52 Pick-Up # 10 – Z (1969)

Welcome back to 52 Pick-Up.

And for anyone who's reading this because they read last week before the edit and are now thinking 'What the Hell? Where's Multiple Maniacs?', I will explain once again – simple human error. I mentally flipped which movie to which point in the schedule. Multiple Maniacs will be coming up next week, but I didn't want to skip this movie, because damn I'm glad I rolled it.

So, once again, as some may have missed it, I will recycle the set-up from before – if I had a nickel for every European movie from 1969 that I've watched this year that aged uncomfortably well, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it's happened twice.

Without further ado, let's get into Costa-Gavras's political thriller Z.

While I'm falling on my sword this week, I have to take this moment, in discussing what this movie is about, to say it took me way too long to realize this inadvertently dovetails with last week's movie. Like In the Realm of the Senses, Z is its directors stylized take inspired by a true story – in this case, the assassination of Greek politician Grigoris Lambrakis and the events that came immediately after.

That origin in reality is a good place to start this review, especially as Gavras begins his movie with the statement 'Any similarity to real people or incidents is not coincidental. It is intentional.' Despite this, unlike Oshima, Gavras doesn't present this as the original Lambrakis story (adding to this, Gavras also took inspiration from other acts of political violence, such as the disappearance of Mehdi Ben Barka) but instead keeps many of the details in his telling ambiguous. We get some generalized names, but a country is not specified, and those characters who are named receive a first name only. It's a move that has helped add to how this movie has aged, as even while it can be compared to a single incident, the open nature of the place and time makes it feel relatable beyond just Greece of the 1960s.

Honestly, I feel like that's the part of this that stuck with me the most – despite the movie being over 50 years old, and the incident that inspired it even further back, Gavras's film still feels relevant nowadays. It's not even a single moment or element. Right from the start, there's a sense of how little has changed, as the movie begins with a scene of a government meeting which starts off talking about combating mildew on vines and then pivots to using the same language for ideologies they disagree with.

A sample of some of the 'mildew' they refer to needing to
eliminate.
Yeah, it's sad we keep letting these guys have power 50+ years on.

Many of these characters don't appear again for much of the rest of the movie, but this scene echoes through much of what follows. From the government offices where higher ups loftily speak of opposing views with the same degree of disdain as molds, we head to the other end of where their ethos takes hold in the form of protests against a government deputy (Yves Montand) who is advocating for nuclear disarmament. Cutting to specific figures among the crowd, it isn't long before Gavras shows us that these are people ready for violence and just waiting for the right opportunity to kick it off – even if they have to do so themselves.

That becomes the parallel that drives the movie – the 'civilized' disdain of the right wing leaders at the top and the antagonistic street violence on the ground, at first presented in contrast, are soon presented to all be part and parcel of the same larger political undertaking. The leaders can happily talk of their opponents as simply dirt or mold because their own rank and file people are the ones who will dirty their hands to deal with them (and, if necessary, take the fall for the cause.)

I'm trying not to get too into the details on this, because, despite the age of this movie, I don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't seen it. Especially because I would argue it is incredibly worth seeing. Not just for the relevance (though that is a big part of it), but also as this is in general a well made thriller in its own right. Besides the very palpable sense of anger Gavras imbues this movie with for the abuses those in power inflict with little to no meaningful consequence, it is also a genuinely tense, well made movie that keeps you engaged with seeing how far it will all go and to what end.

As an additional general note goes – the title of this movie comes from an actual political sentiment from Greece at the time, a shorthand referral to Lambrakis said to mean 'He lives.' It feels both encouraging and sadly appropriate as a title nowadays. Encouraging for the feeling that, even in death, the ideals of people like Lambrakis (or his fictional on-screen counterpart) continue on after their death. Sad as it also applies to the above mentioned feeling of anger Gavras works into this movie. Even over half a century later, the maneuvers in this movie feel sadly familiar, even as the technology changes, the plays remain the same. Even more familiar than the strategies, however, are the consequences – those in power see their opponents discredited, cast aside, or flat out killed, and suffer no real meaningful losses, save for the occasional resignation or a foot soldier who has to be sent to prison. They repeatedly get caught in abuses of their authority and are then left free to keep right on abusing them.

