User Reviews

"Missing" is a strong, powerful political thriller about the real life story of a man and woman who search for their missing son/husband during the 1973 coup in a volatile South American country. Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek give brilliant, Oscar-nominated performances as Ed and Beth Horman, the father and wife of their beloved one who has disappeared without a trace. The film follows their frustrating search in a country (which is Chile even though the movie never reveals) that I would not dare live in. Things get more frustrating for the Hormans when they start to believe that the American representatives there are not telling them everything. Directed by Costa-Gavras ("Z"), "Missing" is an emotional film that keep me interested for its entire two hours. Lemmon and Spacek are great as usual, and there are supporting roles for Melanie Mayron and Joe Regalbuto, a couple of years before they turned up on TV's "Thirtysomething" and "Murphy Brown", respectably. "Missing" is one of the best, strongest political thrillers ever made.

***1/2 (out of four)

Accomplished Greek-French filmmaker Costa-Gavras has a compelling way of bringing the emotional resonance out of stories with overtly political themes. He hits the mail on the head with this searing indictment of American involvement in the 1973 military coup that ejected Allende from power in Chile. Facts are not discretely presented, even the country in which the story takes place is not disclosed (except for specific references to the cities of Santiago and Vina Del Mar). Yet, Costa-Gavras creates an atmosphere of palpable tension that doesn't let up in this 1982 film, and the unraveling mystery at the heart of the movie echoes the unsettling political situation surrounding the characters.

Adapted by Costa-Gavras and Donald Stewart from Thomas Hauser's non-fiction book documenting the true case, the plot focuses on American expatriate Charles Horman whose sudden disappearance in the days after the Pinochet coup brings together two familial adversaries, his wife Beth and his father Ed, who has flown in from New York. Charles and Beth had been leading a vagabond existence with his work in children's animation and their relatively passive support of Allende's reform measures. Charles' back story is revealed in carefully constructed flashback episodes that show him to be curious about the presence of U.S. military personnel in the area. Once he disappears, Ed and Beth seek help from the U.S. Consulate but face a seemingly insurmountable wall of bureaucracy. Frustrated, Ed, a highly conservative Christian Scientist, lashes out at Beth for what he considers her undesirable influence over his son. However, as they absorb the scope of the violence and the culpability of the U.S. government, they bond intractably toward their objective of finding Charles.

For once, Jack Lemmon, unafraid to convey his character's prejudices, is able to use his neurotically coiled energy in a suitable dramatic role as Ed. The result is a startlingly raw performance that ranks among his best. Sissy Spacek is terrific as Beth, though her character does not experience as big an arc of self-revelation. In the elliptical flashback role of Charles, John Shea provides solid support, as do Janice Rule as a political activist and a number of familiar TV faces - Melanie Mayron as friend Terry and David Clennon as U.S. consul Phil Putnam, both from "thirtysomething", and Joe Regalbuto, Frank from "Murphy Brown", playing another Frank, a possible victim of the coup. There are unfortunately no extras with the 2004 DVD.

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.

Jack Lemmon portrays a father searching for his son, whom he think has fallen in with a group of naive liberal thinkers. By the end of the movie, Lemmon's character realizes he had fallen in with a group of naive conservative thinkers. This movie portrays the odyssey of the father searching for a missing son in an unstable foreign country. He believes in the powers of the American embassy to protect all Americans. He believes everyone who keeps his nose clean is left alone. He believes in the power of the American people. The movie allows us to feel with him with its careful directing, and to feel for the other characters close to him and his son. We don't choose sides in the movie. We just hold back the tears, knowing that sadness looms, and obviously the father knows sadness looms, too. The religious beliefs, occupation, and history of the father are played down and unimportant. We are left to realize how unimportant it all is when looking for a loved one whom we feel is not in good fortune. A lot of movies claim to change a character in their film, but they're always left to resort to extreme exposition, usually even making the character proclaim that he or she has changed, and more often than not it isn't believable. This movie makes you believe. It is the best example ever of a character making a change throughout a movie.

