•
Rating: It would be fitting to say "never trust your work colleagues" once you've seen this film again. But there are other considerations that come to mind and I will propose them next.
The film in question is "Three Days of the Condor," a classic directed in 1975 by Sydney Pollack and inspired by a novel by James Grady titled "Six Days of the Condor." This suggests how Pollack, one of the prominent directors of the new Hollywood, was right to shorten the action timeframe since a spy film cannot drag on, and therefore, by tightening up the plot a little, it's better that the duration of such a film does not exceed 120 minutes to avoid boring the audience (Hitchcock's doctrine).
We thus see the protagonist Joe Turner (an excellent Robert Redford), employed in the New York section of the CIA with the code name Condor, diligently carrying out his work of analyzing various texts in search of intriguing insights, secret codes, or hidden plots. It's meticulous research work, quite satisfying for his expectations. He is currently awaiting feedback from management regarding a report he sent to the appropriate parties. However, one morning, as he was at a nearby café for a quick coffee break, upon returning to the office, he discovers that the colleagues who stayed behind were killed by a squad of undercover agents. Overcoming the initial shock, Condor quickly understands that he too is at risk (perhaps because of his report..) and, with the help of a woman named Kathie, he escapes the assassins hunting him and discovers that behind the conspiracy lies a rogue section of the CIA itself. Salvation is uncertain and it's not certain that our hero can make it, delivering a detailed account of his adventures to prestigious newspapers..
The film, with its fast pace and rich in twists, benefits not only from the excellent performances of Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway but also from an unforgettable Max Von Sydow, who, in the role of a CIA killer, is so unsettling that he becomes formidable as soon as he enters the scene.
Adding to the film's strengths is its reference to a well-defined historical phase, namely the '70s of the last century when the USA was facing a serious institutional crisis, following the withdrawal from the Vietnam war and the Watergate scandal. In such a historical moment, which public institution can be trusted? Certainly not even the CIA and, as effectively rendered in the film, the same employees in the structure had to fear for their safety. It wasn't an American exclusivity either, as in those same years Italy was plagued by the so-called "strategy of tension" and it wasn't mere narrative fiction the activity of rogue sectors of our secret services. In short, they were not really recommendable environments as they were murky and opaque..
But if these are the aspects related to that historical and political moment, it should also be noted how the protagonist and the supporting characters are essentially at the mercy of superior forces or, better put, real people conducting dirty power games at the expense of others, unknowing and in danger of life. It seems to me that today nothing has changed: wars, massacres, and murderous madness continue here and there, like before and more than before. And Bob Dylan was quite right, in this regard, to compose a track titled "Only a pawn in their game" to condemn such a dreadful human condition.
Loading comments slowly
