No

The movie depicts a critical moment in the recent Chilean history: the 1988 referendum that started the end of Pinochet's dictatorship. The focus of the story is the 30 day political ad campaign that was created by the two sides - YES, for those supporting the continuation of Pinochet's dictatorship for another 8 years, and NO, for those wanting to put an end to it.Many of the people depicted in those commercials, anthems and short stories are still alive, and some appear now, 25 or so years later, reprising their roles in the movie. TV anchor Patricio Bañados (the front man of the 15 minute daily TV slot), former President Patricio Aylwin, many tv personalities of the time that appeared for the first time on TV supporting the end of Pinochet's government, etc.Regarding the technical quality of the film, it looks dated (I assume on purpose) to merge seemly with real footage of the time used at several points of the film. For some that may be a low point (I recognize that now I find weird watching a film in a 4:3 format), but I believe it doesn't diminish the quality of the story told.

This film is good. Even if you don't know about the history of Chile (from Allende to Pinochet, and then to the exiting of Pinochet), you can still enjoy this film as a portrayal of a modern campaign to win the people to voting a certain way. Politically intriguing for that reason, but that is pretty much what the film is about. It does touch on the relationship between one man and his commitment to his family during that campaign, and brings a new light to the role of males, but that is a minor sub-plot. It could have been a great film if edited down, for there did seem a few scenes where things took place that maybe we could have seen less of, and the film would have been shorter, but more powerful. Still, a very nice film and worth watching.

A microwave cooks without a mess. In the film, a grilled cheese sandwich is made while they are watching a program on television. This meal is made in the living room not in the kitchen. This symbolizes a new way of cooking. The new way of cooking out of the kitchen and making a hot meal in the living room.The microwave symbolizes the new way of taking out a dictatorship, different from the traditional means of violence and death. Imagine overthrowing a dictatorship without bloodshed and violence. That is exactly the true meaning of the movie NO. Overthrowing a dictatorship using the means of an advertising campaign through television.The advertising campaign of NO united the people of Chile as would demonstrations like riots and strikes would. The advertising campaign however, was a bloodless means. The advertising campaign united the people of Chile toward a common cause of change.The campaign worked because it was not one single person who was the leader or represented the change, it was a cause. It was all of the people together that made and represented the change. The Pinochet Dictatorship could not make all of the people disappear at one time. They had a history of imprisoning or making people disappear that represented a change for the present dictatorship. But because the NO campaign represented all of the people of Chile, Pinochet’s government could not arrest or make everyone disappear. Pinochet’s government could not stop an idea. The more rough style dictatorship style strongman tactics they used, the stronger the NO campaign gained support. This support for change eventually led to the overthrow of the Pinochet Dictatorship and the election of a new leader in Chile.NO was a wonderful and entertaining movie that used a Microwave to symbolize an advertising campaign in which both led to changes in the way of life in Chile. A Microwave meant change in the kitchen like the NO campaign meant change in the political structure of Chile.

The trouble with historical dramas is that you don't know what is fiction and what is real or re-enacted. I can imagine most of the protagonist's story is based on his recollections. However, who true are the scenes from the other side? Did Rene's boss, actually provide these recollections too?The way the movie was shot was also annoying. There always seemed to be bright light in the background wiping out portions of the picture. I suppose the director was going for a documentary style. It was also strange that the subtitles of most of the dialog between men, would end with "man", like "great work, man" and "why are you doing that, man", etc.

In 1988 then Chilean ruler and long-time violent dictator General Pinochet had to hold a referendum on whether or not he should continue in power. The brilliant film No, very closely based on real events, follows the man (actually two men in real life conflated into one for the film) in charge of the anti-Pinochet campaign's advertising which, with 15 minutes allocated to each campaign daily on TV, was central to the referendum.As the blurb on the DVD cover puts it, No is "the true story of Chile's 'Mad Men' who fought a dictator with happiness". It's also packed full of highly relevant lessons for other referendums, and indeed elections in general.An early dilemma was whether or not to take part in a referendum which many anti-Pinochet campaigners feared would be rigged against them. Would taking part be doomed to failure and simply give the referendum false credibility? Whether or not to take part in a political system you do not support - such as elections for posts you don't believe in or appointments to bodies you believe should be elected - is a regular political question. Best to take part in the hope of making a difference or boycott and hope that undermines the system?Another dilemma was how hard to push the record of Pinochet's appalling human rights abuses. For some the idea of having 15 minutes of national TV each day - an unprecedented volume of coverage for the opposition - and not using it to heavily cover those abuses would have been an insult to the victims and a failed opportunity to publicise what had happened.As the advertising man played by Gael Garcia Bernal, however, points out in the film such a strategy would fail to appeal to the two, almost contradictory, audiences the No campaign had to win over. First, young voters who were heavily anti-Pinochet but who might not vote. How would repeatedly reminding them of the ways in which Pinochet had abused rules to hang on to power encourage them to go out and vote? Second, older voters whose own lives were moderately prosperous and peaceful. What would make them feel that introducing democracy would be a good move rather than a risky introduction of instability? Angry denunciations of all the Pinochet stood for risked driving them away and into voting for Pinochet to stay in power.The answer was to have a positive campaign, emphasising how good the future for Chile could be with Pinochet gone. One of the film's best scenes is the attempt to turn this idea into a message, searching for the right, happy image for the future. As is said in the film, with echoes of all the worst cliches of advertising: 'what is happier than happiness?' Hence a campaign based on a rainbow, lots of singing and the line 'happiness is coming' rather than on grim reminders of the past. (In real life, the positive campaign message came out of focus group research run with the help of American consultants and funding. As Frank Grear, who was one of those who travelled regularly to Chile, said "[the focus groups] proved that if you want to win, it's necessary to have a moderate message. And of course, we have some people to the far left who say, well, I don't agree with this, so they were put out of the coalition".)The advertising clips shown in the film (both real and recreated) are almost embarrassingly twee when viewed without knowledge of this campaign logic - and still pretty wince inducing to modern eyes even when you appreciate the cleverness of a strategy that reconciled appealing to two such disparate groups. Everyone can impute their own version of happiness into the campaign's vision of the future (just as Barack Obama's 2008 'Hope' campaign similarly let very diverse groups of voters all project their own versions of hope on to his campaign).Aside from the political lessons, the film is great entertainment and also a good light on how advertising was adapting to the modern TV world. Watch it.

This is a great movie with an outstanding performance by Gael Garcia Bernal, a great Mexican actor. I have followed his work since his extraordinary performance in The Bicycle Diaries as young Ernesto Che Guevara."No", reflects the last days and fall of the fascist government of PInochet. This is a film which deserves to be seen by larger audiences. Can't recommend this enough.

Excellent film - makes a sad traumatic period of history happy in as far as it can - a nice positive story, well written and acted and really interesting. Filmed to look like it was made in the time it was set too - whole thing feels very realistic of the time. I do love Gael Garcia Bernal and would watch him in anything (as long as he's speaking Spanish in the film - not so keen on his foray into American films) and again he's fantastic.

This is the last in a series of three films so watch the first two before NO. No can be watched on its own thoe. The people in CHILE have been through terrible times.

Fascinating. According to Adam Curtis, Advertising in America in the 1940's was a new area of marketing. At that time it was called propaganda. The relationship between propaganda and marketing is so evident in this film. One can wish it was not connected but that's like wishing for dreams to come true......wouldn't that be nice.Great film.