Four Days in September (1997)

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.

A friend of mine, who was a child in Brazil during the time that this film is set, recommended this to me. Thanks Alex, just like Onibus 174, I found this gripping.Whereas Onibus 174 is a straight documentary, this fictionalized reenactment is allowed to let us see and hear things that likely did not happen. The best of those: an inner monologue from the always admirable Alan Arkin as he composes a more banal note to his wife at the behest of his captors.As a result we get a film that is not too preachy, nor too confined by *what actually happened* the bane of many a "true story" come to screen. Of course here what actually happened had inherent high drama. But the key for me getting into this film was that all of those portrayed, are done so with at least a semblance of a conscience. Arkin's ambassador is just beautiful, that and his English helped me to identify with him immensely. His fate is definitely in the balance.But the captors/rebels, and even the police in pursuit of them all have this sense of contrition and concern about what they are doing. There are interesting dynamics among the rebels as well. On a couple of levels you feel a fuse burning slowly throughout the entire film.Hmmm, I'll have to ask my friend (or you can tell me) what the real title of the film means. (Is it something like "O What is this, companero" thus speaking to the doubting conscience of all involved??) Other oddball afterfacts, Stewart Copeland was somewhere in the soundtrack (didn't leap out when I watched it for better or worse). Also I see that the director was also responsible for "Dona Flor and Her Two Husbands" hmmm, not a good sign; even as a horny teenager I was leery of that "sex farce". I may be wrong, but I suspect this docudrama will age much better than that.6.5/10

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 hisrationalizing 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 movie, based on the Fernando Gabeira's novel, is intense, full of action, motion and meaning. How a few young rebels planned and executed the kidnap of the US Ambassador in Rio - on that time, the Embassy was still there. Very well produced and edited, special comments about the sound, with some moments of silence and other with a disturbing noise. An expert crew. Take a look in Pedro Cardoso, who represents Fernando Gabeira. OK, some scenes of the movie are different from the original written version, but I should say it looks really good. But I would never suggest somebody else to try repeating their adventure and kidnap the US Ambassador...