Missing.

There are people in the US Government that would be very pleased if this film had never been made. It is an unflattering look at how our government handled, and was even complicit in, the Chilean coup of 1973. Up until 2006, this film was shelved because of a lawsuit, making it virtually impossible to even see it anymore. Fortunately, it has since seen a DVD release, albeit a limited one, but it is not available on any streaming service. Because of this, this film has fallen into relative obscurity, becoming one of those films that most people haven’t heard of despite it being branded one of the best films of 1982.

This film needs to be seen again. This is a part of history I don’t recall being taught when I was in school. I was taking history classes in the late 80s and early 90s when these events were not that far in the past, yet it wasn’t being taught to us, and we never heard about the USA’s involvement in Chile or any of the other countries they manipulated for the sake of capitalism. There’s a monologue late in this film where a character spells things out to us, stating outright that this bloody coup protects the interests of thousands of American businesses and a way of life back home. How wrong-thinking is that statement when we look at things from the point of view of dollars over human life? 

The catalyst for the story is the disappearance of Charlie Horman (John Shea), a journalist living in Chile with his wife, Beth (Sissy Spacek). Charlie disappears shortly after a violent military coup takes place in the country; suddenly, the streets are patrolled by tanks and soldiers, there is a curfew, women are being assaulted in the streets if they are not wearing dresses, and bodies are piling up. Beth comes home from visiting a friend to find their home ransacked and Charlie missing. For weeks, she tries to find out what has happened to him, but she gets nowhere. 

Charlie’s father, Ed Horman (Jack Lemmon), is a businessman from New York with a lot of government connections. He tries to find out what happened to his son but gets nowhere, eventually flying down to Chile in the hopes that his presence there will produce better results. He loves his son but has a troubled relationship with him and his wife over his perceived lack of ambition and direction in life. Now that Charlie is missing, Ed blames Beth because she is a convenient target for his frustrations. Throughout the course of their investigation, though, they will gain a better appreciation of each other and of Charlie as Ed sees his son not through the perceived faults he had but in his strengths and convictions. This bond that forms between Ed and Beth will be forged through the frustrations of bureaucracy, the dangers of the coup and its after-effects, and being outright lied to by the US governmental officials who claim to know nothing about Charlie. 

It has been a long time since I saw a film that outright made me angry like this. I’ve disliked certain subject matters and have rated some of the films in this blog poorly because of that, but I haven’t felt the kind of disgust and righteous anger towards a subject matter like this in a long time. There are always going to be military uprisings and dictators killing innocent civilians; that kind of thing is as old as the world. But seeing the US government, people who should be on the right side of things, being involved in mass homicide for the sake of commerce, really upsets me. Reading up on what has more recently come to light only makes me more upset. If nothing else, this film should inspire people to learn more about the history of this event and our government’s role in it. It will make your blood boil. 

This is director Costa-Gavras’ first American film. He was known for his political films, most of which are French. His political films often merge controversy with entertainment. He didn’t pioneer the “statement” picture, but he is one of the greats in the genre. It would be easy to write off his body of work as homework, films to watch as a means of learning important stuff. To a degree, that is true, but calling his films homework, including Missing, gives it a negative connotation that is just not accurate. His ability to teach while also entertain is what makes him the master craftsman that he is. 

There are certainly moments in Missing that feel like he is preaching to the audience, but he never loses sight of what is the most important element of a picture like this: the relationship that grows out of tragedy between Ed and Beth. When the two first meet in the context of the film, Beth runs to him and throws her arms around him in comfort. His response is to stand there, taking the embrace without offering any form of comfort, himself. While he is unpacking his suitcases, she cuts right to the chase and asks him if he blames her for what happened. He doesn’t give her an answer, which is answer enough for her. His mentality is that it is totally her fault his son is missing, and that now he is down there, he will get things straightened up quickly. 

He refuses to believe that the US government is involved in any of this, too. That is one of the reasons he puts so much trust in them when he first arrives in Chile. But the obfuscation and outright lies quickly clue him in to what is really going on, and he finally comes to the conclusion that his own government knows the fate of his son and has since before he even arrived. Even before he finally has this confirmed outright, he must know the truth. He and Beth find themselves in a facility where the bodies of hundreds of people lie, slaughtered on the floors. These are people who were arrested and later executed. Among them is the body of a friend Beth was told had been extradited out of the country and was back home in America. Even more harrowing than seeing a familiar face is the realization of just how many people lay dead within this facility, some, but not all, identified. The bodies are everywhere, including when they look up and see a translucent ceiling where even more bodies are. 

This movie has the capacity to make people ashamed of their government. This negative attitude towards capitalism and bureaucracy should have such an adverse reaction from anyone seeing it, knowing that this film is based on true events. The ending has a revelation to it that is equally as despicable as that of the ending to Judgment at Nuremberg.  Ed sues those in the government that were directly responsible for what led to the death of his son. This lawsuit was dismissed, and no one was ever held accountable for it. Even Augusto Pinochet, the military leader who led the coup and became the dictator of Chile, died before he could be convicted for the mass murders during the coup. This film is disheartening, but it is a film that needs to be seen. It isn’t the easiest to find but is well worth seeking out.

Academy Award Nominations:

Best Picture: Edward Lewis and Mildred Lewis

Best Actor: Jack Lemmon

Best Actress: Sissy Spacek

Best Adapted Screenplay: Costa-Gavras and Donald Stewart (won)

____________________________________________________

Release Date: February 12, 1982

Running Time: 122 Minutes

Rated PG

Starring: Jack Lemmon, Sissy Spacek, Melanie Mayron, and John Shea

Directed by: Costa-Gavras