A matter of money set against a backdrop of corruption, this mystery carefully unfolds, posing questions that are never truly answered.
★★✰✰✰
Azor stars Fabrizio Rongione as Yvan, a private banker from Switzerland who has travelled to Argentina to search for Keys, his partner who has mysteriously disappeared. His wife Ines, played by Stéphanie Cléau, joins him on his trip. The film is set in the late 70s, when many civilians were being killed or disappeared at the hands of the military in Argentina’s Dirty War. Directed by Andreas Fontana and written by Andreas Fontana and Mariano Llinás, the film was inspired by Fontana’s finding of a letter among his father’s possessions who, like Yvan, was a Swiss banker.
Keys’ absence mirrors the nature of corruption. The film seems to argue that power shifts are not necessarily subtle, as his absence is notable in the film: however, they are hard to trace. In fact, Yvan never finds out what happened to his partner, but nonetheless falls deeper into the rabbit hole, to the point of corrupting his own morality to fit the environment he inhabits. This is complemented in the settings chosen. Hotels, horse races and parties, rarely is the protagonist afforded the luxury of privacy, indicating his deteriorating sense of self. Background noise is frequent and insistent, though not necessarily disruptive. It effectively depicts the feeling of being watched which, paired with the tense political situation of the time, complements the themes of corruption and subterfuge.
One of the issues with this film is that that tension is rarely released. The film starts on a stressful depiction of brutality and attempts to maintain that tension through dialogue and sound design. Yet for tension to be effective moments of release, however brief, are imperative. This is especially true in this case, as the tension does not increase throughout the picture, but rather stays the same. Viewers who are not especially interested in art-house cinema will find themselves losing interest. As much as movies about similar themes, such as The Wolf of Wall Street, are accused of glamorizing fraud and white-collar crime, this film shows exactly why these strong stylistic choices are made. Essentially, the bold directing and fast-paced plots appeal to wider audiences in ways that Azor will not be able to achieve. That is unless the audience is primed and already interested in the story being told, which makes sense given the director’s personal connection through his father’s profession.
Rongione is tasked with a difficult role. Keys’s influence is notable mostly through his actions and reactions. He has to balance his character’s own personality and desires while being continuously affected by an off-screen presence. This is vital to creating tension in the film. The lead performance is convincing and understated, pairing well with the more outlandish portrayals seen from some of the side characters. One example is Dekerman (Juan Pablo Gereto), a lawyer who represents the main antagonist and stands out for his frankness and lack of filter. Meanwhile, Rongione is reminiscent of a noir protagonist, as an increasingly disillusioned and morally grey investigator. The missing element here is style. While his performance has depth, the bare plot and lethargic direction do not complement it, making it ultimately forgettable.
The film is clever and well-executed, however, other than Keys’ absence, there are no major risks taken. Azor is slow-moving and while that is clearly a deliberate choice, it ultimately results in a lack of urgency and deflated tension. This will appeal to viewers looking for a realistic and understated portrayal of fraud. However, for those uninterested in the topic at hand, the film makes no effort to entertain. This is not to say that the film is wholly unenjoyable: the witty dialogue and the acting succeed in creating an interesting picture. Yet there is something lacking beyond that, whether that be a memorable performance or a clear vision by the director. One of the key issues here is the plot itself. A mystery succeeds in creating tension through the gradual revelation of information. However, there is no substantial difference between what the protagonist suspects at the beginning of the film, and what he discovers at the end, making his journey fundamentally dull. While his moral unravelling might have been compelling, it is repetitive: what is conveyed in the first scene of this film is the same as what is conveyed in the last scene.
When taken individually, all the elements that make up Azor work, with careful direction, a purposeful production and compelling lead performance. Yet when combined, the overall result is dull. It might be because, despite the 100-minute runtime, the material is stretched too thin to entertain. The plot is not only slow, but repetitive, with most scenes hitting the same notes as the one before, making for an interesting, but frustrating viewing experience.
The Verdict
The themes of moral corruption are not nuanced enough to warrant such a stagnant plot. While the character work is worthy of notice, the general lack of style and the thread-bare story render this film largely unappealing to those who are not already interested in the world of private banking.
Words By Elisabetta Pulcini
Support The Indiependent
We’re trying to raise £200 a month to help cover our operational costs. This includes our ‘Writer of the Month’ awards, where we recognise the amazing work produced by our contributor team. If you’ve enjoyed reading our site, we’d really appreciate it if you could donate to The Indiependent. Whether you can give £1 or £10, you’d be making a huge difference to our small team.