Ben Affleck’s Netflix political thriller poses a provocative real-world question: Could a mayoral candidate turn a false narrative into political capital by securing the support of influential immigrant-rights organizations and Latino voters? And how can voters distinguish political storytelling from deception?
Could a false narrative sway CHIRLA and the Latino electorate in Los Angeles into supporting a mayoral candidate?
That is the unsettling question Ben Affleck’s Animals raises: a Netflix political thriller in which a mayoral candidate turns a criminal scandal into a story of heroism and gains Latino support in the process. As the truth remains concealed, Mark Kimball manages to transform a crisis that could destroy his political career into an opportunity to win the mayor’s office. Meanwhile, Ramón, the man whose actions help save lives, ultimately returns to Mexico.
The film invites scrutiny not only of a politician’s ability to manipulate public opinion, but also of how CHIRLA, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, and Latino voters are portrayed as participants in that deception. Why does the story make Latino political support a vehicle for the success of a fabricated narrative?
The issue is not simply that Kimball lies. Political fiction has long explored the manipulation of public opinion. The more troubling question is whether Animals exposes the cynical exploitation of Latino voters or inadvertently portrays them as particularly susceptible to emotional manipulation.
That distinction matters. Latino voters are not a political monolith. They have diverse interests, independent judgments, and competing priorities. CHIRLA’s fictional role must also be distinguished from the real organization’s work. The film does not establish that the actual organization or Latino voters generally need deception to support a candidate.
The Latino Characters and the Politics of Representation
Ramón is central to the film’s moral contrast. His actions help save lives, yet his story ends with his return to Mexico. While Kimball turns the crisis into a political advantage, Ramón faces the consequences of his immigration status. The contrast raises a question about whose actions receive public recognition and whose contributions remain overshadowed by the political narrative. Ramón’s fate gives the film an opportunity to examine the human cost of a system in which public image and political power can outweigh personal courage.
Cecilia’s experience adds another dimension to the story. As Ramón’s partner, she is caught in the consequences of the crisis and the decisions made by those with greater political power. Her family’s future becomes entangled with a public narrative that serves Kimball’s ambitions. The contrast between the private consequences endured by the Latino characters and the public rewards enjoyed by the candidate invites scrutiny of how the film distributes agency, vulnerability, and responsibility among its characters.
Héctor, the child at the center of the kidnapping, further complicates the contrast between political image and human reality. His safety becomes part of the story Kimball uses to establish himself as a hero. A child’s ordeal is transformed into political capital, while the people closest to the crisis remain vulnerable to consequences they cannot control. The question is whether the film sufficiently challenges that transformation or whether its narrative ultimately uses the Latino family to advance a story about a politician’s success.
When a Political Lie Becomes an Electoral Strategy
The ending sharpens the contradiction. Ramón, whose actions demonstrate courage and humanity, returns to Mexico, while Kimball benefits politically from the false public image he has constructed. The man who helps save lives loses his place in the United States, while the politician who profits from deception gains power.
This leaves a fundamental question for Affleck and Netflix. Does Animals hold Kimball accountable for manipulating CHIRLA and the Latino vote, or does it also turn Latino political judgment into a spectacle of gullibility?
A film can criticize political deception without reducing the people being deceived to caricatures. The question is not whether Latino voters can be manipulated. Every electorate can be. The question is whether Animals gives Latino voters the complexity and agency necessary to distinguish a community being manipulated from a community portrayed as inherently naïve.
