Nada

An anarchist group called Nada kidnap the American ambassador in a high class Paris brothel. The state then counter this by giving the chief of police license to deal with the situation. The state proves to be more brutal than the terrorists.

This is a pretty atypical film from Claude Chabrol. While it deals with moral ambiguity, which many of his films do, it also is very directly political which is unusual. Other than the idea that the state can be more amoral than terrorists, I'm not too sure what else the film has to say. The subject matter of Marxist revolutionaries taking radical action is one that would have been much more in vogue in the 70's than now though. Overall, the film lacks the personal feel of Chabrol's more intimate thrillers. The political angle doesn't seem to be material best suited to his style. And as a result Nada is a slightly underwhelming movie.

A group of anarchist leftists called "Nada" and led by the terrorist Buenaventura Diaz (Fabio Testi) abducts the American ambassador Richard Poindexter (Lyle Joyce) in a brothel in Paris and brings him to a farm in the countryside. The French Minister (André Falcon) gives a blank cheque to the violent chief of police Goemond to destroy the kidnappers and then makes him the scapegoat to protect the State.

"Nada" is a political thriller by Claude Chabrol with a confused and pointless message. Maybe in the historical moment of its release (1974), with the United States of America sponsoring the dictatorships in South America, this acid criticism to the role and behavior of the State could work. But in 2011, this film is dated. In this genre, I still prefer Costa-Gravas films. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Exterminação Grupo Zero" ("Extermination Group Zero")

Note: On 13 December 2024, I saw this film again.

Claude Chabrol had his golden period in the late sixties and early seventies with films like This Man Must Die, The Breach and Wedding in Blood. These films were great because Chabrol delivered thrills and complex characters in equal measures; but Nada is something of a change of pace and unfortunately this film is not vintage Chabrol. The film features basically a criminal plot and this is mixed in with political elements. From a personal point of view, politics doesn't interest me that much anyway; but that is especially true here as Chabrol isn't able to spin an interesting story out of it. The plot focuses on a group of kidnappers that call themselves 'NADA'. They hatch a plot to kidnap the American ambassador, take him back to their hideaway and wait for the Government to give into their ransom demands. The plot goes smoothly; but the gang encounter trouble when internal rivalries begin to spring up; and they find out that the police chief they're up against is less forgiving than they are.

From Claude Chabrol I have come to expect intriguing and meaningful films that work on a multitude of levels. Part of the reason why I don't consider Nada to be anything like Chabrol's best work is simply because I don't care about the subject matter (as opposed to the best of Chabrol, which have the ability to appeal to everyone). However, the fact still remains that this is not a particularly good film. The point of the film is muddled at best and Chabrol's message is always hazy. The plotting is not particularly exciting and since the plot line is not interesting; Nada does at times become difficult to follow. To its credit, the film is rather well made and as always Chabrol does a good job of staging and setting scenes. The acting is decent too and Chabrol has brought together a varied and interesting cast, headed by Italian actor Fabio Testi, who plays their respective roles well. Overall I would not recommend this to my fellow Chabrol fans; the great director has a vast filmography filled with classics and I would recommend seeing those instead.

So far, very few reviewers seem to have grasped what is going on in this film and the rest are floundering. For it is highly local and highly topical, as Chabrol contrasts two poisons then prevalent in French society.

One, more recent, was the evil residue of the unrest in 1968. In France, as in West Germany and Italy, minuscule groups of ex-students mouthing empty slogans took to robbery, extortion and murder in the apparent hope of triggering the collapse of capitalism.

The other, longer lasting, was the even more toxic legacy of successive military defeats. After the defeat by Germany in 1940, the upper levels of the French civil service and police were permeated with men who collaborated in the horrors of the Vichy dictatorship and the Nazi occupation. After the defeat in Algeria in 1962, the army was also infected by the bloody repression of its opponents, real or supposed. Too many men had learned that you got results by ignoring the rules and by resorting to torture and murder.

Chabrol's terrorists are suitably dangerous but bumbling, with only their leader aspiring to some sort of Lucifer status. His cops are terrifying, replicas of the Gestapo that had terrorised France only 30 years earlier, with the diabolical commissaire sporting a hairstyle of the early 1940s while his two goons could easily have been pulling out toenails at that time.

Though placing the story in a highly contemporary setting, as always Chabrol is not making a political statement or giving us a history lesson. His subject is humanity and its flaws.

PS One reviewer warns us not to let our children see this film. Not because of the endemic violence and profanity but because of two brief moments when a woman is shown with no clothes and a man is shown on top of a woman under the bedclothes. Both are intrinsic to the story, as the first glimpse is of a prostitute at her place of work and the second is of a terrorist, who (highly symbolic!) has to admit to the girl that he is impotent. Though it is always admirable to broaden young people's minds, I can't think of a single Chabrol film which could really be appreciated before the age of 18.

How tedious it is to watch the vast majority of political films pitting the left (name your party here) versus the right (name your party here in the country of (name your country here).

As you can see, the parties and countries are pretty much interchangeable, and really doesn't matter which side you are on, or what country you are in. Sometimes the left is excessive, and sometimes the right is excessive. And at times, they are both excessive. This film happens to occur in France, where the left tries to take extreme measures to combat the repression (or what they consider to be the repression) of the more liberal elements of French society.

In reality, the vast people are not concerned about these issues; they are more concerned about paying the bills, raising their children and trying to retire in relative comfort. This principle holds true for every country. The film has a few good moments, but is rather tedious; don't bother.