Tale as old as time, as it were.

Okay, that was a bit more of a downer note than I intended to go out on, but it's hard not to feel a bit gloomy with this movie (he said after endorsing people watch it. Hey, not every moviegoing experience needs to be about comfort.)

In all seriousness, this is a very worthwhile movie. Just, maybe have something light for a chaser afterward.

Speaking of which, next week, as promised it's back to Uncharted Waters with the movie that arguably ushered in the rise of Divine as a force in Dreamland lore – it's Multiple Maniacs.

Till then.

52 Pick-Up #1 – The Damned (1969)

Hello and welcome back for the first entry in this year's attempt to get myself writing at a regular pace again – a dive through my cinematic 'To Do' list I have taken to christening 52 Pick Up.

As I said last time, we're kicking this project off with a title I've been circling for a bit now and one I hope hasn't just doomed this year from a tonal standpoint – Luchino Visconti's grim Nazi-era cautionary tale, The Damned.

Gonna be honest with you all - normally, I'd be trying to do cheeky
captions with the screencaps. For this one? I don't think I can
really riff this in good conscience. Maybe next time.

This is a title that has been on the list for a couple of years now. There are some here that will have been in place longer, but, as I said before, these are chosen at random. This crossed my cinematic radar a few years back when it was announced as an addition to the Criterion Collection. The premise had potential to spike my curiosity, but also reading up left me debating if I wanted to make this a Criterion blind buy or not.

Having drawn this first, let me take this moment to remind you – to the aspiring cinephile on a budget, a good library system is a reliable accomplice.

Now that I've watched the film, I'll start by saying, it's a very good movie and I'm glad I watched it. I'm not sure I'm gonna be running out to own it, but damn, I'm gonna be thinking of this one for a while.

For anyone not familiar with the movie, I'll keep the pitch brief. Set in Weimar Germany, we are introduced to the wealthy Essenbeck family (loosely inspired by the real life Krupps), a line of old nobility with a prominent steelworks to their name. They have all gathered for the birthday celebration of their wealthy patriarch – an innocent enough event that, by chance, happens to coincide with the Reichstag fire. Suddenly, the Essenbecks find themselves at a crossroads – power is shifting in Germany, and the fate of the family may depend on where it settles. Individual members waste no time drawing lines for their parts of the estate and casting their lots in with whichever faction they think will come out on top, and for many, benefit them personally.

As you can probably already guess, this does not end well for...anyone, really. One by one, the members of the family are either betrayed, corrupted, or sometimes both, as their legacy is rolled up and ground into the Nazi war machine.

So if you're looking for something bright and optimistic to start the new year with, maybe table this one for a later date, though I would still say to seek it out if you think you're up for it.

(Spoiler heads-up here, feel free to highlight and read or ignore, but again, if you're not sure, this may be a deal breaker: besides the obvious themes of Nazism, another risky point in this may come in the character of Martin, a hedonistic member of the Essenbecks who is brought under the thumb of the Reich as a result of his predilection for young girls. This thankfully isn't presented in a particularly graphic fashion, but the movie still makes it clear he's a predator. Something to keep in mind, cause I know that can be a lot to get blindsided by.)

As I write this, it's been a few days since I finished the movie and, like I said, I've had it rolling around in my head. In particular, the theme of complicity and how it's presented across many members of the family and to what ends.

Okay, more spoilers ahead, less for 'this content may be a bit much' and more 'I can't really discuss this point without addressing what it leads to.'

There's no question where Visconti comes down on the topic based on what's presented – like I said at the start, this whole film is a cautionary tale on the dangers of complicity and how, in the face of such authoritarian movements, there is no such thing as a 'safe' place. Even those who willingly cast in their lots with it aren't guaranteed protection. To the point where I think the first thought I had on finishing was you could put this in a killer double feature alongside Cabaret or Mephisto (or make a triple play to really get an audience in a grim state of mind.)

