I've seen No twice. The first viewing was at the London Film Festival and director Pablo Larrain graced the screening with his presence and conducted a Q/A afterwards. The second was more recent and follows the film's release in the UK's independent and art house cinemas. I was curious to see if I would enjoy the film as much on second viewing and to see what I may have missed from the first. Well I enjoyed the film more and appreciated its humour all the more as well.
Unlike other reviewers I do not think a viewer has to know about Chile's history leading up to the 1988 official plebiscite with which this film is concerned. Everything you need to know about Chile following the Pinochet coup is shown in the film either as part of the characters' dialogue or as actual footage. To increase the film's authenticity it is filmed on old stock so that it segues with the archive footage. This technique gives the film a nostalgic flavour exploited to humorous effect throughout and especially when Saavedra acquires his first microwave oven.
In 1988 Pinochet bowed to international pressure and allowed the first free election since he and the military staged a coup to overthrow Allende's elected government in the early 1970's. The election was not a general election as such, where voters would choose which party they wanted to govern, but a vote of confidence in allowing Pinochet to continue. So voters would vote yes for Pinochet or no, meaning they wanted someone else but without choosing who or what. The film's title represents the disparate sides (17 political parties) who united behind the 'no' campaign. Their main aim was to ensure people turned out to vote because early signs were that certain key groups (women in their 60's and the youth) believed the election would change nothing and this belief would keep them away from voting. Because these two groups of the electorate had diverse aims and aspirations, as did the 17 political parties in opposition to Pinochet, there was the issue of how to unite people in the face of a murderous and bloody dictatorship in order to make effective use of the 15-minute slot they were allowed on TV over a 27-day period. Outside these 15 minutes TV was regulated by the state and no contrary opinion was permitted.
This is why the ad men mattered. If this film has one major triumph it is taking a novel approach to telling this part of Chile's history. Namely from the view of the ad men and one in particular called Rene Saavedra (Gael Garcia Bernal), who is a fictional composite of the two ad men that led the 'no' campaign in reality. Saavedra gets the campaigners to focus on what is at the heart of the multiple agendas and interests of people and parties. The answer was a desire to move forward, away from the dark dangerous days filled with death, disappearances and pain and on into a brighter and happier future. Happiness became the manifesto offered by the 'no' side and to accompany this concept was the famous jingle (another clever marketing ploy) 'Chile, happiness is coming'. It's an infectious jingle that I hear every time I think of it and it's one that inspires a person to sing and clap along, which creates more moments of humour on screen.
The film find its dramatic tension by focusing on Saavedra and his own struggles during the campaign. He has returned to Chile following a period of exile because his father was forced to flee the Pinochet regime. His wife Veronica, from whom he is estranged, is an ardent activist who is arrested and beaten on a regular basis. They have a young son, Simon, whose bewilderment throughout many of the events mirrors that of Saavedra's and brings to mind what might have been Saavedra's own experiences before his father fled with the family into exile. The problems and pain of living under Pinochet wears the human face of Saavedra. His ideas and beliefs for the campaign are subject to ridicule, he is a target for anger and dismissed as an outsider at times. His life hangs in the balance because should the 'no' campaign fail, he will be treated as a threat to the Pinochet state and untold horrors await him and the others. He learns of this courtesy of his boss, fellow ad man Lucho Guzman (Alfredo Castro, turning in a wonderful performance as the main antagonist), who tells him that he and the other 'no' campaigners will be "effed up" after the campaign, such was the confidence of the Pinochet regime in winning the plebiscite. Happily, this was not the conclusion.
Although the film deals with events that are 24 years old some of its concerns are contemporary: The need and desire for a politics based on optimism and hope for the future without negative campaigning playing on people's fears and creating hopelessness. I feel the need for such a political dialect and I found the ideas of the 'no' campaign inspirational and very moving.
I recommend the film most highly. One, because it is a fresh approach to political history. Two, because it has been made with love and care and has a gentle heart. Three, because it's so terribly poignant for lots of reasons.
Unlike other reviewers I do not think a viewer has to know about Chile's history leading up to the 1988 official plebiscite with which this film is concerned. Everything you need to know about Chile following the Pinochet coup is shown in the film either as part of the characters' dialogue or as actual footage. To increase the film's authenticity it is filmed on old stock so that it segues with the archive footage. This technique gives the film a nostalgic flavour exploited to humorous effect throughout and especially when Saavedra acquires his first microwave oven.
In 1988 Pinochet bowed to international pressure and allowed the first free election since he and the military staged a coup to overthrow Allende's elected government in the early 1970's. The election was not a general election as such, where voters would choose which party they wanted to govern, but a vote of confidence in allowing Pinochet to continue. So voters would vote yes for Pinochet or no, meaning they wanted someone else but without choosing who or what. The film's title represents the disparate sides (17 political parties) who united behind the 'no' campaign. Their main aim was to ensure people turned out to vote because early signs were that certain key groups (women in their 60's and the youth) believed the election would change nothing and this belief would keep them away from voting. Because these two groups of the electorate had diverse aims and aspirations, as did the 17 political parties in opposition to Pinochet, there was the issue of how to unite people in the face of a murderous and bloody dictatorship in order to make effective use of the 15-minute slot they were allowed on TV over a 27-day period. Outside these 15 minutes TV was regulated by the state and no contrary opinion was permitted.
This is why the ad men mattered. If this film has one major triumph it is taking a novel approach to telling this part of Chile's history. Namely from the view of the ad men and one in particular called Rene Saavedra (Gael Garcia Bernal), who is a fictional composite of the two ad men that led the 'no' campaign in reality. Saavedra gets the campaigners to focus on what is at the heart of the multiple agendas and interests of people and parties. The answer was a desire to move forward, away from the dark dangerous days filled with death, disappearances and pain and on into a brighter and happier future. Happiness became the manifesto offered by the 'no' side and to accompany this concept was the famous jingle (another clever marketing ploy) 'Chile, happiness is coming'. It's an infectious jingle that I hear every time I think of it and it's one that inspires a person to sing and clap along, which creates more moments of humour on screen.
The film find its dramatic tension by focusing on Saavedra and his own struggles during the campaign. He has returned to Chile following a period of exile because his father was forced to flee the Pinochet regime. His wife Veronica, from whom he is estranged, is an ardent activist who is arrested and beaten on a regular basis. They have a young son, Simon, whose bewilderment throughout many of the events mirrors that of Saavedra's and brings to mind what might have been Saavedra's own experiences before his father fled with the family into exile. The problems and pain of living under Pinochet wears the human face of Saavedra. His ideas and beliefs for the campaign are subject to ridicule, he is a target for anger and dismissed as an outsider at times. His life hangs in the balance because should the 'no' campaign fail, he will be treated as a threat to the Pinochet state and untold horrors await him and the others. He learns of this courtesy of his boss, fellow ad man Lucho Guzman (Alfredo Castro, turning in a wonderful performance as the main antagonist), who tells him that he and the other 'no' campaigners will be "effed up" after the campaign, such was the confidence of the Pinochet regime in winning the plebiscite. Happily, this was not the conclusion.
Although the film deals with events that are 24 years old some of its concerns are contemporary: The need and desire for a politics based on optimism and hope for the future without negative campaigning playing on people's fears and creating hopelessness. I feel the need for such a political dialect and I found the ideas of the 'no' campaign inspirational and very moving.
I recommend the film most highly. One, because it is a fresh approach to political history. Two, because it has been made with love and care and has a gentle heart. Three, because it's so terribly poignant for lots of reasons.