Though I was 30 yrs old when the film came out in 1982 I didn't see it at the time although I was aware of its content. And, as is true of a lot of people my age (tho not all, of course), I toyed with liberal political beliefs when I was younger (1960's and 1970's), then gradually became more moderate bordering on conservative as I got older, onto where now I personally am not too sure where to stand. Well, I just saw 'Missing' for the 1st time. It brings back all my previous leftist 'paranoia' about capitalism and national interests. And causes me to wonder why I ever abandoned them. After the movie, I cruised certain sites on the Internet, one being a series of articles referenced in the misc. section under this movie on IMDb. They chillingly re-enforced the truth (?) that at the highest levels of our government there was complicity, even outright orders, to kill thousands, including American citizens, in the interest of capitalism, national interests and (so-called) 'national security'. I am sorry to say (sorry in the sense that with my limited personal intelligence, I am never completely sure if I am right and sorry to doubt my own government) that I am starting agree with some others, that our foreign policy has, is and probably will be be based, to the detriment of our national security, on the almighty dollar. I'm also sorry for the political comments on a movie site but, of course, the nature of "Missing" brought this on, and its very well directed, written and acted scenes. Please don't question things I have said unless you have seen the movie and read some of the articles. 10/10 ***new addition*** And I completely, of course, agree with lev_lafayette. Read the book, it is much better. I have read the book, 'Missing'. And as with most movies based on books, especially 'non-fiction' books, the content in the book is more detailed and hits you closer to the bone, heart, mind and conscience in many ways than the movie. And that is hard to believe in this case because Constantin Costa-Gavras (director) managed to create a movie experience that is nearly as moving as the work it was based upon. It was/is a great movie experience....sir. Thank you, CC-G. For those of you out there who have an easy criticism (one I agree with) now of the US (MY country and I care about it) because of Iraq, you need to watch this film or read the book. What can go wrong is deep seated (human instincts) and hard to root out. It can happen to you and your country and government. We are all human and capable of desire, greed and religious beliefs overruling true morality and an open mind and heart. Please, all of you, keep things in perspective. Fight for the right of anyone to truly express their opinion without fear of repercussions and fight for the rights of all peoples. Especially against government repression and government crimes against humanity. Bless your soul, Charles Horman, and Thomas Hauser, the author of The Execution of Charles Horman: An American Sacrifice (1978). Curse your souls, all those who contributed toward Mr. Horman's death. Including my president and his advisers. nuffsaid newest revision: I humbly present that I am surprised and encouraged by the attention to this review, both in favor and not. Thanks...Jeff Johns, now 63 yrs old. (502)600-6111, jjj522002@yahoo.com, 130 Canterbury Street, Lawrenceburg, KY. This newest revision was added in spirit with Paris, France, Nov. 2015 (and in some understanding of the conflict)

The unlikely pairing up of Sissy Spacek and Jack Lemmon as lead players in this based-on-fact film as they endeavour to trace John Shea, husband and son respectively, who has disappeared in the turmoil of the Pinochet takeover in Chile, is surprisingly successful. Without overdramatizing muchly the film succeeds in showing up the confusion and panic reigning during the overthrow of the Allende government as well as the rather ambivalent official stance adopted by US ambassador dignitaries as they intervene in helping US citizens but without risking stepping on anybody's Chilean toes: the US has lots of lovely, juicy investments to look after…….

Costa-Gavras pulled off quite a good job directing this film, giving it a rather good authentic feel, despite the fact that it was not made anywhere near Chile!

Rather surprisingly the music of Vangelis did not play a very prominent part, as we are used to in such films as `Chariots of Fire', `Blade Runner' (also 1982) and `1492: Conquest of Paradise', not to mention his excellent works in various French TV series.

I can thoroughly recommend Isabel Allende's novel `La Casa de los Espíritus' (The House of the Spirits) published coincidentally in 1982. I have not seen the film directed by Bille August and starring Meryl Streep, Jeremy Irons, Glenn Close, Winona Ryder, Antonio Banderas and Vanessa Redgrave and made eleven years later.

In September1973, in Chile, the American journalist Charles Horman (John Shea) arrives in Santiago with his friend Terry Simon (Melanie Mayron) to meet his wife Beth (Sissy Spacek) and bring her back to New York with him. However, they are surprised by the military coup d'état sponsored by the US Government to replace President Salvador Allende and Charles is arrested by the military force.

His father Ed Horman (Jack Lemmon), a conservative businessman from New York, arrives in Chile to seek out his missing son with Beth. He goes to the American Consulate to meet the Consul that promises the best efforts to find Charles while the skeptical Beth does not trust on the word of the American authorities. The nationalism and confidence of Ed in his government changes when he finds the truth about what happened with his beloved son.

"Missing" is one of the most powerful and sharp films of the cinema history and a must-see for people of my generation, raised in military dictatorships in South America sponsored and trained by the US Government. After more than thirty years from the first time I saw it, "Missing" is still impressive, with top-notch performance of Jack Lemmon. The first work by Costa Gravas in the American cinema could not be better, exposing the hidden wounds about the participation of the American government in Chile bloodshed.

Unfortunately and surprisingly this film has only been released on VHS many years ago in Brazil and I had to buy an imported DVD to change the media. My vote is ten.

Title (Brazil): "Desaparecido" ("Missing")

Of all the frustrating story devices, red tape is among the worst of them. You can't see it, but 'Missing (1982)' is absolutely swathed in red tape, invisible twines of lies and empty promises that may keep you momentarily satisfied, but ultimately get you nowhere. Costa-Gavras' 1982 political drama is based on a true story, and so, as in real life, there are no easy answers. Exactly how and why did Charles Horman die? Were United States officials somehow responsible for his death? Ed Horman (Jack Lemmon) wanders dutifully from hospital to hospital, to every prison and asylum centre, in search of his missing son, gradually becoming disenchanted with the government bureaucrats in whom he'd placed his trust and hope. If the film's conclusion feels somewhat unsatisfying, then Costa-Gavras has succeeded in communicating Horman's confusion, anger and exasperation at the immobility of the political machine. Just as the missing man's father and wife were left without closure, so, too, are we. There can be no resolution as long as governments are set upon protecting their own interests.

Jack Lemmon was no stranger to frustrating film experiences. 'The Out-of-Towners (1970)' is among the most exasperating movies you'll ever see, for it demonstrates a perfect (comedic) incarnation of Murphy's Law, in which nothing goes right, and there's nobody you can blame for it. 'Missing' notably differs in that Costa-Gavras singles out a target for our frustration – the corrupt, self-serving government officials - and so our annoyance swiftly turns to anger. Lemmon gives one of his finest dramatic performances as Ed Horman, continually haunted by the incomprehensible disappearance of a son he could never understand. Sissy Spacek isn't quite as strong, but her Beth Horman is quiet and vulnerable, a woman of fierce convictions that she's too small to carry out. Any filmmaker should utilise a soundtrack by Greek composer Vangelis with caution, for nothing screams "1980s" quite so loudly. However, it isn't all bad news for 'Missing,' as the electronic musical score does actually add a sad, nostalgic element of surrealism to the scenes of violence and bloodshed.

I liked how Costa-Gavras cut directly to flashbacks without exposition or explanation, leaving the viewer disorientated, and wondering if we are, indeed, watching the past or the present. This technique recreates the confusion of the characters involved, and emphasises that our narrator is not omnipotent, but merely, like Ed, trying to piece together the facts as best as he can. The scenes of military violence, with the contribution of Vangelis' soundtrack, are oddly and eerily surreal – particularly the striking image of a galloping white stallion being pursued by a volley of bullets. The visitors to Santiago (though the name Chile is never uttered) are all strangely sedate in response to the bloodshed, their schedules unfazed by the nearby murder of local citizens, as though their status as "Americans" somehow places them above all this. At the film's end, Ed Horman dejectedly states "I just thank God we live in a country where we can still put people like you in jail." There's a deliberate hollowness behind these words; as we've just seen, America's policies aren't quite as righteous as they'd have us believe.

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.

I liked the movie, yet I did not enjoy watching it. The movie starts in the middle of the story and a lot of stuff is presented in form of flashbacks. The movie starts with Jack Lemmon arriving in Chile to look for his son, and he is the vehicle through which we discover what happened to the son and how the Coup d'état took place. It is an interesting concept on paper and you feel at times that the movie relies on a literary source. Unfortunately, in movie format it does not translate as well. In other words, the movie is a jumbled mess. The story structure is too disjointed. It is not unfollowable, but it is complicated. There are a lot of jumps in time, too many characters, you don't know what is going on and who is doing what most of the time. In a book those are not issue because you can spend time explaining these things.

It is not to say that the movie is bad, because it is not. Ultimately, those flaws does not affect the story. The movie is the story of the father. It is the story of a law-abiding citizen that realizes that government officials are deceiving him, that in some countries the law enforcement apparatus is not used to regulate violence or crime but to control and subdue its citizenry. In a nutshell it is the story of an American discovering that exceptionalism is a sham. That is what the movie is about.

