Missing [1982 film] (5 Stars)

This is a true story, a powerful political thriller based on the book "The Execution of Charles Horman". I saw it in the cinema in 1982 with my good friend, the eccentric Ceuan Clement-Davies. It was a time in my life when I rarely went to the cinema, but I remember him gripping my arm and telling me it was a film I must see. So I accompanied him to Gloria in Stuttgart.

The film begins with two Americans, Charles Horman and his wife Beth, living in Chile. Charles is a dreamer. He says he's doing research into making an animated film about a giant duck. Why Chile? He works translating articles from American newspapers into Spanish for an independent newspaper called Fin. It's considered a left-wing magazine, but the articles he translates are from mainstream newspapers like the New York Times.

Charles visits the coastal town of Vina Del Mar with his friends, leaving Beth behind in Santiago. He's surprised to find a lot of high-ranking American military officers in Vina. He mixes with them in the hotel, and one of them gives him a lift back to Santiago. When he returns home (11th September 1973) a military coup has broken out.

It's chaos. The army is shooting random people in the street. Women wearing trousers have their clothes cut because they're only allowed to wear dresses. Most sinister of all, soldiers are burning piles of books in the street.

Charles and Beth want to leave the country, but the airport is closed. The American Embassy is also closed. They stay a night in a hotel before attempting to travel north, away from the violence. They get separated. Charles is never seen again.

Two weeks later Charles's father, Ed Horman, a businessman from New York, travels to Santiago to look for his son. He speaks to various people at the American Embassy. They're polite and promise to assist him, but the more he talks to them, the more frustrated he gets. They introduce him to members of the local police force. They tell Ed that his son is in hiding, but Beth says it's a lie.

The army allows Ed and Beth to visit rooms where corpses are being stored. The picture above is just one of four rooms where they have to step over dead bodies. They don't find Charles, but they find one of his fellow workers on the newspaper.

One of the things that keeps the film from being bogged down in the political intrigue is the relationship between Ed Horman and his daughter-in-law. When he arrives he's angry with her, he blames her for Charles moving to Chile. As the film progresses and Ed realises that the Embassy staff is lying to him, he grows closer to Beth.

Eventually Ed is told that Charles was executed. More to the point, the American Embassy gave permission for him to be executed. Charles was one of the few people who knew that the American government was involved in the coup. He had to die.

When he returned home Ed Horman sued various American officials, including Henry Kissinger, for complicity in the murder of his son. After years of litigation the lawsuit was dismissed, because the evidence needed for the case was sealed as top secret.

I was lucky to see the film in 1982. In 1983 it was banned due to a lawsuit by Nathaniel Davis, the former US ambassador to Chile. He objected to being portrayed as a criminal. After 13 years the case was dismissed because, you guessed it, any evidence that supported his case was top secret.

The film was nominated for four Academy Awards: Best Film, Best Actor (Jack Lemmon), Best Actress (Sissy Spacek) and Best Adapted Screenplay. It only won the Best Screenplay award.

Success Rate:  - 0.3

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk