Desaparecido: Um Grande Mistério

I was 17 when I first saw the film in 1982 and I can say, that it changed my life. Up to that I believe in my own government an I believe in the US, as a strong friend of all democratic countries. After this film I'd never take the things for real. I questioned everything and this is good. Use your mind, try to get informations from all sides. I think Chile is one reason, that the US doesn't sign the treaty for the international court, because guys like Kissinger had to be scared, that he has to take responsability for Chile and Vietnam. Everything was said of the great performance of the actors in this film. This is the best political thriller ever made.

The film begins in Chile at the time of the coup that ended the Allende government. When Pinochet and the rightists came to power, huge numbers of folks simply disappeared or were executed outright. Anyone who could have posed a problem to the new government simply were eliminated--by the thousands. One of these was Charles Horman--an American journalist who was just too outspoken to be ignored by the regime. Although you see him as the film begins, soon he disappears and his wife and probable widow (Sissy Spacek) is beside herself trying to find him. Soon, Horman's conservative father (Jack Lemmon) arrives and has faith that the US embassy personnel with help him in the search. Eventually, however, it becomes obvious that the personnel are NOT there to help and probably are complicit in the disappearance. What are they to do? They're in a hostile land with few, if any, allies.

This film won an Oscar for Best Screenplay. It was also nominated for Best Actor (Jack Lemmon), Best Actress (Sissy Spacek) and Best Picture. I am surprised that "Gandhi" won the Best Picture award that year--especially since the film was, in many ways, quite inaccurate historically (I am a history teacher--trust me on this one). "Missing" was a better film--as were "The Verdict", "Tootsie" and "ET" (in my semi-humble opinion). I wonder if perhaps the film's politics doomed it to lose--though considering Hollywood generally DOES run left, this may not be the case.

I am a reasonably conservative American, though I feel ashamed when I see films like "Missing" (as well as Costa-Garvas' other famous film, "Z"). While I am glad that the US had been traditionally anti-communist, this single-minded approach to international communism appears VERY misguided in hindsight. In too many cases, in order to combat this, the US government sponsored repressive and evil regimes--when they should have been pushing for self-determination and freedom. No matter how you try to excuse this, situations like the ones in "Missing" are simply inexcusable and the film should be seen by everyone--not just those on the left politically. Why? Because, the story in this case is TRUE--the situation involving the Pinochet regime in Chile was just plain evil--and should NOT be forgotten or ignored. History should be understood and lessons learned from them...or they'll be repeated. Well worth seeing and very well made overall.

Costa Govras' political thriller MISSING remains one of the strongest and least preachy works done about the Chilean Coup d'etat of 1973. The coup, which occurred on the 11th of September of that year, was widely endorsed by the political elite of Chile, with some quiet infrastructural support from the U.S. State Department. The Secretary of State at that time, one Henry Kissinger, asserted to the Nixon cabinet that "he saw no reason to allow any country to go communist due to the ignorance of its people", and that the Chilean economy should be "made to scream". Hence, every support was given to the supporters of General Augusto Pinochet, and the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende was deposed and defeated within days.

Govras chose as background for his film the actual diaries of Charles Horman, a lefty artist type who was living with his wife Beth in Chile. Horman had apparently picked up the unfortunate habit of inquiring into some dangerous affairs in a rather loud way. Isolated in every sense from any "live" political current, his disappearance and murder were relatively easy to accomplish, even though he was a United States citizen. The actor John Shea portrays Charles Horman as a naive sort, and there is no reason to assume this was an inaccurate depiction. Most citizens of the United States overseas are sheltered from the skulduggery of realpolitik, and most cling to some rather dangerous illusions about how far their rights as citizens actually extend. U.S. citizens in Lebanon who had to pay for their removal from that combat front last summer have learned this the hard way recently.

Jack Lemmon is stellar as Charles' father Ed Horman, who made the trip to Chile under the impression that he had rights his government felt bound to respect, and who discovered otherwise. And Cissy Spacek is never anything less than full marks as Beth Horman.

