O Que é Isso, Companheiro?

In 1964, the military deposes the democratically elected Brazilian government. By 1969, the military has imposed a police state. Friends Fernando Gabeira and César decide to fight back by joining revolutionaries. The group MR8 is led by Maria. César is captured during a bank robbery. Fernando comes up with the plan to kidnap the American Ambassador Charles Burke Elbrick (Alan Arkin). They seek to exchange him for 15 prisoners.

I like the mix of characters in the revolutionary group. Each character is well defined and fully complete. It's not that much of a thriller despite a few action scenes. It has some psychological aspects. It's really the interactions within the group and with Alan Arkin that is the most interesting.

"Four Days in September" examines the 1969 politically motivated kidnapping of the U.S. ambassador to Brazil. The Oscar nominated film is a realistic and believable dissection of the short lived international incident perpetrated by a small group of leftist extremists opposed to Brazil's military dictatorship. Unlike most such films, "Four Days..." puts a realistic and human face on all sides; the police, the rebels, and the American diplomat played by Arkin. A captivating, suspenseful drama in Portugese and English languages for realists.

Four days in September is not supposed to be funny, predictable, or boring. It is a piece of Brazilian history from the 60's and based on real events. Those dark years of Brazilian history are not supposed to be fun. It was certainly not boring either. For those who admire different cultures it is a great movie and a great introduction to contemporary Brazilian history. It starts with Girl from Ipanema and lots of images of a country that was enjoying itself in the years before the military coup. Leila Diniz, Bossa Nova, all was allowed before the military coup in 1964 and hence compose the first scenes of the movie. Characters are based on real participants of the kidnapping and Fernando Gabeira (Paulo) is still engaged in politics in Brazil. It's also worth noting that Fernanda Montenegro (Dona Margarida) and Fernanda Torres (andreia/Maria) (mother and daugther in real life) are both in this movie. It's a great piece for those who are willing to learn a little bit more about an amazing country that is Brazil.

I didn't learn any Portuguese, but from this movie I learned a bit about Brazil, though "Four Days" is mostly in Portuguese. (I have a hard enough time with Spanish, thanks.) This film offers insight into a part of South American politics that I frankly have little knowledge of and I didn't follow at the time (I mean, the parts in the movie's epilogue during which I was alive and aware), and for that alone it is worth watching. Even if you don't care, the movie will bring it to light so you can imagine the Brazil of the 1960s and you just might care that you learned something about it.

"Four Days" manages to carry the viewer through to the 1989 end of the military regime in its epilogue. The Soviet Bloc was falling apart at about the same time, the Berlin Wall, if I recall, came down that year, so I suppose many would have missed this interesting ploy for attention by revolutionaries for that reason (which I certainly admit to, having following the Soviet departure steadily and having no idea about this Brazilian event).

The movie is a telling of when eager Brazilian Communist-leftist revolutionaries, both innocent and veteran, take the U.S. Ambassador hostage to draw the attention of the world toward Brazil, and to challenge the Brazilian powers they hope to overthrow ultimately, with demands for releasing their compatriots. I thought it was a convincing movie, though coming up short on making the characters particularly compelling. But then, the event was the focus, not the characters. Alan Arkin was terrific. So was the actor who played the central character, the young, not too tough, glasses-wearing Fernando.

The show didn't hide behind the revolutionaries, either. We saw things from the other side, too. It was believable, and I really enjoyed the handling of both sides of the coin in this real-life drama. There was a smoothly presented bit with a regime torturer and his girlfriend (wife?), where he suddenly admits to her what he does for the government. He'd claimed he was doing something much milder for some time, and finally outs himself as a member of the secret service. He rationalizes his torturing college kids to prevent a breakdown of Brazilian society, almost convincingly, but his lady doesn't buy it, and neither should the audience. The scene was meant to put a human face on the bad guy, and did it reasonably, but we also get that his

rationalizing leaves even him a bit flat, as he tries to embrace his woman when she turns away from him in distaste.

Most of the film is spoken in Portuguese, and I didn't mind reading this movie a bit. (It's when a movie that wouldn't be enjoyable in any language that I mind reading my way through it.) This is a movie worth seeing for its attention to a daring moment in Brazil's move toward democracy. And even if you don't care about that, it is a terrific suspense film.

The year is 1969. Brazil is under a brutal military dictatorship. Political prisoners are being held and tortured. In order to get the junta to free some of their comrades, a group of ragtag "revolutionaries" kidnap the U.S. Ambassabor and threaten his life unless their demands are met.

Well-written and tense, the film ably demonstrates the flaws of people trying to fight fire with fire: "an eye for and eye". Alan Arkin is wonderful as the ambassador. His character gives incisive psychological sketches of his kidnappers: fervent and brooding; yearning and lost.

Fernanda Torres and Pedro Cardoso are marvelous as comrades who become lovers by their admittance of how really scared they are.

My subject line refers to a line in the script that aptly describes the bending of the political spectrum at its ends. I'm glad I found this movie.