Pick of the week: This is how you overthrow a dictator

The Oscar-nominated "No" spins a crazy-true story of the dopey TV ads that sank Gen. Augusto Pinochet

Topics: Chile, No, Gael Garcia Bernal, Movies, Oscars, Academy Awards, 2013 oscars, oscars 2013, Our Picks: Movies, Our Picks, Editor's Picks, Pinochet, political ads, 2013 Awards Season,

Pick of the week: This is how you overthrow a dictator

Early in Chilean director Pablo Larraín’s Oscar-nominated “No,” a young adman is having an argument with his boss about whose side the Americans are on. It’s the late 1980s, near the tail end of Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship, and Lucho (Alfredo Castro), the owner of the ad agency, is berating the younger René (Mexican star Gael García Bernal) for supporting a “No” vote in the upcoming national referendum on the Pinochet regime. Only Commies support the “No” cause, Lucho sneers; the financial support is coming from Cuba, Nicaragua and the Soviet Union. Besides, the Yankees and the CIA are behind Pinochet, and they’ll never allow him to be defeated. You’re wrong about that, René calmly insists; this time the Yankees are with us.

A troubling, exhilarating and ingeniously realized film that’s part stirring political drama and part devilish media satire (deliberately shot on old-school, crappy-looking analog video), “No” argues that they’re both partly right. But it’s René who sees the changing course of history and seizes the moment. He will go on to design a whimsical, sentimental and relentlessly upbeat series of TV commercials for the “No” campaign, selling the idea of democracy precisely as he sells a new brand of cola. As the media strategist for the pro-Pinochet “Yes” campaign, Lucho will desperately try to counter, fighting back against René’s images of alegría, or happiness, with fears of terrorism, political extremism and economic deprivation. On one level “No” is an inspiring tale of peaceful liberation, self-determination and the fundamental clash between optimism and pessimism. On another, it’s a darker and more complex fable about the birth of the media age and the rise of the neoliberal consensus that conceived of all humanity as a market, which swept up Chileans on all sides along with everybody else.

As Lucho and René and everyone else in Chile knew all too well, it was the CIA who sponsored a 1973 military coup that overthrew the elected government of Salvador Allende and installed Pinochet in the first place. As we see in newsreel footage in “No,” the usurping general was embraced by the likes of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Maggie Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. Chile became the textbook example of America’s Cold War relationship to the Third World: Brutal right-wing dictators were uniformly preferable to fractious and disobedient elected leaders, and secret police, torture and midnight disappearance were just the cost of doing business.



But by 1988 the Soviet empire was running on the fumes of perestroika, and the collapse of the Berlin Wall lay just a year into the future. With the Cold War winding down, the silver-haired troglodyte in Santiago with the appalling human-rights record had become an international embarrassment. Almost everyone in Chile initially viewed the Pinochet referendum as empty political theater designed to prop up the regime: Left-wing dissidents would refuse to participate, ordinary people would be cowed into voting yes or staying home, and in any case the government would be counting the votes. Instead, the Chilean vote that October became the focus of worldwide attention, and a harbinger of the winds of change that were sweeping the globe from one historical epoch into another.

So while Lucho is right that the Americans had erected and sustained the Pinochet regime, René can see that a new logic now governs the Western world, and old-fashioned tyrants in fruit-salad uniforms are no longer necessary. René is a fictional composite – a depressed, divorced and apolitical American-style messaging whiz, trained in Mexico City – but the ad campaign he creates for the “No” forces, with its “Footloose”-style dance numbers, rosy-cheeked picnickers and “We Are the World”-flavored jingles, really happened. Larraín says, in fact, that roughly 30 percent of “No” consists of vintage television footage from the period, so seamlessly blended into the rest of the film that it’s almost impossible to figure out what’s real and what’s not. To shoot the 21st-century footage, Larraín even tracked down a 1983 U-matic video camera, so that the harsh, squarish, lo-res images, complete with flickers and flares, are visually indistinguishable. This also points to a streak of artistic or philosophical perversity that’s important in Larraín’s work; he describes the antique analog camera used for this film as “a statement against the aesthetic hegemony of HD.”

As a recent New York Times story described, “No” has provoked a “Zero Dark Thirty”-scale controversy in Chile, for reasons that will be invisible to most North American viewers. In both cases, the underlying issue may be a filmmaker’s desire to cloak his or her agenda in narrative ambiguity, or to strive for a detached historical perspective rather than an obvious political message. Some of the film’s critics are upset that “No” focuses almost exclusively on the competing media campaigns around the 1988 referendum, and makes no mention of the ground-level political organizing and voter registration drives that were at least as decisive. That’s fair enough, but it also amounts to wishing that Larraín had made an entirely different film; his subject here is less the victory of democracy over despotism than the sudden arrival of American-style political advertising in an isolated Latin American dictatorship.

Another problem the director faces is that his parents were prominent right-wingers and Pinochet supporters, and some Chilean critics have claimed to detect crypto-fascist sympathies behind his artistic or ironic detachment. But Larraín himself was 12 years old when the dictatorship collapsed, and in any case he has now made a trilogy of dark and complicated films about Chile under Pinochet, none of which display the slightest hint of nostalgia or affection for old “Pinocho.” The first of those films, the 2008 cult sensation “Tony Manero,” is one of the blackest comedies you’ll ever see, with “No” co-star Castro as a middle-aged John Travolta impersonator who uses the regime’s violence as cover for a serial-killing spree. If “Tony Manero” transgressed against orthodox liberal opinion, it was in suggesting that American pop culture can be a tool of delusion and enslavement, rather than always and everywhere a force of liberation.

