Azor

This has been on my MUBI watchlist for such a long time that I've forgotten why it intrigued me in the first place. Perhaps a glowing review in Sight and Sound? Who knows?

In any case, I suggest that you don't waste your time, unless slow-moving, talky, atmospheric drama is your thing. Sure, there are nasty themes bubbling under but I never quite worked out what the director was trying to say about all of this, beyond the obvious. (Different country and industry, but for me the TV series "Magnifica 70" handled the compromises inherent in living with a junta much more eloquently...)

For a debut feature, it's quite nicely shot but I'd definitely put it in the "mood piece" category rather than anything else.

Love the 80's style of movie in a new jacket, but making it nothing short as it maybe has the old camera style of sceneiers even the actors behave. The amount of actors playing is alot even though not all actors are high quality but they do lean towards a natural playing instead of reading the script. Many blank sceniers that feel empty but they hold a very delicated information, what is not much but do help the story building.

The acting is done nicely, the main player is good, the rest could step a bit more up.

They drag a lot in the movie and hard to follow where they want to go with the movie. Even though we know a bit how it will go as audience, but so many options.

The scenes are not low budget made including the clothing and everything around it pulls you really back to the 80's of Argentina. Perfect done. I do need to say they limited the amount of variables like people and decoration, to not misstep because during the pool party I have the feeling they kinda fell in the water. Feeling C level quality.

The camera work is basic also the transaction of scenes, this seems more like the 90's where they highlight so much as if the audience is stupid and every scene feels like cut out and modified and placed back into the movie again.

Sophisticated banker "De Wiel" (Fabrizio Rongione) heads from his base in Geneva to Buenos Aires to take over from his colleague who has mysteriously vanished. Now this story is set in the 1980s so his destination is still under the slightly anachronistic control of a military junta and the Catholic church. Rumours are abounding about the nature of the role his colleague had in some murky financial dealings and so aside from appeasing their clients, he is to try and find out just what happened to "Kies". Upon arrival he is quickly exposed to the corruption that prevails at just about every level of society and his job is to make them as much money a possible - regardless of the ethics or risks of any such transactions, whilst maintaining an high degree of discretion (aka secrecy). I could have done with just a little more pace from director Andreas Fontana here, but what he does provide is quite a compellingly presented assessment of just how venally menacing things were. His "associates" realising that the writing might be on the wall for them desperately trying to liquidate assets which may, or probably did not, belong to them to insulate themselves in an haven abroad. His encounters are not just with the upper class, but all with all strata of a community that had spent it's life turning a blind eye or being passively complicit. The photography works well with the limited amounts of dialogue, and this is quite an effective psychological thriller that leaves us to do much of the heavy lifting - and judging - ourselves.

In a few short sentences:

• Nice cinematography
• Weird and annoying soundtrack
• Ok acting
• Slow pace (slow enough to make me quit watching after 1/3 of the movie)

This remarkable Argentine-Swiss coproduction is set in the early years of the Argentine rule-by-junta. The topic, though, is broader: the intersection of élite cupidity and brutal politics worldwide, cloaked under a veneer of high-class gentility and, of course, excruciatingly extreme discretion. The horrors endemic to the place and time in which the film is set are rendered obliquely and allusively, and all the more powerfully for that.

The film is wonderfully cast. Every character, down to the smallest non-speaking cameo, conveys worlds of meaning, often in a single frame. Most striking of all is a Catholic Monsignor who is brilliantly parodied while he acts as a searingly sinister fulcrum, lifting part of the veil that hangs over the plot, putting me in mind of the terrifying Grand Inquisitor in Verdi's opera "Don Carlos" who pushes Philip II of Spain to kill his rebellious son just as, in order to save the world, "God sacrificed his own". This sequence, set during a small gathering in one of the inner sanctums of the junta élite, tells you more about what was then going on in Argentina than could more explicit scenes set in a torture chamber or execution field, while at the same time making clear what the banker is really there to do, and what the film is really about.

The gentility and costly need for constant secretiveness (a lesson is even given in a secret argot used by Geneva bankers, including the meaning of "azor") are chillingly conveyed by the lead couple, played by Fabrizio Rongione and Stéphanie Cléau. He perfectly personifies the suave, ultra buttoned-down Swiss private banker, to the manor born, providing a master class in understated movie acting, conveying reactions with just the subtlest twitch of an eyelid or a small corner of his mouth. Her character is highly intelligent, ambitious, icily disciplined, both a judgmental antagonist and a tremendous resource for him, sussing out situations in which she is, even more (you sense) than usual in the macho world of the Argentine ruling classes (old and new), relegated to the sidelines, to the point of being more or less politely dismissed whenever serious business is to be discussed. (At one point, he is told to get rid of her prior to a key meeting: "no women".) She is perforce devoted to her husband yet bitter at the role she must play. Her greatest line, already widely quoted in reviews, comes when she is told by a tough-as-nails Argentine matriarch that she can see that "your husband loves you very much" (which is actually, you assume, a leading question), and Cléau, still smooth and icy but with just the subtlest flash of anger, responds., "Yes, he and I are but a single person. [Perfectly-timed pause.} And that person is him".

The film is in French and Spanish, with many of the Argentine characters (quite credibly, given their social standing) completely at home in French, while Rongione seems to have more than serviceable (though not perfect) Spanish. (Cléau seems to have almost none, which, if anything, serves to enhance the acuity of her observations.) The dialogue shifts constantly between the two languages, often in midsentence, none of which is flagged in the English subtitles even though, like every cue in this subtlest of movies, each shift conveys meaning.

Similarly, the film brings together two different, but intertwined and indeed interdependent, worlds. One is that of élites everywhere, but in this case of a post-putsch Latin American country among whom all are living in terror, though of what, or of whom, differs according to the person's social or political standing. The other is that of global private bankers, in this case Swiss, who provide vital services by protecting and processing wealth, whether gained by plunder by the current holders of power or inherited by established élites, presumably from plunder by their ancestors. Both worlds are scary, and their scariness is brilliantly conveyed, which is what makes this film so compelling. Though some of the in-jokes will be most amusing to Swiss viewers (outsiders will not necessarily spot the full contempt conveyed when one suave upper-class Swiss tells another that a third colleague is "from Zug"), the key structural role played by bankers worldwide in their dealings with the politically powerful and with the very rich, and the ways they help engineer mutations from one category to the other, could not be made clearer.

Without resorting to spoilers, I think it can be said that what's most striking about the film's final sequence is the sudden banality of the message it appears to convey. After all that intrigue and complexity, you wonder, it this really what it was all about? And the film's answer appears to be, "Well, of course, what did you think?"