Tuesday 22 July 2014

Carlos (2010 movie)

I have long been fascinated by the European "urban guerilla" scene of the 1970s, although I have not fallen prey to the temptation to embrace "terrorist chic".  In fact, I have found that the longer one studies the subject, the more one becomes convinced of the repugnance of the methods employed by the exponents. however sympathetic one may be to some of their political grievances.

The record as regards celluloid depictions of that era is mixed. They either glorify the perpetrators of foul deeds, or water down and distort the content to such a degree that the point is almost entirely missed. One which is superior to most is "Carlos", a French movie about Carlos the Jackal, released in 2010, and directed by Olivier Assayas.

There is a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie, saying that this should be viewed as a fiction, and that the relationships between characters have been fictionalized.  Even allowing for this, however, this is a stylish and pretty comprehensive effort, and the narrative is largely consistent with most of the written accounts which I have encountered over the years.

The movie takes up the story around 1973, just before Carlos arrives back in Europe.One of the first things which becomes noticeable is the "aesthetic" of the film. It doesn't try too hard to achieve visual period authenticity, and strangely by dint of this is more convincing than many movies which I could mention. Throughout the music employed is distinctly "non-period" too, another factor which prevents the film becoming mired in the need to be historically accurate to the nth degree.

The film is held together by the confident and plausible performance of Edgar Ramirez in the title role. It would have been all too easy to slip into some "cartoonish" perception of what the character was, his appearance, persona and mannerisms. Ramirez is augmented by an array of strong performances by those playing the supporting and minor characters

The well-known events from the period 1973-1975 are depicted here pretty much as they have been related and analysed by numerous journalists and historians. For me, the most valuable and fresh sections of the film were those which dealt with the story from the late 1970s onwards, including the dealings with various Eastern bloc governments and intelligence services, and the repercussions of the end of the Cold War. These areas have less direct association with the supposed Carlos "mythology", which largely stems from the period 1973-76.

This is not simply a catalogue of incidents and operations. Some of the underlying causes espoused by the broader global revolutionary movement, and the desire to emancipate oppressed people, are accorded an airing. Many of these problems remain unresolved and pressing. Once or twice in the movie we also see highlighted the fact that some people embody radical ideals without resorting to violent means, and without descending into greed and vanity.

The constantly shifting loyalties and agendas in the Middle East, and the corresponding attitudes of the superpowers, are a constant backdrop. The picture does not lose sight of the geo-political landscape which influenced the events in the film, and conversely their effect on that landscape.

The portrayal of "the German connection" gives a good idea of the extent of their role, even though they were generally overshadowed by other similar groups. There is a real cosmopolitan flavour to the film, with the action moving between various European capitals, and occasionally to the Middle East. The people on all sides appeared to subsist largely on cigarettes and hard liquor! If the depiction of the practices of some of the security forces is accurate, then I would earnestly hoped that things have changed in the past few decades....

Later in the movie, some of the discordant voices are pinpointed; those who felt that the "revolution" was losing its soul, deviating from its original ideals and aims in its morality and its modus operandi. The Entebbe raid, and the plight of "non-combatants" are used as examples. Most of the participants started out with, on the surface, praiseworthy ideals, but over time differing interpretations emerged, as regards which tactics were effective or warranted in seeking to change the world. Some were occasionally scared or expressed scruples, and the movie does not pretend that they were all above humane conceptions. Those who began to harbour doubts and misgivings were trapped. There was usually no going back, once one went "underground", as they knew where the bodies were buried, both literally and metaphorically. The real enemies became ex-comrades.

But enough of my rambling! This film works on several levels, as an absorbing thriller, and as a catalyst for thinking about some intractable issues. Well worth watching.



 

No comments:

Post a Comment