Pluskylang Great Film overall

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

jakob13 Forty-three years after its release 'Sate of Siege' has not lost its bite.Uruguay has moved on his the days of the 'Tupermaros, an urban guerrilla group, who opposed the 'democratic' government in Montevideo, supported by the US government sponsored terrorist training of the military and the policy. Yves Montand is Philip Michael Santore, a police man from Chicago, who is sent under the cover of the Agency for International Development, in the hot spots of Latin America in the 1960s and early 70s, to beef up the armed forces and police in Santo Domingo, Brazil and Uruguay. In reality, Santore teaches torture--electric shock, water boarding, black sites and the like, to combat as he says Communists and rescue Christian civilization from left-wing radicals in opposition to authoritarian rule. We didn't need to await George W Bush for the US to fight 'terrorism', since the measures of torture and coercion were already in place. And are still taught today in the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security (once known as the School of the Americas). The name has changed but not the mission. The deft hand of Costa-Garvas advances the narrative; it is a matter-of-fact rendering of a kidnapping; it has that telegraphic style of reporting, with communiques issued daily on the state of health of the kidnapped three (a Brazilian diplomat, Santore and another American working under cover at the US embassy). And then, there are the demands: you release our comrades and allow them to seek asylum in a third country. But the government doesn't budge. It--surprise--is unaware that the likes of Santore is in the country, doing his training in torture...wink, wink. Questions are raised in parliament by the left and center parties, but they are ignored by denial. The Nixon administration wouldn't rescue Santore by pressuring Montevideo to meet the Tupamaros demands. At the same time, the chief of police, played by the underrated Renato Salvatore, undertake to find the guerrillas and put them out of action or make them disappeared. The music by Theodakis sustains the tension. In the end Santore's body is found in the boot of an automobile. The film opens with a funeral mass in the Cathedral, and from there, in a long flashback...the story of Santore is told. He is replaced, but at the airport as the new 'AID' man descends with wife and two children, a Tupamaro watches...for no matter how many urban guerilla had been rounded up torture, killed or...the network has survived. Costa-Garva's camera is records: he has used it effectively in 'Z' as he did in 'State of Siege'. Although times have changed, not so America's repressive methods as the world's policeman. Somewhat weakened by the phony Bush war in Korea and the stupidity of Libya and idiocy in Syria, let alone the quagmire in Afghanistan. 'State of Siege' ends on a confident tone since the US is still losing in Vietnam. And Brazil and Uruguay is a panel in Che Guevara's call for one, two or Vietnam to challenge American imperialism. On one hand, the film is a chapter in history; on the other, it is powerful recall that little has changed in the nature of US imperial pretensions.

tieman64 Before Oliver Stone there was Costa Gavras, another left leaning director who made his name directing politically charged thrillers. Released in 1972, "Stage of Siege" (along with Gavras' 1980 film, "Missing") would prove highly influential on Stone's own "Salvador".Though it revolves around an incident in Uruguay, in which a US agent is kidnapped, interrogated and killed by guerrillas in Motevideo, the film merely uses this event as a scaffold to examine the geopolitical climate in South America during the Cold War. This was a time in which the US supported, covertly through the CIA, South American military dictatorships, often helping governments battle radicals and guerrillas whom their media spin-doctors branded as terrorists. The film spends much of its running time pointing out the various ways in which the US favours fascist figureheads over democratic ones, the former being far less concerned about their people's welfare and resources, and far more open to foreign business interests and blatant exploitation.The film touches upon the West's use of torture, event sanitization, media spin-doctoring, illegal arrests, imprisonments without due process and the habitual use of death squads, actions which are sadly all still the norm today.Aesthetically, the film is typical of Gavras' work during this period. Gavras utilises a semi documentary style, hitting us with press conferences, many legislative scenes, interrogations, interviews, paper trails, phone calls etc.8/10 – Like Gillo Pontecorvo, a similar film-maker, Gavras' work during this period was hugely influential.

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.

jlr00721 What is most significant about this movie is how few have seen it. Only 66 people have voted on it here whereas over 700 have voted on Z, its counterpart and also a fine movie. 'State of Siege' follows the realities and deceptions concerning the CIA involvement in South America. The movie is uplifting and depressing, humorous and appalling. Viewers are forced to meander through contrasting elements deeply personal and highly political. I saw the film once when it was first released and have not been able to find it since, yet I remember virtually every scene. It would be wonderful to restore it to full circulation.