"NO" tells the story of the creation of that campaign by focusing on a message of hope and by doing that delivers a message of how humans are motivated by messages of hope vs messages of doom - a pretty timely message considering how mudslinging politics are today.
As a film, "NO" relies on too many cinematic tricks to lend it its authenticity which sometimes blunt its message. The characters, except for Garcia Bernal's, are quite stock. And it is doubtful that any non-Chilean viewer can appreciate the severity of Pinochet's rule.
"NO" is a good watch and is at times quite smart. But it's not the home run it thinks it is.
Set at a pivotal point in Chile's history, "No" shows not only how advertising actually managed to do some good for a change but also how it turned a negative to a positive, convincing Chile's population of the need for peaceful revolution, with a lot of inspiration coming from 'We Are the World.' Surprisingly, nobody goes that far below the belt in this year of Willie Horton. In any case, I have to agree with a recent New York Times article in wondering if it cannot possibly be this simple, as there is plenty of history here but no politics, as advertising shows the clueless leftists how it is all done. On the other hand, as much as Rene becomes enlightened over the course of the film, we do get many more scenes of him being a dutiful single father. I mean I love model train sets as much as the next guy but...
The disparities of 'No' are as great as those which existed between the ruling and working classes of Pinochet's Chile. Larrain's film tells its hi-fi story in a lo-fi manner, like a biopic of Michael Bay directed by Robert Altman. The flashy (for 1988) nature of Bernal's American-inspired commercials are in stark contrast to the old-school video (think Altman's 1988 campaign expose 'Tanner 88') employed by Larrain. Bernal's character is the son of a left-wing dissident while Larrain's own father was a right-wing "Yes" voter. To the dismay of his socialist clients, Bernal sells their ideals with the same techniques he employs to flog Soap-Operas and Coke knock-offs. Rather than hiring a songwriter to compose an "anthem" for the campaign, Bernal uses a jingle-writer. (The jingle will be stuck in your head for days after seeing the film.)
Apart from a helpful scroll over the credits to explain the backstory, 'No' refuses to pander to its audience. You're either on board or you aren't. I for one was gripped from beginning to end. The lo-fi video format is jarring for a couple of minutes but, ultimately, it's a brilliant decision, one which transports you back to its era far more impressively than the Top-40 tunes and retro beards of the similarly themed 'Argo'. The images blend in perfectly with archive footage of the time without resorting to cheesy 'Forrest Gump' tricks. When Bernal gets caught up in a riot, it's a terrifying moment because it looks so authentic.
The great film-makers can take a big theme and distill it down to a smaller, more recognizable one. Against a larger backdrop, Larrain tells a simple story of an employee attempting to get one over on his boss. The relationship between the two is fascinating. Despite Castro at times threatening Bernal's family, the level of animosity simmers somewhere below the level of two co-workers who support rival football teams. It's a stark, and wholly refreshing, contrast to the black-and-white characterization rampant in modern cinema. Blunt self-congratulatory films like 'Argo' may be the choice of a generation but you would do well to just say 'No'. What's the worst that could happen?
That's right -- "art". Advertising comes from money, and so does politics. Both are in the business of leaving you chopped and screwed. Heavy stuff, yeah? Nope. In the hands of Larrain and screenwriter Pedro Peirano, "No" is big on laughs, huge and hardcore, lining serious culture shock with jovial '80s elegance, media influence, and the need for compromise under political impasse. It lacks the urgency of recent-period pieces like "Milk" or "Argo", but "No" still works as what strategy goes into getting something stuck in people's heads. So the whole thing's fixed. What matters is how much can be covered up if the scandal is catchy. (83/100)