State of Siege - Film Review

In almost documentary style the film covers the events of seven days - from the time of the kidnapping by Uruguayan Tupamaros of an American agent, Philip Michael Santore (Yves Montand), to the time of his murder. It is based on an actual incident.

We know what happens to Santore. We see his body being discovered at the beginning of the film. It remains for the details of how and why he was murdered to be explained.

The kidnapping is shown in detail - it serves to separate the sides. There are the foreign diplomats, who live in luxurious houses and whose kids ride on a bus with 'American School, written on the side. There are the young, silent Tupamaros. The guns they use are big cumbersome things held by inexperienced hands. A gun accidentally fires. And there are the people in the middle - the taxi-driver whose| car is taken at gunpoint for use in the kidnapping says 'I am familiar with the procedure'.

'What is the threat that this man Santore poses to these people?' a reporter asks the Minister for Internal Security. 'Why should they want to kidnap a man who is described only as an official in a US aid organisation?' At this stage we have some idea of what Santore really is, and we know that both the reporter and the Minister know. It is a matter of the reporter exacting a confession from the Minister, and slowly it comes. 'Yes AID does collaborate with the police'.

This is paralleled in the interrogation of Santore by the Tupamaros. He is confronted with a detailed record of his history in countries where police torture is a common practice.

Meanwhile the government reacts to the kidnapping. Each day as the Tupamaros' communique is broadcast we see more searches and interrogations. The Minister denounces the kidnappers as common criminals and refuses to acknowledge that they have popular support, while his army and police are crushing liberal though at the university.

Events happen quickly now. The ultimatum is delivered to the government spelling out the terms of the prisoners' release. But at the same time that we are hearing about Santore's death squad in the interrogation, that same death squad is closing in on the Tupamaros headquarters.

The flim clearly sympathises with the Tupamaros, yet there is also a sneaking respect for Santore, who should be the real villain of the story (and who was in real life).

Yves Montand suits the part of the suave diplomat with hair greying at the samples. His Santore expresses his point of view eloquently and rationally, so that the interrogation often degenerates into an ideological discussion - 'People here become policemen because they are hungary. - Yes, but they do become policement where others might become thieves or scavengers'

He even confesses a respect for the Tupamaros. It is one of those strange situations where hostage and kidnappers develop a friendship.

The rest of the villains are portrayed either as complete fools (like the delegates at the International Police Academy) or as dangerous maniacs (like the Frank Sinatra look alike who heads the death squad).

It seems that the situation is explained so neatly by the film there is little left for anyone in the audience to think about.

— James Robb