Editing Three Days of the Condor (section)

== Reception ==
[[Rotten Tomatoes]], a [[review aggregator]], reports that 87% of 53 surveyed critics gave the film a positive review, and the average rating was 7.4/10; the site's consensus is: "This post-Watergate thriller captures the paranoid tenor of the times, thanks to [[Sydney Pollack]]'s taut direction and excellent performances from Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/three_days_of_the_condor/|title=''Three Days of the Condor'' (1975)|access-date=October 10, 2023|work=[[Rotten Tomatoes]]|archive-date=December 5, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131205221453/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/three_days_of_the_condor/|url-status=live}}</ref>

When first released, the film was reviewed positively by [[Vincent Canby]], critic for ''[[The New York Times]]'', who wrote that the film "is no match for stories in your local newspaper", but it benefits from good acting and directing.<ref name="canby">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=EE05E7DF173CE577BC4D51DFBF66838E669EDE|title=Three Days of the Condor (1975)|last=Canby|first=Vincent|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=September 25, 1975|access-date=February 29, 2008|archive-date=March 9, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140309045028/http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=EE05E7DF173CE577BC4D51DFBF66838E669EDE|url-status=live}}</ref> ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'' called it a [[B movie]] that was given a big budget despite its lack of substance.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://variety.com/1974/film/reviews/three-days-of-the-condor-1200423315/|title=Review: 'Three Days of the Condor'|author=<!-- Staff -->|work=[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]|year=1975|access-date=February 8, 2014|archive-date=September 15, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200915003558/https://variety.com/1974/film/reviews/three-days-of-the-condor-1200423315/|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Roger Ebert]] wrote, "''Three Days of the Condor'' is a well-made thriller, tense and involving, and the scary thing, in these months after Watergate, is that it's all too believable."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/three-days-of-the-condor-1975|title=Three Days of the Condor|last=Ebert|first=Roger|work=[[Chicago Sun-Times]]|year=1975|access-date=February 8, 2014|archive-date=December 31, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201231141654/https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/three-days-of-the-condor-1975|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[John Simon (critic)|John Simon]] wrote how the book, ''[[Six Days of the Condor]]'', had been rewritten for the film:
{{blockquote|That the action has been relocated from sleepy Washington to furious New York City, almost all names have been changed, that the plot has been vastly over-complicated, is of lesser interest than a straight genre film, has been overloaded into an elegy of private, political, and finally, cosmic pessimism, a kind of national, if not metaphysical, guilt film to enchant the disenchanted.<ref name="simon">{{cite book |title=Reverse Angle: A Decade of American Film|url=https://archive.org/details/reverseangledeca0000simo|url-access=registration|last1=Simon|first1=John |publisher=Crown Publishers Inc. |year=1982 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/reverseangledeca0000simo/page/195 195-198]|isbn=9780517544716 }}</ref>}}
In closing his review, Simon said the lesson he derived from the film was, "we must be grateful to the CIA: it does what our schools no longer do&nbsp;— engage some people to read books."<ref name="simon"/>

French philosopher [[Jean Baudrillard]] lists the film as an example of a new genre of "retro cinema" in his essay on history in the now influential book, ''[[Simulacra and Simulation]]'' (1981):

{{blockquote|In the 'real' as in cinema, there was history but there isn't any anymore. Today, the history that is 'given back' to us (precisely because it was taken from us) has no more of a relation to a 'historical real' than neofiguration in painting does to the classical figuration of the real...All, but not only, those historical films whose very perfection is disquieting: [[Chinatown (1974 film)|''Chinatown'']], ''Three Days of the Condor'', ''[[Barry Lyndon]]'', [[1900 (film)|''1900'']], ''[[All the President's Men (film)|All the President's Men]]'', etc. One has the impression of it being a question of perfect remakes, of extraordinary montages that emerge more from a combinatory culture (or [[Marshall McLuhan|McLuhanesque]] mosaic), of large photo-, kino-, historicosynthesis machines, etc., rather than one of veritable films."<ref>[[Jean Baudrillard|Baudrillard, Jean]]. ''[[Simulacra and Simulation]]''. Trans. Sheila Faria Glaser. [[University of Michigan Press]], 1994, p. 45. French original, ''Simulacres et Simulation,'' published by [[:fr:Éditions Galilée|Éditions Galilée]] in 1981.</ref>}}

Some critics described the film as a piece of [[Propaganda#Politics|political propaganda]], as it was released soon after the "[[Family Jewels (Central Intelligence Agency)|Family Jewels]]" scandal came to light in December 1974, which exposed a variety of CIA "dirty tricks". However, in an interview with ''[[Jump Cut (journal)|Jump Cut]]'', Pollack explained that the film was written solely to be a spy thriller and that production on the film was nearly over by the time the Family Jewels revelations were made, so even if they had wanted to take advantage of them, it was far too late in the filmmaking process to do so. He said that despite both Pollack and Redford being well-known political [[liberalism in the United States|liberals]], they were only interested in making the film because an espionage thriller was a genre neither of them had previously explored.<ref name="jumpcut">{{cite journal | title=Hollywood uncovers the CIA | first=Patrick | last=McGilligan | journal=[[Jump Cut (journal)|Jump Cut]] | url=http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC10-11folder/PollackMcGilligan.html | year=1976 | issue=10–11 | access-date=December 24, 2013 | archive-date=November 19, 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121119062758/http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC10-11folder/PollackMcGilligan.html | url-status=live }}</ref>

{{blockquote|I didn't want this picture to be judged; it’s a movie. I intended it always as a movie. I never had any pretensions about the picture and it’s making me very angry that I'm getting pretensions stuck on me like tails on a donkey. If I wanted to be pretentious, I'd take the CIA seal and advertise this movie and really take advantage of the headlines. Central Intelligence Agency, United States of America, Robert Redford, Faye Dunaway. And don't think it wasn't suggested&nbsp;— obviously, that’s what advertising people do. We really put our foot down&nbsp;— Redford and I&nbsp;— to absolutely stop that.<ref name="jumpcut"/>}}

=== KGB ===
According to former Soviet intelligence officer [[Sergei Tretyakov (intelligence officer)|Sergei Tretyakov]], the fictional clandestine office shown in ''Three Days of Condor'' convinced [[KGB]] generals to establish an equivalent office in Moscow, the Scientific Research Institute of Intelligence Problems ({{langx|ru|Научно-исследовательский институт разведывательных проблем}}).<ref>{{cite book |last1=Earley |first1=Pete |title=Comrade J: The Untold Secrets of Russia's Master Spy in America After the End of the Cold War |date=2007 |publisher=Penguin Books |pages=37–39}}</ref>