A mildly engaging and interesting interview of filmmaker Costa Gavras ("Z", "State of Siege") conducted by documentarian Marcel Öphuls
("The Sorrow and the Pity", "Hotel Terminus") revolving on the political films of the former made at the time. Different cinematic approaches from
both men as they covered historical/political events (films vs. Documentaries), and here Mr. Gavras offers his input on why he deals with controversial
themes, his intentions with audiences, and the importance of making a cinematographic statement/register as oppposed to make documentaries like Öphuls
did. Clips from some of Gavras film were presented during the interview.
It's a fine gathering of talents discussing cinema and their work views, but not much engaging. Öphuls wasn't much of a good interviewer,
with his prolongued questions and constant interruptions. Doesn't favor that they're not speaking their native language, as it was a TV project for
English speaking audiences and most of the time they struggle to find appropriate words to express some sentiment, some idea. But it's interesting to see the dialogue created by both men, the duality of film genres
and how audiences can perceive the enormous differences between both and the proximity established as well - with both of them would be works related
with World War II as Öphuls' memorable documentaries were about the period and at the time Gavras had just made "Section Speciale" which covers the
Vichy period and the trial of Resistance members.
Halfway through the special it dawned on me a depressive thought about what was the point, not of this piece, but of Costa Gavras films. If I
remember correctly the directors were addressing something about having a purpose or the importance of telling such dark stories that were real,
that happened and of a reality that cannot be changed. 20+ years watching and admiring his films and with that TV special it came an intrusive but slightly poignant
thought about them, what did they really changed in society or in the movies. I could only come to certain conclusions of how great stories he told us, important
and controversial, and a majority of them weren't covered in documentaries, and even so, they wouldn't get many audiences for it. I think just by
sharing the thought, exposing the wounds of society either through wars, dictatorships and other political/social problems, Gavras made us aware of
challenges faced but also ones to avoid, or at least reject the idea of surprise as critical things had happened, they were written and filmed too,
even if it's through a fictional lens and portrayal.
The change on cinema was through language, storytelling, editing, a more explosive and combative way to inform and educate people about historical events, to question reality and official versions.
It's not a mystery that plenty of his films faced some form of backlash or censorship in many countries. And a great deal of fillmakers and documentaries too were inspired or affected by the
power of his stories, the strong sense of reality with each film made and how cinema could become more than mere entertaining. It changes perceptions about the world, politics, society, the human
relations and it doesn't lie. That's why it's important, even if it hurts or makes us appalled. Cinema is also about that, to shake us from our comfort and see life through different optics. Maybe
with this interview you'll look at Costa Gavras films in a different manner. Great, I mean. 8/10.