The movie unfolds this concept slowly, but it allows to appreciate the extent of institutional violence. There are many poignant scenes in this film, but what struck me is that they were never over the top, or manipulative. Instead the violence and the "action" scenes are very descriptive. It feels counterintuitive but it gives the movie more heft. It's a technique Costa-Gavras employs in his other works too. The greatest violence is not displayed in the shootings or beatings but in the offices and during phone calls. The violence is not in the acts, but in the absence of justice.

Here, one of those is when they go through room of victims of the putsch, where it is just endless rooms filled with dead corpses. It does not matter if it real or not, but what matters is that we are shown the consequences of these events. Another gut-wrenching one is the visit to the stadium, where prisoners are held. Yet, the worst/most impactful sequence for me was when Sissy Spacek is breaking curfew. That sequence is more terrifying than any horror movie.

Of course, you could argue that the movie is anti-American. That would be a very shallow interpretation, and furthermore a disingenuous one. If anything, the movie is pro-America, pro-people, and pro-democracy. Certainly, it is against government tyranny and arbitrary justice. The real victim are American ideals, the movie embraces them. The main victim in this story is an American citizen, and the whole movie shows how certain people view themselves outside the rules set for the rest of us.

A terrific and brutal political thriller. It's supposed to shake you up and it really succeeds. It's a shame that they don't make films like this anymore. Costa-Gavras's "Missing" is emotionally riveting and thought provoking. For it's time, it still has the power to change the views of todays movie viewers. A must see. 5/5.

The US meddled in the affairs of yet another country. Political and commercial interests were put ahead of the people of Chile.

An American goes missing and his father flies down to join the search with the man's wife. Despite hundreds and thousands of Chilean deaths, they want the effort to be about their one.

This is counterpointed by the scenes where they walk through rooms of corpses which aren't their man, with barely a glance.

The acting is OK, but the film feels disjointed and never draws you in - you are like an outsider wondering - why?

Do they find their man? You can google.

Jack Lemmon, renowned up until this movie, for his comedic roles takes a very serious dramatic turn and proves that he can knock the wind out of those who like stellar performances. This political thriller involves a young American writer who goes missing in a Latin American country that is headed by a military-style government who like to execute people for the simplest things. His wife (Sissy Spacek) is joined by his father (Lemmon) who flies down from the States and they begin looking for him only to find that the American consulate is being very uncooperative and has its hands tied in politics and red tape. An excellent score by the master of New Age electronica - Vangelis ("Blade Runner", "Chariots of Fire") accents this historical film based on actual shattering events. (10 out of 10)

Costa-Gavras is famous of the political movie in Greece. One of my friends who lives there recommended some Greek movies. But I couldn't find most of them, and this's just one.

It was based on a true story about missing American guy because of a military coup d'état in Chile. As the searching him, I found the sloppy response from the embassy and a cruel darkside of coup.

I was suprised everytime the sound of gun cut into without caring how scenes were. There were some piles of dead bodies. Looking up, there were the shadows of them on the obscured glass of the ceiling. I had no words in such a cruel situation. But I felt inspite of such a serious theme, it was easy to watch. A quote of his father said at leaving meant all of this movie : "I never want to keep the money of this country."

Terry Simon (Melanie Mayron) is trying to go home after the Chilean coup of 1973 but the airport is shut down. She and her writer friend Charlie Horman (John Shea) may have stumbled upon secret American involvement. Charlie goes missing. His wife Beth (Sissy Spacek) comes home to find it trashed. His father Ed (Jack Lemmon) is given the runaround in Washington and goes down to find his only son himself. Ed trusts his government implicitly, dislike his son's choices and dismisses Beth constantly.

The ending is never really in doubt and that takes away from the drama. Ed could have been written slightly differently. He has issues with Charlie and Beth. His blind faith in the embassy feels wrong even in relations with his experience in Washington. His mantra should be anything to get his son home. Instead he concentrates more on fighting with Beth. It makes him naive at best but also different from his start. Beth can get a bit preachy too. This is a harrowing story and there are compelling scenes.

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-Gavras directed this interesting account of Charles Harmon(played by John Shea) who, while trying to meet his wife Beth(played by Sissy Spacek) goes missing(along with a friend) in 1973 Chile after a local military coup. His father Ed(played by Jack Lemmon) is a conservative businessman who arrives in Chile to find him, though despite assurances from the American consulate that they will look into the matter, isn't convinced, and with Beth's help, discovers the awful truth about his son's fate and the complicity of his own government in the matter... Well acted and directed film about one father's determined quest to find the truth may be obvious to a point, but is still convincingly put across.