Pedro Peirano’s screenplay for “No” (based on a play by Chilean journalist Antonio Skármeta) doesn’t aim for anything like that degree of bleakness, but it does strike a tone of deliberate ambivalence. The film makes abundantly clear that some left-wing activists — who in many cases had personally undergone torture or witnessed abductions and assassinations — were outraged at the prospect of adopting the sunniest and most asinine tactics of advertising, instead of reminding the public of the Pinochet regime’s abundant crimes. For García Bernal’s phlegmatic hero, the central question is a simple one: Do you want to speak truth to power, and lose the election? Or do you want to beat the dictator at his own game, and move Chile into the future? Because the road to the future is paved with focus groups and cheerful rainbow logos, mimes mugging for the camera and soap-opera bombshells voguing on rooftops.

“No” opens this week in New York and Los Angeles, and then opens March 1 in San Francisco and Washington; March 8 in Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis, Palm Springs, Calif., San Diego and San Jose, Calif.; March 15 in Dallas, Houston and Philadelphia; March 22 in Baltimore, Boca Raton, Fla., Denver and Miami; and March 29 in Atlanta, Milwaukee, Richmond, Va., St. Louis, Seattle and Austin, Texas, with more cities to follow.

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 14
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Pilot"

    One of our first exposures to uncomfortable “Girls” sex comes early, in the pilot episode, when Hannah and Adam “get feisty” (a phrase Hannah hates) on the couch. The pair is about to go at it doggy-style when Adam nearly inserts his penis in “the wrong hole,” and after Hannah corrects him, she awkwardly explains her lack of desire to have anal sex in too many words. “Hey, let’s play the quiet game,” Adam says, thrusting. And so the romance begins.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Elijah, "It's About Time"

    In an act of “betrayal” that messes up each of their relationships with Hannah, Marnie and Elijah open Season 2 with some more couch sex, which is almost unbearable to watch. Elijah, who is trying to explore the “hetero side” of his bisexuality, can’t maintain his erection, and the entire affair ends in very uncomfortable silence.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Charlie, "Vagina Panic"

    Poor Charlie. While he and Marnie have their fair share of uncomfortable sex over the course of their relationship, one of the saddest moments (aside from Marnie breaking up with him during intercourse) is when Marnie encourages him to penetrate her from behind so she doesn’t have to look at him. “This feels so good,” Charlie says. “We have to go slow.” Poor sucker.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and camp friend Matt, "Hannah's Diary"

    We’d be remiss not to mention Shoshanna’s effort to lose her virginity to an old camp friend, who tells her how “weird” it is that he “loves to eat pussy” moments before she admits she’s never “done it” before. At least it paves the way for the uncomfortable sex we later get to watch her have with Ray?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Hard Being Easy"

    On the heels of trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the status of her early relationship with Adam, Hannah walks by her future boyfriend’s bedroom to find him masturbating alone, in one of the strangest scenes of the first season. As Adam jerks off and refuses to let Hannah participate beyond telling him how much she likes watching, we see some serious (and odd) character development ... which ends with Hannah taking a hundred-dollar bill from Adam’s wallet, for cab fare and pizza (as well as her services).

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Booth Jonathan, "Bad Friend"

    Oh, Booth Jonathan -- the little man who “knows how to do things.” After he turns Marnie on enough to make her masturbate in the bathroom at the gallery where she works, Booth finally seals the deal in a mortifying and nearly painful to watch sex scene that tells us pretty much everything we need to know about how much Marnie is willing to fake it.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Tad and Loreen, "The Return"

    The only sex scene in the series not to feature one of the main characters, Hannah’s parents’ showertime anniversary celebration is easily one of the most cringe-worthy moments of the show’s first season. Even Hannah’s mother, Loreen, observes how embarrassing the situation is, which ends with her husband, Tad, slipping out of the shower and falling naked and unconscious on the bathroom floor.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and the pharmacist, "The Return"

    Tad and Loreen aren’t the only ones to get some during Hannah’s first season trip home to Michigan. The show’s protagonist finds herself in bed with a former high school classmate, who doesn’t exactly enjoy it when Hannah puts one of her fingers near his anus. “I’m tight like a baby, right?” Hannah asks at one point. Time to press pause.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Role-Play"

    While it’s not quite a full-on, all-out sex scene, Hannah and Adam’s attempt at role play in Season 3 is certainly an intimate encounter to behold (or not). Hannah dons a blond wig and gets a little too into her role, giving a melodramatic performance that ends with a passerby punching Adam in the face. So there’s that.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and Ray, "Together"

    As Shoshanna and Ray near the end of their relationship, we can see their sexual chemistry getting worse and worse. It’s no more evident than when Ray is penetrating a clothed and visibly horrified Shoshanna from behind, who ends the encounter by asking if her partner will just “get out of me.”

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Frank, "Video Games"

    Hannah, Jessa’s 19-year-old stepbrother, a graveyard and too much chatting. Need we say more about how uncomfortable this sex is to watch?

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Desi, "Iowa"

    Who gets her butt motorboated? Is this a real thing? Aside from the questionable logistics and reality of Marnie and Desi’s analingus scene, there’s also the awkward moment when Marnie confuses her partner’s declaration of love for licking her butthole with love for her. Oh, Marnie.

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Vagina Panic"

    There is too much in this scene to dissect: fantasies of an 11-year-old girl with a Cabbage Patch lunchbox, excessive references to that little girl as a “slut” and Adam ripping off a condom to ejaculate on Hannah’s chest. No wonder it ends with Hannah saying she almost came.

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

0 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>