctor and whoever else they could bloody. The thugs were successful, maybe successful beyond their wildest dreams, since they were able to club the doctor to the ground and flee. The doctor, mortally wounded, would later at the hospital succumb to his wounds.
From that point the political thriller part takes over as various agents of the government work at cross-purposes. Some, mainly the military and state security agents, working to cover up, plausibly cover-up the crime, make it seem the work of independent thugs. On the other side, mainly in the person of the state prosecutor, play by Jean-Louis Trintignant, and a few members of the press, were those trying to get to the bottom of the crime, to let the rule of law have its say. And one has to say that they were building a strong case for the action against the doctor being a political assassination as one clue after another turns up to fold the best laid plans of the conspirators. Hell, the prosecutor did such a thorough job that he was able to get a fistful of indictments against half the state security apparatus in the area. Finally a little simple rough-hewn justice in this wicked old world. Even the remaining oppositional leaders took the decisions as good coin when they told the doctor’s widow the news.
But here is where the part toward the end of film occurred when you wanted to throw your shoes at the screen. As time passed the whole process was reversed. Not only reversed but most of the oppositional leaders, the state prosecutor, and anybody associated with trying to bring justice to the issue were killed in very strange circumstances. And naturally the military/state security agents walked. The night of long knives had begun. But you know every once in a while such defeats get atoned for as the dead leaders’ memories are not totally erased from the memory of the masses. Yeah, every once in a while Z, “he (or she) lives.”
DVD Review
By Sam Lowell
Z, starring Yves Montand, Jean-Louis Trintignant, directed by Costa-Garvas, 1969
No question in this wicked old world it is a tough dollar in many places to be an oppositional politician, to expect to be able to practice a democratic way of dealing with politics in peace, to expect by the force of argument and organization that you can, if conditions dictate such an outcome, take the reins of government-peacefully. More often than not, certainly more often than we who live in functioning democracies have come to expect those expectations are foolhardy, can only lead to bad ends. That is the premise behind the film under review, Costa-Garvas’ Z, a thinly veiled story about the pre-conditions for the military coup that occurred in Greece in the late 1960s, the night of the long knives.
Z was the kind of film, an activist’s film that was calculated to make any red-blooded leftist see red, hell, any consistent democrat rage at the screen. Call down the heavens on the government vilified in the film and those within the government who were probably even then plotting to take the democratic breathe out of Greek politics. In those days, those 1960s days when half the world, certainly half the young “first world,” were enflamed against the American government-driven Vietnam War this kind of film had a ready-made audience. If you wanted to continue to carry any leftist credentials, wanted to be considered “hip” or “with in” in youth nation you had to have seen the film-and drawn the requisite conclusions. Oh yeah, and rage at the injustices portrayed on the screen too. Don’t forget that part.
Here’s the source of the rage. A humanist oppositional politician, a doctor, played by Yves Montand then the perfect actor to play an oppositional leader, in a European country had been scheduled to give a major speech favoring nuclear disarmament at a large arena. (The film was in French with English subtitles and the country for obvious reasons was not identified as Greece due to the recent coup which occurred during just prior to the release.) At the last minute the venue was denied the organizers by a sleigh of hand of governmental agents and from there the wicked hand of the government, the military/state security parts of it anyway held the upper hand. The die was cast. The good doctor was allowed to give his speech at a small hall where governmental agents using private right-wing thugs gathered to create some kind of scene. Do bodily harm to the doctor and whoever else they could bloody. The thugs were successful, maybe successful beyond their wildest dreams, since they were able to club the doctor to the ground and flee. The doctor, mortally wounded, would later at the hospital succumb to his wounds.
From that point the political thriller part takes over as various agents of the government work at cross-purposes. Some, mainly the military and state security agents, working to cover up, plausibly cover-up the crime, make it seem the work of independent thugs. On the other side, mainly in the person of the state prosecutor, play by Jean-Louis Trintignant, and a few members of the press, were those trying to get to the bottom of the crime, to let the rule of law have its say. And one has to say that they were building a strong case for the action against the doctor being a political assassination as one clue after another turns up to fold the best laid plans of the conspirators. Hell, the prosecutor did such a thorough job that he was able to get a fistful of indictments against half the state security apparatus in the area. Finally a little simple rough-hewn justice in this wicked old world. Even the remaining oppositional leaders took the decisions as good coin when they told the doctor’s widow the news.
But here is where the part toward the end of film occurred when you wanted to throw your shoes at the screen. As time passed the whole process was reversed. Not only reversed but most of the oppositional leaders, the state prosecutor, and anybody associated with trying to bring justice to the issue were killed in very strange circumstances. And naturally the military/state security agents walked. The night of long knives had begun. But you know every once in a while such defeats get atoned for as the dead leaders’ memories are not totally erased from the memory of the masses. Yeah, every once in a while Z, “he (or she) lives.”
Added personal note: From a political perspective Z, or rather the actions of the good doctor and his associates in the film, seem rather naïve, in hindsight of course, although we were not then unfamiliar with military coups and the destruction of oppositional movements by right-wing elements going back as long as democracies, and the democratic ideal, have existed. Saw plenty of such happenings right here in this hemisphere. Immediately after the first time I saw this film aside from the desire to throw shoes at the screen I was probably far more sympathetic to the attempts at non-violent take-over of the government reins, the parliamentary road to political change that was being projected by this oppositional group as the way to effect the political order. Now I would have to say that such attempts in that situation seem at best naïve. The good doctor and his associates, most of them anyway, had too much faith in the rule of law, the respect for civil liberties as against the very open street actions of the right-wing thugs fueled by having important military/state security agents greasing their paths. Once they saw that they were not going to be able to have a mass meeting as a result of the mere flick of the wrist of those who could stop the event there should have been serious thought about holding such a meeting-on that day.
The period of the production of this film, 1968, 1969 was a period when here in democratic America we had a series of political assassinations of basically parliamentary left-wing figures like the Kennedys and Doctor King. Those deaths show that determined actions by individuals and groups cannot be avoided, that leaders can or should fold their tents. Such possibilities now come with that possible price tag. So I am not arguing that in Greece the opposition should have folded their tent for the duration since death haunts every political leader but the coterie around the good doctor here should have done a much better job of thinking about preserving cadre, preserving their leader when thugs were actually on the streets. In the actual event in Greece that failure led not only in the short term to the night of the long knives but crushed, decapitated, a movement for a whole generation. Whatever the good doctor’s protests that the event had to go on wiser heads should have prevailed on this subject. Such little quirks of history show the relationship between the mass leader and masses can turn on dime sometimes. And not always in our favor. Enough said.
No comments:
Post a Comment