The Charles Horman case has now been widely documented
throughout the world, due to the mass media adopting its story for the use of
film, series and books. Perhaps this is because people enjoy watching a tragic
love story or due to the fact it proposes inner questions from viewers about
corruption within our own societies and how, like what is suspected in Horman’s
case; the state will dispose of you if deemed necessary. America’s relationship
with Chile throughout the Coup in 1973 has remained unclear due to America’s
denial of any sort of help offered to Chile. They also deny having anything to
do with Charles Horman's case. The representation we see of Charles Horman’s
story in the film Missing is not necessarily the correct version, due to the
way the media likes to exaggerate situations in order to profit and benefit,
however there are many similarities. We no longer know what is certainly true
as there have been so many different accounts of the Coup, with each individual
having different opinions and witnessing a variety of events. Drawing upon
these similarities and contrasts of the depiction of Charles Horman’s story
will allow a greater understanding of the confusion that still surrounds the
aspects of Chile’s coup and how much we can believe the media.
The character of Charles we see in Missing appears loving,
kind and genuine, a depiction of a person who an audience can engage with and
like. Therefore when the story turns to his death the audience remain truly
engaged and fixated on the events, due to how they have made a connection with
the character earlier in the film. This may not have been Charles’s exact
characteristics however he is presented this way in order to form a connection with
the audience, as these are typical traits people warm to. Horman is also shown
to be very nosey in the film, constantly asking people questions in order to find
out information as to America’s intentions in Chile as we are frequently shown
sequences of him “poking around in the affairs of others, and uncovering
extremely confidential information, the validity of which the United States
Government vehemently denied”[1].
The film gives off the impression that had Charles not been so curious and not
taken it upon himself to find out this information his fate could have been
avoided. This aspect of his character also adds more depth to the narrative,
providing the audience with reasoning’s and logistics as to why he was taken
and killed, not that it was random. In the film we see him constantly with a
notepad asking various generals their opinion and purpose for being in Chile,
which he does with such unsubtly that we do not find it surprising that the CIA
find him to be a threat. Although, the secrets of the CIA we see in the film
are told freely, despite the generals not even really knowing who Charles is,
which for an audience is quite disturbing to watch as their negligence cost
Horman his life. However, in Thomas Hauser’s book “The Execution of Charles
Horman”, it gives the impression that Charles’s death was circumstance and he
“rather just happened to be in the wrong places at the right times”[2].
A case of this unfortunate timing is how “Horman happened to be vacationing in
the seacoast city of Vina del Mar when the coup began”[3],
this was the city where the coup was coordinated by the Chilean military and as
Horman was present this would have rung alarm bells for the CIA as “if anyone
found out that the U.S. military and CIA had participated in the coup, that
would cause damage to them, which, in their minds, would adversely affect
“national security””[4].
It would not have helped that Horman had leftist ideologies and would have
supported the previous overthrown leader, Salvador Allende, as this instantly
made him an enemy. However, if he had not been present at Vina del Mar it is
possible to suggest he would have gone unnoticed in the Coup’s radar. This
slight variation in what happened to Charles Horman presents to the audience
that there may be other inconsistencies in the film medium of the story and how
the media can adapt variations in order to prove a point or purpose, and to
keep audiences engaged. If the film had no storyline or climaxes, with
characters we can connect with it may not be to many peoples taste. This
therefore would implicate a suffering of ratings and thus the film would not be
as popular so the case of Charles Horman would not be as well known.
This allows questions to be asked on other aspects of the
film such as the footage we see of the brutal killings in the streets of Chile.
One particular scene shows helicopters swooping over the city and shooting a
lot of people whilst Joyce and Ed watch from a balcony of a restaurant. This
death squad was known as the caravan of death and according to NGO Memoria y
Justicia “the squad killed 26 in the South and 71 in the North, making a total
of 97 victims”[5].
This number is of course devastating however in the grand scheme of the total number
of causalities, it does not amount to even 10% of those killed as “according to
various reports and investigations 1,200–3,200 people were killed”[6].
In the film it seems to show hundreds of people breaking the curfew and being
shot. There are many scenes showing the dead bodies on the road, giving the
impression that there were more than 97 victims due to the caravan of death and
could be suggested more than the 3200. The film seems to exaggerate the number
of casualties compared to the actual figures, such as when Horman’s father and
wife look for Charles’s dead body amongst the rooms where dead bodies have been
held. It shows people piled high, even put onto stairs due to the lack of room.
This is to add a greater shock factor to the film, to again keep the audience
engaged and focused. It will intensify their reaction if hundreds of bodies are
shown; despite if this is not accurate.
The director of Missing, Costa Gavras, is renowned for
depicting historical events in a true fashion and a “master documenter of the
fascist takeover”[7].
With this in mind it is not likely that he would decide to change his pattern
and notoriety of producing films which are “almost in lip-sync to the
international news”[8]
and tangent off his habitual methods of film making with exaggeration and
exploit historical events for his own benefit. However, as Missing is a “post
Water-gate film”[9]
and the power history had “to shock has been dulled by repeated revelations”[10]
thus it could be suggested that Gavras has tried to shock by the amount of
bodies shown and the awful torturing to keep audiences engaged for the greater
good, as if these actions fail to shock then there is a chance they could
happen as they become normalised. The film has been described as an “elegy” [11]to
those who perished due to the Chilean Coup which seems a fitting description.
However, despite the media's depiction and the pros and cons of the film, it is still a piece of footage that enables audiences to easily watch and understand the problems that Chile faced. The Charles Horman website is particularly worth a look at, due to its touching photographs and heartfelt descriptions of Charles.
[1] http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=20647
[2] http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=20647
[5] http://www.memoriayjusticia.cl/english/en_focus-caravan.html
[6]
Rettig Report, The National Commission for Truth and Reconciliation Report,
Patricio Alywen
[7] Missing:
Directed by Costa Gavras, John Beebe, Pg 55
[8]
Missing: Directed by Costa Gavras, John Beebe, Pg 55
[9]
Missing: Directed by Costa Gavras, John Beebe, Pg 55
[10]
Missing: Directed by Costa Gavras, John Beebe, Pg 55
[11]
Missing: Directed by Costa Gavras, John Beebe, Pg 55
[12]
Missing: Directed by Costa Gavras, John Beebe, Pg 55