MISSING accomplishes what few political dramas do. It asks its viewer to consider the human dimensions and costs of an imperial political reality, and it portrays with a deadly earnestness what these ideas do to people caught up in the sway of such notions. There are no monsters in MISSING, just people who are doing their jobs and following orders. And therein lies the horror, one which all too many of our fellow citizens have yet to come to grips with. It is a rare feat among political films, an actual work of art. But don't be surprised if you need a stiff drink after viewing it. That's how I felt when I first saw this work after its release in 1982, and it still has that effect upon me today.

There's a particularly chilling scene in this movie. It comes near the end in a confrontation between Charles Horman (Jack Lemmon) and staff members of the American ambassador in post-coup Chile, 1973. To this point the staff has sounded polished and professional in their concern for Horman's missing son, an apparent casualty of the coup. But in this scene the devious reality of American policy begins to emerge from behind the velvet glove, and Horman's passage from credulous liberal to disillusioned skeptic is complete. In a nutshell, the scene symbolizes one of the great divides in American political life, between the polished propaganda face our government presents to the people and the grim realities that face covers over, especially in dealing with Third World countries like Chile. Horman represents the frustration many feel in trying to deal with a cosmetic facade supported by both major political parties, when beneath it crouches the murderous policies of imperial rule.The real question the film poses is what Horman will do upon returning home.

The film itself remains a gripping eyeopener from first to last. Costa-Gravas is especially good at recreating the abject terror of fascist rule: where long hair is forbidden and women are forced back into skirts, where people are present one minute and gone the next, where a democratically elected government is present one minute and gone the next, and where a Henry Kissinger can do the behind-the-scenes dirty work and be honored for it (not in the movie, but true nevertheless). The acting is first-rate, and a tour-de-force for Lemmon in particular. Ditto, the often overlooked Charles Cioffi who puts the real chill in the confrontation scene. Two complaints: the arch symbolism of the riderless white horse conflicts with Costa-Gravas's documentary approach, and why, oh why, did they have to make Horman's son so cuddly. The audience gets the point without spooning on the sugar. Anyhow, this remains a fine piece of revelatory film-making and retains as much relevancy for today's audience as it did twenty years ago.

Simply,Costa-Gavras's American movies (this one,Betrayed(1987) and "music box" (1990))are better than his French works(compartiments tueurs(1965),Z(1969),l'aveu(1970),etc).Whatever you may think of "Z",the art of Costa -Gavras is efficient but a bit cold and deprived of emotion.This is a perfect dissection of a political assassination,complete with investigation and suspense.But the characters are reduced to stereotypes,particularly when they are played by overrated Yves Montand.

In his American works,while continuing his militant way,Costa-Gavras puts men and women made of flesh and blood on the screen:Jack Lemmon,who made us laugh so many times in Billy Wilder's masterpieces("some like it hot" "kiss me stupid" "the apartment",the highly underrated "Avanti"),shines in his dramatic part;his portrayal of an all-American man,proud of his country,who cannot really understand the evolution of the new generations but who knows that he's got only one son,whom he might never see again,is mind-boggling:his tired and sad face,always seeming on the verge of tears ,mainly in the second half of the movie which contains two classic scenes:

-The first one takes place in the stadium,where the prisoners are gathered;he's given a mike ,but a lump comes to his throat and he hands it to Sissi Spacek -who plays (with talent) the missing son's wife -;In the giant stadium,no echoes ,even when Lemmon,in a desperate call,asks his son to come home.

-The second one takes place in some kind of morgue,where dead bodies pile up.The wife and the father really go to hell,in this almost unbearable scene.

The Putsch (Costa-Gavras takes the American intervention for granted whereas there's nothing that proves it)takes a back seat to the desperate couple's plight.

Costa-Gavras has not completely forsaken France though:the book Spacek and Shea are reading is none other than Saint-Exupery's "le petit prince".