In the film *Argentina, 1985*, the setting—a precarious, transitional period between military dictatorship and nascent democracy—functions as more than a backdrop; it is the primary engine of the plot’s tension and the direct cause of its pivotal narrative shifts.
The setting influences the trajectory of the action in the following specific ways:
### 1. **The Vacuum of Experience and the "Youth" Prosecution Team**
The immediate post-dictatorship setting (just two years after the regime fell) dictates the composition of the legal team.
* **Action Trajectory:** Because the military still holds significant influence, most established lawyers and judicial officials are either compromised by their past silence or paralyzed by fear of retaliation. This forces the protagonist, Julio Strassera, and his deputy, Luis Moreno Ocampo, to recruit a team of "kids"—inexperienced law students and young professionals.
* **Result:** This shifts the film from a traditional legal procedural into an "underdog" or "David vs. Goliath" story. The action is driven by the energy and innovative (if amateurish) methods of these youths, who are the only ones not "polluted" by the era of the dictatorship.
### 2. **Physical Geography as a Source of Paranoia**
The film utilizes the actual streets of Buenos Aires and the original courtroom at *Tribunales* to ground the action in a state of constant surveillance.
* **Action Trajectory:** The setting creates a "film noir" atmosphere where every car following a character or every ringing telephone is a potential death threat. For example, a scene where Ocampo is followed through the streets highlights that the "enemy" is not just in the dock, but still occupies the city's infrastructure.
* **Specific Detail:** The threat level reaches a peak on the first day of the trial when the courtroom receives a **bomb threat**. This specific action point, influenced by the volatility of the 1985 political climate, forces the judges and prosecutors to make an immediate, high-stakes decision to proceed anyway, signaling that the rule of law will no longer be intimidated by military tactics.
### 3. **The "Civilian vs. Military" Jurisdictional Conflict**
The film begins with a muttered complaint that the military leaders will be tried in a civilian court rather than by their own peers.
* **Action Trajectory:** This setting-specific detail creates the initial conflict. The action is propelled by the military’s "haughty refusal" to recognize the authority of the court. Their insistence that they were fighting a "war" against subversion—a common sentiment in 1985 Argentina—forces the prosecution to change their strategy: they cannot just prove the crimes happened; they must prove they were part of a systematic, state-sponsored plan of terror.
### 4. **The Social Divide within Families**
The 1985 setting is characterized by a society in denial. Many Argentines, including Moreno Ocampo’s own mother, initially believe the military were "liberators."
* **Action Trajectory:** This internal social setting influences Ocampo's personal character arc and the prosecution’s strategy. They realize they aren't just trying to win a legal case; they are trying to **win over public opinion**.
* **Specific Detail:** This leads to the decision to prioritize the testimony of **Adriana Calvo de Laborde**, who gave birth in the back of a police car while hooded and handcuffed. The setting (a society on the brink of change) makes her testimony the turning point that finally breaks the "glass wall" of denial for characters like Ocampo’s mother and the broader public.
### 5. **Technology and Media as Narrative Tools**
The 1985 setting is defined by the dawn of televised trials in the country.
* **Action Trajectory:** The film uses "U-matic" cameras to replicate the grainy look of the era's broadcasts. The fact that the trial is being recorded (though limited in its live broadcast) creates a "theatrical" pressure. Strassera’s final "Never Again" (*Nunca Más*) speech is not just directed at the judges, but at the cameras, knowing that the setting of the trial—the world watching—is the only thing that can protect the new democracy from a future coup.