STATE OF SIEGE

France, 1973, 120 minutes, Colour.
Yves Montand, Renato Salvatorl, O.E. Hasse, Jacques Weber, Jean-Luc? Bideau, Evangeline Peterson.
Directed by Costa-Gavras?.

Costa-Gavras? has dramatically criticised extreme Right and Left. Here his exposure of the Right again, now in South America, is compelling as Z, but more frightening in the widespread terror and torture portrayed and the patronage of some official Americans using their respectable covers to train police in terror-tactics and to instigate coups. Tightly-structured - one week of political kidnappings in Montevideo - and a convincingly documentary on-the-spot style, the film could not but leave audiences moved, indignant and fearful of any repression, especially in the name of God and civilization.

1. The initial response to this film? Does it appeal, entertain, alarm? The title and its reference to Camus' play, with America cast as the plague used as symbol for totalitarianism crushing man in his quest for liberty?

2. How political a film is this? Does it explore political issues objectively? With a thought-out point of view? A real look at modern situations on the international scene? Its social awareness and its exploration of social freedom? Or is it mainly a melodrama using political backgrounds and stances?

3. What is the response to this picture of America and its influence? The picture of revolution in the Third World? What influence does a film like this have in making audiences suspicious of America, its government, officials. and foreign aid people? Its influence on Third World people for revolution?

4. How did the film create its atmosphere? Its portrayal of South America? The urban life of the city? The organization of the police? The search for Santore?

5. What were your first impressions of Phillip Michael Santore? Sympathetic? Assumption that he was good because assassinated. American, non-political? Did the film want audiences to sympathise with him and then expose him? Why?

6. What was the tone of the filming of the funeral? A state occasion, religious occasion, the official words spoken. his wife and family in mourning? The police in support?

7. How did the flashback and the structure of the film alter audience response? Did it eliminate appropriate suspense? Or did it rouse curiosity as to the meaning of Santore's death? How well were the flashbacks used?

8. How did it emerge that Santore was a villain? What values did he stand for? American right-wing values? Has America the right to use men like Santore? To send them to under-developed countries in foreign aid?

9. Did the extremists have the right to kidnap hostages? Were these plans well thought out? The film's visualizing of the kidnappings and the plans and precautions? where was audience sympathy here? why?

10. The dramatic impact of the interrogation sequences between Santore and the Dupamaros? Did the Dupamaros have the right to interrogate him? His withholding of the truth?

11. What emerged about recent revolutions and values in the modern world? The rights and wrongs, pros and cons of these? Did the film make these issues clear? In the interrogation sequences?

12. Was the revelation about revolution in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Brazil and revolution being suppressed credible?

13. How well did the film portray the political crisis in the South American State? The meeting of Cabinet. the documentary style filming of the meetings. the decisions of the President. the refusal to release the prisoners? Was this wise? Would too much have been revealed? Would the Dupamaros have gained too much prestige and power?

14. What was audience response to the presentation of the police and their investigations? The morale behind the police? Did attitudes towards police change? How?

15. Audience response to the revelation of Santore's role in training police for torture etc.? The revelation of the changing for police in America? Was the film effective in visualising these in flashback? The personality of Captain Lopez and his ideology? His methods? How repellent were these?

16. Was the film wise to insert the scenes of torture, the details of torture, and the implications of this for sympathies with the Dupamaros and against Santore? How much evidence of torture in the last decade has there been?

17. How did the presentation of the journalists gain some objectivity for the proceedings? The importance of Carlos Ducas as the mouthpiece for reason and inquiry? His enigmatic presentation and his questions? His comments as a kind of cause? Was this an effective device for the film? What were its advantages? Disadvantages?

18. Towards the end of the film, how well were the dilemmas for all presented? For the President and the political implications of his decisions? For the police and their continual search? For the Dupamaros and their releasing hostages, taking others, and the decision of whether Santore should die? The background of the journalists, the Santore family?

19. How important was the execution of Santore for the film? Did it seem an execution or a murder? Did the Dupamaros have any right to kill him?

20. The final shoot-out and the police winning? Was this inevitable? As background to the arrest of the students, their torture, and the ironic contrast with the State funeral?

21. What was the ultimate, impact of this film? Was it important as entertainment? Was it important as insight into the political situations of the 60s and 70s?