While Nancy Reagan was saying "no to drugs," Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was saying No to reform. With international pressure mounting in the late 1980s, Pinochet agreed to a plebiscite campaign to determine if there would be elections. The ballot question would be a simple "yes" or “no” as to whether an eight-year extension of power for Pinochet would be allowed. The campaign would allow a month of advertising, allowing fifteen minutes for the “yes” propaganda and fifteen minutes for the “no.” The NO vote was considered by Pinochet’s government to be an appeasement to the International community that had no chance of success.
While the plebiscite vote included international support and a strong grassroots campaign, a central facet of the campaign was to use the television time allotted to frame the vote in an optimistic, positive light. The theory being that you can't fight fear with fear. To lead this campaign, a young advertising whip was drafted to advise the campaign. No examines the democracy movement through the eyes of this adman, Rene Saavedra (Gael Bernal Garcia). Saavedra is recruited into the campaign by the National Director of the “No,” who is a family friend. The challenge to run this campaign exceeds just navigating the sensitive political turbulence. Saavedra also works for an advertising agency run by a supporter of the Pinochet regime. As the NO campaign begins to become effective, Saavedra’s boss goes to work for the YES campaign, setting up a tense working relationship between the pair who appear to remain friends.
NO takes a belabored look at Saavedra’s increased involvement in the NO campaign, complete with the differences espoused by the competing parties. Part of the challenge is to create a united front among the many parties. One major sticking point is the dark side of the Pinochet government that has led to the disappearance of and brutality towards large segments of the population. The campaign requires a delicate balance that maintains a positive effort to turn out the vote. From the creation of an upbeat commercial jingle to light-hearted comedy, the ad campaign slowly erodes away the fear that people harbor towards the government. The story plods along at times as we almost casually witness the meandering discussions of the major party leaders as the campaign is pulled together. The slow-paced narrative is augmented with some tension as the campaign draws fire from the government. Mostly, the pacing was too slow for my liking.
I am not familiar with director Pablo Lorrain, but don’t think I am much of a fan. I had two major issues with this film. The first was the sluggish pacing, which I have already addressed. My second issue was the cinematography. I can understand going for a “washed out” look to try and create a late 1980s feel. Lorrain did a great job of finding fads and trends to incorporate into the story for that time period. But the actual decisions he made with the camera angles were very irritating. I don’t know what he was trying to say with the camera/lighting, but the scenes were often washed out with the camera looking directly at lighting or the sun. It felt gimmicky and did not add anything to the story. It was an annoying distraction.
A redeeming quality was the casting of Bernal in the lead role. Bernal has a propensity for finding quirky roles that he brings an added dimension to. This is also the second film I recall where Bernal is making a film. While this is more commercial, his movie Even The Rain was a story centered around a film about Christopher Columbus. I don’t mind stories about “stories.” They often add an interesting twist. Bernal was exceptional, doing most of the heavy lifting. He was the only actor I was familiar with in this film. While I did not know the other actors, he was surrounded by plenty of veterans. The other primary cast members have extensive film and television credits. None stood out, good or bad. The solid performances all the way around help move this movie along.
I enjoy films that are based on true stories. This film told a story I was unfamiliar with. These events in Columbia happened on the heels of Panama and a short while after the major events in Nicaragua and Salvador, which dominated the US headlines at the time. I am glad I had the opportunity to learn more about a coup led by the people, rather than the military coups that were more typical of that time. The film is an adaptation (Pedro Peirano) of a stage play written by Antonio Skarmeta. While sluggish, the underlying story was engaging, the characters were well drawn and the acting convincing. If you enjoy historical non-fiction, this film will probably appeal to you. Minor flaws like pacing don’t detract fully from an engaging story. IMDb likes this film with a current score of 7.4. Mark me down as a 6/10.