matjusm In what could be considered a follow up to his classic Z, Costa Gavras yet again tackles the political thriller genre with great mastery.In Uruguay, an American with a somewhat vague and mysterious background but who is held in high esteem by the ruling powers is kidnapped. The kidnappers start interrogating him and through this backdrop, we are introduced to the struggles between leftist rebels and a right wing government in the Latin American country.As I said before, the film is very similar to one of director Gavras's earlier efforts, Z. Like that film, this too depicts the struggle between two powers, one represented by a US-backed right wing government, the other a slightly leftist liberal resistance movement. Although the government is shown in a bad light here, neither side is overly demonized or depicted heroically. Instead, both have their motives which are ultimately quite noble so the viewer can identify with both. It is this tendency to show both sides of the story that makes Gavras a great storyteller and why both this and Z succeed so well.Like in Z, Gavras likes to keep the camera at a distance giving us a good overview of events like for example riots in the street and how the police deal with them. The film also keeps away from unnecessary subplots and instead focuses on the story, just the way I like it. Music is used minimally and when it is used, it is effective, instead of having a constant background jingle.If you liked Z, you will like this and if you like this, you will like Z. Or if you just like a good intelligent political thriller, this is the film for you.

paulscofield68 I learned of this movie by way of the book "Who Killed Bobby?" by Shane O'Sullivan- a book which strongly suggests that there was a conspiracy in the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. On pages 413-414 of this book, he describes the OPS (Office of Public Safety) which was run by the CIA from 1962 to 1975. It's mission was to train US ally police forces and military officers to improve their effectiveness. During these years, the OPS trained 7,500 senior officers at it's US facilities- this is shown in the film 'State of Siege'- and more than half a million foreign police overseas. One of the central aims of the OPS was to train local officials to effectively deal with "terrorist" threats from the left (and subsequently keep in power/put in power forces on the right). Techniques in torture, assassination, and all the other 'dirty tricks' the CIA (at this time, at least) was famous for, were taught to conservative, right-wing allies in a total of 47 nations. In the case of a retired police chief from Richmond, Indiana- Dan Mitrione (played by Yves Montand in State of Siege)- he took things a bit too far- granted he had his hands full with the Tupamaros. According to O'Sullivan, Mitrione "built a soundproofed room in the cellar of his house (in Montevideo, Uruguay) and demonstrated torture techniques to selected Uruguayan police officers, using beggars taken off the street, some of whom died during the sessions." pg. 414. Mitrone was kidnapped on July 31st, 1970, and 10 days later his body was found in a car. "Mr. Mitrione's devoted service to the cause of peaceful progress in an orderly world will remain as an example for free men everywhere." said a White House press release, and Frank Sinatra and Jerry Lewis visited Richmond, IN to stage a benefit show. Meanwhile, back in Montevideo, the former chief of police intelligence, Alejandro Otero, "confirmed that Mitrione had used 'violent techniques of torture....and a psychology to create despair, such as playing a tape in the next room of women and children screaming and telling prisoners that it was his family being tortured.'" (p.414) These despicable facts are not presented in State of Siege, it should be noted. Otero was a CIA agent, and he spoke only because a close friend of his was a Tupamaros sympathizer...he was demoted for speaking out. This is a fine film and it's very understandable that it's extremely hard to find in the US. It's fair to say that 99% of Americans have no idea what the CIA was up to from 1962-1975...it would be more accurate to say CIA officers were up to because, from what I can tell, there were quite a few 'loose canons' in the CIA at that time...and some of them were willing to do whatever it took to fight political forces emerging from the left (including, of course, forces within the US). See one David Morales as such an example of a CIA loose canon (although it is very hard to get information on him, O'Sullivan says that Morales later went to Montevideo and "took his own murderous revenge on the Tupamaros". It's important to view State of Siege in it's proper historical context: sure you can talk about the cold war, but it's also about an institution infused with right-wing ideology (the CIA) hellbent on getting police and military forces in as many other allies prepared to defeat any leftist challenges to the status quo (ie. in the vast majority of cases, a conservative government). If a government fell into the hands of a leftist, then it had to be taken back for fear that it might fall into the Soviet sphere of influence. But in the end, we need to look at how conservative governments aid "big business" (see 'Missing' for more on this), because in the final analysis, it all comes down to who gets what...money. This film is to radically to the left and airs Americas dirty laundry too much...no wonder it's difficult to find...It's like "Punishment Park" by Peter Watkins. Fortunately now, in this internet age, we can get both films...go ogle 'rap id share (one wo rd) title of film 'etat de siege' and sub titles 'all subs' (one wo rd).

wombat-56 I agree that this film should be released on DVD. It is a great companion piece to Z and Missing.Costa-Gavros managed to produce a stinging indictment of US involvement in South American politics, without drawing his villains as caricatures. His characters, policemen and revolutionaries, come off as profoundly human, flawed but not themselves monsters, though they are involved in monstrous acts. The torture scenes are grueling, and were probably as responsible for the film's official reception.I saw this at the age of 15, when it was in the theaters. I confused it with the Eric Ambler novel of the same name. It had a profound personal influence on me. I was able to rent it once, about 15 years ago but haven't run across it since.

esteban1747 This is not a fiction film. In fact, it reveals the way the guerrilla movement Tupamaros acted in Uruguay during the 70s. For those young people, it is necessary to remind that this left-wing movement was not a guerrilla in the mountains but an urban one, operating mainly in Montevideo. They used to kill esbirros (nasty policemen and agents) and to make justice against the existing dictatorship whenever it was required. The movement operated in a secret and compartmented way, i.e. many of the members did not know each other, thus avoiding to be eliminated by denunciation. Costa Gavras was able to draw the way Tupamaros acted in Uruguay, and also an important happening of those days, the way the CIA agent Mr. Dan Mitrione (Yves Montand) was killed. In fact this movement was disarticulated once new police agents infiltrated in the movement, and the main leaders were discovered. Mitrione was killed but this did not prevent that another CIA "pinch-hitter" for Mitrione came later to replace the dead man. The film may seem as sympathetic to Tupamaros, partially it might be, but this is rather a subtle critic to their methods than congratulation for what they did.