User:Wasif 999/sandbox

Student’s name: Instructor’s name: Course title: Date: No (2012) Film Critique Introduction ‘No’ is a film based on a historical perspective taking the viewers to the 1988 referendum of the Chilean President, Augusto Pinochet. The tyrannical rule of Pinochet had raised several eyebrows in the international community along with a large number of Chilean people looking for a change to get rid of a long-lasting dictatorship. Accordingly, the same year had been remarked as the year of change and transition of government if Pinochet would lose by simple majority vote considering a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ for the extension of his rule in the country. Pinochet’s team was challenged by Rene Saavedra, an advertising executive and de facto leader of the ‘No movement’ (Bradshaw). ‘Saavedra fighting the national battle to fight against the tyrannical rule of Pinochet is nothing less than a modern warfare using contemporary tools of fighting with more intrusive ideas that can impact the masses using simple marketing and advertising techniques. The whole ideas surrounding Saavedra’s masterstrokes to oust the dictator is contemporary resonance beyond the ideological battles of conventional fighting and warfare.’ Body Pinochet’s idea of ruling Chile for as long as he could vanished with the strongly motivated ideas and debates of a common man, a marketing and advertising expert. No one would have every thought of a dictator ousted by such a common man using the modern tactics of advertising rather than conventional use of hard power and inflicting tyrannies to manhunt the opposition and get selected through a majority vote by harassing the general public and their leaders. However, No has suggested otherwise by highlighting a dark yet blissful moment in the history which has a revolutionary importance in the long-lasting history of Chilean dictatorship (Peirano and Skármeta). Pinochet’s ‘Yes’ team focused on the economic openness and modernizing the country to get it out of the hands of the socialists and communists of the ‘No’ movement. They kept on bombarding the ideas of a new economic policies on the masses and ensured then of economic prosperity and modernization in coming years. However, they already had several negatives of Pinochet’s earlier barbaric rule of illegal practices that devastated the country and brought it to the brink of economic collapse. Thus, they were strengthening their positions on the basis of an already incurred loss that too at the hands of the ruling dictator (Flisfeder). These aspects were related to the conventional warfare of influencing the people of their own miseries and getting them out of the issues created by the existing government held by the dictator. Thus, they failed to bring new ideas that could help reshape their political ideology of bringing joy and happiness to peoples’ lives. On the other hand, Saavedra’s ‘No movement’ was based on ditching the dictator of his influence by showing the public the images of brutality and conflicts at the hands of the President. At first, Saavedra’s approach had also remained conventional as he was focused on telling the masses about their miseries and the brutality inflicted upon them by the dictator. However, it worked other wise and people did not believe in him as his approach lacked a strong ideology of changing their lives. The images of brutality further influenced the power-stricken people to save their lives and vote for their survival as they knew that they would be targeted if they failed to oust Pinochet. Under such circumstances, Saavedra changed his campaign and bring a new motive of joy and happiness by implementing the ideas from cold drink wars fought by two major cold drink brands during the two world wars. Coca Cola and Pepsi had always remained at loggerheads snatching each other’s market share through powerful media campaigns and advertising. Both offer the same line of soft drink brands and products and almost the same level of advertising. However, Coca Cola’s motive to bring joy to lives have created a huge impact in public which resulted in higher sales and rebranding of the company under this new motive (Dargis). Therefore, it was evident that Saavedra is missing something and without that he would not be able to win the support of the masses. He tried his luck by using his knowledge and skills to attract the public under a new motive of reshaping their lives by brining joy and happiness. The 15 minutes of airtime given to each party under the Chilean referendum rules helped the public understand the new ear under Saavedra’s potential campaign of saying ‘No’ to the dictator and setting up a new government with civilian rule and power of common man to change the national political environment. Saavedra’s approach was simple yet effective as he senses the psychology of the masses and bring forwards the type of content they wanted to see for changing their perspectives to a more liberal ideology that would help them brighten their future. Thus, this ideology was entirely different from conventional warfare and applies modern thoughts and ideas to influence the public in their best interests. Saavedra’s campaign proved productive enough to oust the Pinochet. However, it left a long-lasting impact on modern political environment in Chile and several other countries to keep the public at the center of the political decisions by utilizing their power to vote for their happiness (Bradshaw). The evidence of Saavedra’s campaign to change the political discourse in Chile can be found in his idea of showing what people are willing to see. The realistic world of modern times rely on what seems best in the public interests and how the political decisions are going to impact the lives of people. Therefore, a little branding and advertising has left Pinochet with no options other to maintain his power in Chile. Pinochet, despite having all the power and resource in the country loses the battle against a popular vote to maintain his rule. The reason was his overreliance on conventional resources of power and undermining the techniques of modern warfare. The use of force and popularity to get the referendum results in his favor were severely dented by modern concepts of luring the people for their needs (Dargis). Saavedra’s idea to impact the public through a new ideology resides in the marketing and advertising strategies of multinational firms and brands. They study the psychology of the masses and influence them accordingly to gain their support and sell them relevant products and services. The same goes for Chilean referendum in which the masses got influenced by new ideas as they also analyzed that these ideas would be favorable for them in getting long-term survivability and freedom under a new rule that would be elected by them with their own power to change the political discourse in Chile. Conclusion Film ‘No’ is a clear depiction of modern warfare, historical manifestation and political ideologies that fought against the ruling elite to alter the political, economic and social discourse in a country. The conventional approaches to war are no more suitable in this modern world of ever-changing technologies. Thus, Saavedra’s idea of linking the public with their needs and luring them to vote against the dictator worked as the world had started changing after the two major wars and people are more likely to support freedom, independence and openness of new ideas.

Works Cited Bradshaw, Peter. “No – Review.” The Guardian, 7 Feb. 2013, www.theguardian.com/film/2013/feb/07/no-film-review. Dargis, Manohla. “Try Freedom: Less Filling! Tastes Great!” The New York Times, 14 Feb. 2013, https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/movies/no-with-gael-garcia-bernal.html Flisfeder, Matthew. “Ideology Critique and Film Criticism in the New Media Ecology.” Film Criticism, vol. 40, no. 1, Dec. 2015, https://doi.org/10.3998/fc.13761232.0040.110. Peirano, Pedro, and Antonio Skármeta. “No.” IMDb, 9 Aug. 2012, www.imdb.com/title/tt2059255/.