I recently saw this movie with friends. To say I disliked it is to put it mildly. It seemed to me to be propaganda of the worst order, with a lot of accusatory inferences that US officials were guilty of major crimes, but saying next to nothing concrete. The central premise of the movie was so vague and internally inconsistent that it's hard to believe that anyone could take it seriously. But apparently a huge audience has. So here goes.

The central premise is that the victim-hero while escorting a lady friend to a seaside resort in what is obviously Chile, stumbles upon a nest of US operatives, and sees so much that he has to be eliminated.We see him and the friend breakfasting at a seaside resort with some companionable older people, who chat pleasantly with them (the couple apparently spend the night – the time sequence is as vague as everything else) - and then invite them to a barbecue, and apparently tell all. Since he knows too much, he has to be eliminated.

Now this makes no sense at all. If the knowledge were so dangerous that possession means death, why are top secret operatives blabbing in the first place? At one point, the movie speculates that they assumed, being American, that the young man is on their side. When they learn better, they have him killed. Oh, please. This was 1971 – the US had gone through the most tumultuous decade in its history. Top secret agents are going to casually talk to a youthful stranger socially?

Not to mention that these encounters take place at a well-known seaside resort (not exactly the kind of place where the CIA billets people.) Per the dialog, the place is 'crawling with uniformed officers'. So what about the other guests? The maids? The hotel staff? They're deaf and dumb to all this? Why aren't they targets? The movie's theory fails at the most elementary level.

Although the victim's companion would know as much as him, no one threatens her. The mystery of the actual relationship of the two can serve as an example of the vagueness throughout. The victim hero takes the girl out to the resort and meets one of the supposed agents at breakfast. So they may have spent the night. So were they having an affair? At one point, the dad (Jack Lemmon) asked his young widow (Sissy Spackek) that question. She ducks the question, "Oh dad, you know what Chuck was like." That is typical of the entire movie.

There is another absolutely baffling scene, where the young widow is invited to the home of the US official whom the movie accuses of being most culpable. Inexplicably – and I do mean inexplicably – she bathes there. While she is in the tub, the bad guy inexplicably enters, in an intrusive way that most married women would resent if their husband did so, and there is confrontational dialog, with eyes glaring and all the rest. Huh? Why does she feel comfortable taking a bath there? By what earthly right would he feel entitled to enter the bathroom? The movie doesn't even attempt to explain.

The script goes on to implicate the State Department and CIA, on the basis that 'no national official would execute an American' without CIA approval. The premise of the movie is that the coup has been some sort of sudden, overnight seizure of power, engineered by the CIA. However, to the extent that the unnamed nation is Chile under Allende, which it obviously is, the premise is false to the point of being cynical. Space is too short to get into detail, and the site does not permit links. Suffice it to say that the Allende government was in real trouble throughout all of 1973, with the Supreme Court denouncing Allende for his violations of Constitutional guarantees in May and the Assembly doing the same in August. (These developments are usually overlooked by those who want to canonize Allende.) Copper prices had fallen dramatically in 1972 and 1973 – a hundred thousand women took to the streets in the summer to protest the high price of sugar. The entire country was in an uproar.

The point is that this was not a coup organized by a foreign country that stole democracy from the Chilean people. It came straight out of the political culture of Chile. While it is intuitively likely that the CIA provided aid and comfort, there is no indication at all that it ever had a veto over the Chilean government. Meaning that it is simply flat out not the case that 'no American could be shot' without CIA approval. Nor is there any reason to believe that the CIA marshaled operatives anywhere in Chile to assist. All this happened before the notorious Church Committee hearings in 1976, anything but a whitewash. It didn't find anything like what is suggested in the movie.

(The State Department didn't do itself any favor by classifying a contemporary memo related to Charles Horman, the luckless young man who is the model for the hero. In 2011, however, they were finally released, with shouts to high heaven from the movie's supporters, for they do indeed contain a mention of the CIA. But if you download it which I did, you'll find the reference is as speculative as the movie. It leads nowhere.)

So this is the worst kind of propaganda. Since there are a lot of problems with the case it wants to make, it chooses the method of vague innuendo and muddled narrative. Nathaniel Davis, the ambassador to Chile at the time, filed a $150 million dollar lawsuit for defamation. He lost, and rightly so, since there is a First Amendment and this is fair comment. But defamatory? Oh, yeah. Almost certainly.