In the film “NO”, Chilean people want to make sure that the current president does not get elected for a second term. There are people arguing for NO and SI, and the NOs come out victorious. I love how the movie shows a very distinct disconnect between certain people’s ideas of the campaign and shows how some people do not agree with the way the campaign came out

No is a film about the Chilean election and the role that television advertising plays in influencing voters. The film focuses on Rene, a successful TV advertiser, who is recruited to create ads for the “No” party. Using marketing tactics to win over various demographics of voters, the “No” party eventually wins and Pinochet is forced to step down.  I thought that the contrast between No and Si campaigns was really interesting, and how they were able to use commercial advertising tactics to counter the political themes of the Si campaign. It is an unconventional strategy, but it is able to capture the audience’s attention with its upbeat and catchy message, which contributes to their success. In addition, I thought that it was quite unusual that Rene was able to continue to work with his boss, who was working for the Si campaign. Even though they were working for opposing sides, they still were able to collaborate on other projects. Either they had a really good working relationship or they were just trying to keep up appearances.

Overall, I really liked the documentary vibes I was getting from the visuals and story-line. I’m normally not a big fan of this kind of historical or political genre of film, but No was well done and told a good story.

No was an interesting film about an advertising executive trying to overthrow the dictatorship in Chile. I was interested in the commercials he used in order to get this idea of “no” around. Furthermore, what really struck me about the film was the filming technique. The camera was usually shaky and it felt more like a home-video style documentary than a professionally-shot film. I think the shakiness of the camera parallels the unstable environment of Chile as they endured a huge election that determined if Chile would be under a dictator for eight more years. When a country is given an opportunity to vote, people think it’s democratic. However, it was miraculous that the No campaign won because the dictator was using violent techniques to influence voters to say yes. The courage the people in the campaign had to say no to a dangerous dictator was tremendous. It’s hard to resist someone powerful and just say no, but it’s important to stand by what you believe in.

Last night I was able to attend the screening of NO, a film based on the No campaign in Chile when the country was finally given an opportunity to speak out against Pinochet, the dictator. I was amazed by the way the campaign was approached which I ended up thinking was incredibly clever. Although I understood the people that didn’t want to “gloss over” the killings, torture, disappearances and overall human rights violations, I believe that the way Rene approached the campaign was the way that allowed for them to win. I have always been interested in the dictatorships of Latin America and how the United States would pick and choose which ones to support or not depending on whether leaders let the U.S take advantage of their country. The United States backed Pinochet and many other dictatorships and that to me is awful and immoral. To this day Chile is still fighting that man through the constitution he imposed when he came into power.

I loved the film, it was a true gem, I grew up watching the actor, Gael Garcia Bernan and loved watching him in this. I also greatly enjoyed the conversation afterwards and hope that more events like these are held giving insight into Latin America’s truth. There are movies like “South of the Border” “Mi Amigo Hugo” “The War on Democracy” and “The Motorcycle Diaries” that can open-minds and eyes on issues that I believe we have biased reporting on here in the U.S.