"Days of 36" (1972) Dir: Theo Angelopoulos
I was led to "Days of 36" after reading about "The Travelling Players", Theo Angelopoulos' first major international success, highly regarded as one of the key European epics of the last fifty years. But I decided to see "...36" first as the opening part of a trilogy that "...Players" continues and, by all accounts, elevates to something far greater. This is not to say that "Days of 36" is a weak beginning, it's anything but. It has an assured self-confidence in the slow, deliberate way it tells this very confined story: a man is arrested for the assassination of a trade unionist, after which he manages to hold a politician hostage in the prison. The warden, the minister and several prison guards attempt to diffuse the situation, aware that their response will have political reverberations beyond the isolated incident itself.
The title is the only reference to the historical setting of the film, and no specific location is announced. The implications are clear; the viewer is assumed to know the significance of 1936 in Greek history. Whether this hostage taking really occurred or not, the incident is clearly supposed to be illustrative of a certain political and social situation that exists beyond the walls of the film itself.
"Days of 36" is calm, patient and strikingly impersonal. The sun beats down constantly upon anonymous uniformed men as they stride from building to crack-walled building, delivering messages, rendezvousing and deftly carrying out clinical official functions. Much of the 'action' (I use the word generously) takes place within the confines of a dusty prison, far from the regular society we see very little of. The accused assassin's lawyer ventures out into the barren streets and derelict buildings to find out who brought the gun to his client in jail. He finds no answers among the vague network of dispersed criminals. Tellingly, we never find out if his client actually killed the trade unionist or not - he swears he fired into the air.
The real point of the film is the minister's inability to end the situation without killing the hostage taker. He informs us that the Conservative Party and the Democratic Party are literally opposing each other on how best to deal with the situation, leaving the assembled team certain to upset at least one Party. When I found out that in 1936, Greece was on the cusp of its first period of 20th Century dictatorship, Angelopoulos' film made more sense - faced with a crucial problem that will affect the political balance of an unstable country, they decide to kill it. This film was made during Greece's second period of 20th Century dictatorship. I'll leave you to fill in the blanks.
All this leaves me with the question: if I have to research historical context in order to understand a film, why do I judge it a success? Well, it uses the architecture and landscape to visually bolster some very effective sequences, usually shot in very long takes. A failed breakout from the jail is set against near silent, rolling cornfields, as is an execution scene. The inmates rattling the bars on their windows after music is played in the yard, only to be dramatically silenced by the guards firing rifles in the air, is another key scene. "Days of 36" is unapologetic and uncompromising in its static approach to a story devoid of any real human element. Glimpses of emotional depth are hinted at, then passed by. Once I settled into the pace, I was not going to stop watching until I found out how the siege ends, and when I did I felt a little indignant and blank - not at the film itself, but at the anonymous uniformed men carrying out these actions; cold and workmanlike ad infintum.
I was led to "Days of 36" after reading about "The Travelling Players", Theo Angelopoulos' first major international success, highly regarded as one of the key European epics of the last fifty years. But I decided to see "...36" first as the opening part of a trilogy that "...Players" continues and, by all accounts, elevates to something far greater. This is not to say that "Days of 36" is a weak beginning, it's anything but. It has an assured self-confidence in the slow, deliberate way it tells this very confined story: a man is arrested for the assassination of a trade unionist, after which he manages to hold a politician hostage in the prison. The warden, the minister and several prison guards attempt to diffuse the situation, aware that their response will have political reverberations beyond the isolated incident itself.
The title is the only reference to the historical setting of the film, and no specific location is announced. The implications are clear; the viewer is assumed to know the significance of 1936 in Greek history. Whether this hostage taking really occurred or not, the incident is clearly supposed to be illustrative of a certain political and social situation that exists beyond the walls of the film itself.
"Days of 36" is calm, patient and strikingly impersonal. The sun beats down constantly upon anonymous uniformed men as they stride from building to crack-walled building, delivering messages, rendezvousing and deftly carrying out clinical official functions. Much of the 'action' (I use the word generously) takes place within the confines of a dusty prison, far from the regular society we see very little of. The accused assassin's lawyer ventures out into the barren streets and derelict buildings to find out who brought the gun to his client in jail. He finds no answers among the vague network of dispersed criminals. Tellingly, we never find out if his client actually killed the trade unionist or not - he swears he fired into the air.
The real point of the film is the minister's inability to end the situation without killing the hostage taker. He informs us that the Conservative Party and the Democratic Party are literally opposing each other on how best to deal with the situation, leaving the assembled team certain to upset at least one Party. When I found out that in 1936, Greece was on the cusp of its first period of 20th Century dictatorship, Angelopoulos' film made more sense - faced with a crucial problem that will affect the political balance of an unstable country, they decide to kill it. This film was made during Greece's second period of 20th Century dictatorship. I'll leave you to fill in the blanks.
All this leaves me with the question: if I have to research historical context in order to understand a film, why do I judge it a success? Well, it uses the architecture and landscape to visually bolster some very effective sequences, usually shot in very long takes. A failed breakout from the jail is set against near silent, rolling cornfields, as is an execution scene. The inmates rattling the bars on their windows after music is played in the yard, only to be dramatically silenced by the guards firing rifles in the air, is another key scene. "Days of 36" is unapologetic and uncompromising in its static approach to a story devoid of any real human element. Glimpses of emotional depth are hinted at, then passed by. Once I settled into the pace, I was not going to stop watching until I found out how the siege ends, and when I did I felt a little indignant and blank - not at the film itself, but at the anonymous uniformed men carrying out these actions; cold and workmanlike ad infintum.