The keynote of the film is ironic. The point is not that the "democracy" brought about by the referendum changed everything, and it is not that the "commercial advertising" changed the result of the referendum. In the referendum, the bosses who had the opposite position to the male lead all said the same lines in a reconciled state: "This film fits the atmosphere of the times, and Chile is also ready to accept the times." Therefore, the focus is on the unaltered "temporary atmosphere", namely consumerism and capitalism. This is why the protagonist's performance after the "referendum victory" is so calm, and the overall narrative of the film also appears "top-heavy" and "anti-climax". The advertisements of both sides adopted the same logic in the end, that is, the yearning for a "good life" and serious politics were dispelled. In the final subtitle, why should it be emphasized that although the “centre-left” government has ruled Chile for eighteen years in a democratically elected mode after the referendum, it has been adopting the neoliberal policy of the Pi regime? Why emphasize that Pinochet cannot be held accountable?
View more about No reviews
