A fictionalized flick based on the unpublished state play by Antonio Skarmeta called ‘El Plebiscito’, the 2012 movie “No” directed by Pablo Larrain was set in the times leading up to the 1998 Chile Referendum to decide on whether or not the dictator Augusto Pinochet would continue his reign as a president. The 15 years of dictatorship by Pinochet have driven Chile into an oppressive crisis that involves numerous human rights violations and the collapse of the Chilean economy. As a proposal for a national plebiscite to be held, there was a twinkle of hope for a free Chile. In a couple of weeks, Chileans would have to either vote ‘Yes’ for him to remain in power again for the next 8 years and ‘No’ to dismiss him from the presidency. Thus, in an effort to sway the choice of the people, a war of propaganda between the two sides commenced. The rules are simple: each side has 15 minutes per day until the day of the referendum to advertise their campaign.
As the movie goes on, a progression of violence between both teams against each other heightens in an effort to ensure the other team’s failure; this involves trying to censor ads and even harassment. However, in the midst of the bleak reality, the role of the youth in the movie constructs a reassuring optimism against injustice and tyranny — a pillar of faith for a brighter future in Chile.
In September 1973, Army General Augusto Pinochet overthrew Salvador Allende, a former Chile’s incumbent president, backed by his junta. Pinochet promised to get Chile back on the democratic track in response to Allende’s tendency to favor the socialist party and policies. Pinochet solidified some significant changes that mimic the western doctrine of democratization involving liberalization, therefore, reforming Chile’s economic and political spheres. Although, this plan eventually backfired resulting in human rights violations and years of repression. Amongst many notable changes, the approval of the 1980s Constitution and 1988s referendum was crucial in justifying Pinochet’s dictatorship.
Interestingly to note, in the first scenes in which we were introduced to the Pinochet campaign team, efforts to discuss the “Yes” campaign strategy was fairly minimal, focusing on trivial details like Pinochet’s outfit, assuming that Chileans would easily fall into the charm of the regime’s economic growth and progress. On the other hand, the “happy” concept was René’s main inspiration after the opposition confessed that their campaign was lost from the start, meaning that they were not confident that it would raise the number of “No” voters. Inevitably, it faced some repercussions, accused of undermining the pain and consequences of Pinochet’s dictatorship by a board member of the campaign and his ex-wife, Veronica because of its colorful tone, catchy tunes, and heavy relies on happy-go-lucky marketing. This resulted in another ad made for the campaign filled with hard-hitting truths and a group of people impacted by Pinochet’s political brutality. Tears were shed because they captured the essence of the movement’s solidarity based on the suffering sentiment. Regardless of critics, he pushed forward.
The film also depicts the socio-political climate in Chile during the period leading up to the referendum. After a back and forth between the ”No” and the ”Yes” campaign on national television, a scene in the movie shows us Rene being terrorized in his own home by agents of the “Yes” campaign, ever since which his demeanor changes, this gives us a perspective on the pressures people opposing the Pinochet regime are subjected to. During the days nearing the due date of the referendum, the film also depicts political rallies that took place in both camps attended by passionate Chileans en masse, accompanied by crackdowns on the No. rallies by state police. Finally, on October the 6th 1988, the Chilean people voted in the national plebiscite. With a 88% voter turnout among the voting-age population, the No. campaign edged out the win with a significant majority, carrying 58% of the vote. The film ends after the announcement of the results of the plebiscite with a minimal depiction of the celebration, foreshadowing that the process was not yet over as Pinochet still attempted to discredit and overturn the results of the plebiscite. Despite this, without the support of the rest of his military junta, Pinochet could do little considering the climate of the nation at the time. On the 14th of December 1989, elections took place and the Christian Democrat Patricio Aylwin was sworn into office in March of the following year, marking the democratic end to the Pinochet dictatorship.
Our Two Cents
No. (2012), depicts a social-political drama from a paradigm rarely approached by most films. No. does not present an ideological debate within its narrative, despite this though its framing of the story is clear, the film definitely portrays the story it tells in a way that anyone, regardless of their prior knowledge on the issue, can easily understand, follow and invest in. A few critics thought about the film, it is far easier for a viewer to be invested in its plot rather than the characters within the film itself. It feels like that No. does very little with the characters it has at its disposal. Another critique of the film would be the messy pacing of the film during its third act nearing its end. It feels rushed with very little build-up toward its finale. These factors lead to an overarching problem with the film: the lack of a sense of tension within the film itself. Despite this, No. is still a well-produced moving picture, a window inside the social and political history of Latin America.