It's also something it's hard not to think about nowadays in light of – well, everything going on.

Yes, this one's gonna get a little political, folks. It's kind of hard not to with a movie like this. It's fine if you'd rather come back next time, I promise, it will be a much lighter title.

I didn't go into this one looking to explicitly draw the connections, but it's hard not to as one sees how the movie unfolds. Every member of the family has their way of trying to address the situation – be it the staunch anti-Nazi Herbert who attempts to flee the country, the brash partisan Konstantin who believes the SA will come out on top and intends to put his part of the family's trust in them, or the calculating Friedrich, a relative outsider in the family who allies himself with the Nazis to try and secure his hold in the family and company. Each of these characters responds to the growing threat in their own way, either by convincing themselves it will blow over or that they can manipulate it to their own gain.

One by one, they find themselves either outmaneuvered (Herbert), having chosen the wrong side (Konstantin), or ultimately undone when they discovered the party didn't feel they were sufficiently loyal (Friedrich). When the dust settles, the only family members left standing are the ones who have effectively cast aside their identities as members of the Essenbeck family and instead become uniformed officers of the Nazi party, with their steelworks now dedicated to the war machine.

All the while, only one member of the family even remotely seems to realize the danger they're in – and because of that, Herbert is absent for much of the movie, only returning in the third act under duress and knowing he will be arrested and executed for doing so. The others, one by one, continue to try and play their games of power, never realizing just how perilous their positions truly are.

Actually, there is one other besides Herbert who has any sort of inkling of the situation – that would be Aschenbach, a cousin of the family who starts the movie already a uniformed member of the party. With loyalties already firmly with the Reich over blood, he is quick to advise and manipulate his kin towards activities that will either weaken their holds over the family's steelworks or strengthen the party's hold over the family member in question.

Even more striking is, Aschenbach never actively tries to hide what he's doing – there are several moments where he talks with family members about things like the growing complicity of the German people (“Every German is a potential informant” he declares at one point) and openly tells one member of the family that the powerful people the Nazis desire are those who understand how quickly that power can be taken away from them if they fail to toe the line.

Of course, this is the tragedy of both the story and history itself – even as it becomes clearer the way the winds are blowing, the Essenbecks assume it won't effect them – that either they will overcome it or at least it will blow past. A refrain that echoes painfully clearly in history to this day, as so many tragedies get foreshadowed by 'well it won't happen to me' or 'that won't happen this time.'

In wrapping this up, I find myself thinking about the visual bookends of the movie – its opening titles unfold over shots of a steelworks, specifically in full view of the heat and smoke (and an opening title scored effectively by Maurice Jarre.) This is one of only two times we actually see the company, though it is spoken of often. The only other time comes after the family has been effectively gutted and subsumed by the Nazis, cutting from a final shot of newly appointed patriarch Martin (clad in black uniform and armband), back to the fire and smoke of the steelworks. Besides the obvious Hellish imagery that would suggest, it drives the final point home for the message that the movie is conveying – the family was never of any value to the Nazis, only the steel they could provide. In the end, the people have been eradicated or repurposed, all that remains is the resources.

It's a grim note, but also one it's hard not to ponder at a time where more and more people are questioning how to react to increasingly more alarming grabs for power – will they acknowledge and try to stop it, try to mitigate it, or pretend it's not a concern until it comes for them personally, if they even acknowledge it then? It's not an easy question, and frankly, I feel like no one can truly give a definite clear answer until they're in the moment – but it's hard not to find myself wondering at my own choices watching others play out theirs in a narrative like this.

...well, that was a cheery note to kick this year off. Once again, I hope this being shuffled first wasn't foreshadowing.

As I said before, we'll be going somewhere lighter next week, if not also a little stranger. It's a movie that has been on my to do list since first learning of it as many did in the punchline of a stand-up comic.

Feel free to come back next week for the 1977 weirdo cult favorite Death Bed: The Bed That Eats.

Until then.