Written by Andreas Babiolakis

This review is a part of the Palme d’Or Project: a review of every single Palme d’Or winner at Cannes Film Festival. Missing won the twenty seventh Palme d’Or at the 1982 festival, which it shared with Yol.

The film was selected by the following jury.
Jury President: Giorgio Strehler.
Jury: Jean-Jacques Annaud, Suso Cecchi d’Amico, Geraldine Chaplin, Gabriel Garcia Márquez, Florian Hopf, Sidney Lumet, Mrinal Sen, Claude Soule, René Thévenet.

In case you couldn’t tell that Costa-Gavras didn’t play around after his political opus Z dropped, you have virtually the rest of his filmography to see that the Greek-French director can flex his knowledge on complicated subjects with ease (and extreme scorn, of course; we can’t forget that). His next-biggest film is likely Missing: a depiction of the real case of journalist Charlie Horman’s concerning disappearance during the 1973 Chilean coup d’état. If you know of this circumstance, you know how it ends. Chances are you might not, and that’s what Costa-Gavras may have feared. It’s why he makes films about important subjects: to preserve them, with the intention of showcasing their (sadly) permanent relevancy. Well Missing is a coveted film of his for a different reason: it’s hard to purchase or to watch nowadays, and it feels like a bit of a lost relic.

Should you get a chance to see Missing, I’ll give you the skinny. The main story is interesting enough, particularly with how Costa-Gavras lures you into the unraveling crises happening in Chile, as well as how Charlie Horman may have been as a person. Once the film gets far enough, the supporting characters — Horman’s father and wife — overtake the film. It helps that they’re played by Jack Lemmon and Sissy Spacek, respectively, with the latter turning in some strong work after her Oscar win for Coal Miner’s Daughter, and the former displaying some of the finest acting of his entire career. Horman’s loved ones don’t see eye-to-eye, but they put their differences aside to try and figure out how far they can go to save an important person in their lives. They are continuously disappointed in the efforts of the embassy, but what they discover is actually worse than what anyone could predict. The story is nerve wracking enough, but it’s who we share it with that really make it work.

While the film doesn’t carry as much of a punch as some of his strongest material, it is still harrowing enough, particularly with what it unveils about those we put a lot of trust in. The events themselves are heartbreaking, and you can feel the hurt in Lemmon and Spacek’s performances (particularly father Harmon, who is absolutely broken, but is determined to get to the bottom of whatever is going on). I can only imagine that Missing would be kind of a slog without the brilliant acting at the forefront, and it’s not because the narrative isn’t interesting. It’s because it is a story that depends on those that tell it: the concerned amongst the negligent. Because Lemmon and Spacek are phenomenal here, Missing feels like an even better film than it may actually be. If you are a fan of either thespian, then Missing is a must. Because of the work they put in (and Costa-Gavras’ hard-hitting direction as well), Missing is also worth watching for any fan of political cinema. It may not be as bold as some of the finest films of the genre, but it definitely possesses some of the biggest heart of this style. You’re bound to feel despair and shattered, and Missing fully intends on staying with you in this impactful way.

Andreas Babiolakis has a Masters degree in Film and Photography Preservation and Collections Management from Toronto Metropolitan University, as well as a Bachelors degree in Cinema Studies from York University. His favourite times of year are the Criterion Collection flash sales and the annual Toronto International Film Festival.