argo (ben affleck)

[AFlickering]

affleck has the gall to begin argo by drawing attention to the victimisation of the iranian people in the time preceding the iran hostage crisis, showing a pile of bodies and multiple shots of starving and tortured iranians, only to segue into a rote (albeit effective) suspense-relief patriotic crowdpleaser in the apollo 13 mould--one which insists americans deserve more credit for their ability to use lies to clean up their own messes. not a pinch of irony to be found.

films like argo and silver linings playbook reduce challenging, complicated, disturbing topics into exactly what westerners would desperately like them to be, helping us sweep everything that challenges us under the rug so we can sleep at night. shut your eyes, folks--come to the movies! worse, this is the kind of crap that knowingly rewards us for investing in its bigotry, exploiting it for maximum catharsis and soothing with the idea that this war on terror is a simple us vs. them narrative only we can win, because we're the good guys. i say "knowingly", because it's mirrored by a meta-cinematic subplot which emphasises that hollywood will come to the rescue of good ol' uncle sam's psyche with its sly web of illusions if those stupid, barbaric arabs get a little too scary.

in light of gone baby gone (i haven't seen the town, interested to know where it fits), i suppose it's no wonder affleck is playing a man who delivers a national triumph he can't share in or take credit for himself. he doesn't believe in any of this shit after idealism perished on that couch, but still he'll perpetuate the usual hollywood lies for our benefit - a true altruist, embracing our every burden into the wisps of his neat, martyrly beard. thank you, ben, you vain, condescending prick.

we're talking about a film that spends about an hour showing us close-ups of affleck's brooding face while the iranian housekeeper, maybe the bravest person in this whole thing, is suspected, ignored, and finally reduced to an exploitative little will she/won't she scene where, o thank the lucky stars, she does what's right and betrays her people, bless her little cotton socks. she presumably did it because she realised ben affleck's just too handsome to be a villain. i mean, just look how handsome he is, right ben? the arabs will never get us if our secret protector looks THAT good in all those different shirts, saving the day to no recognition or fanfare (well, except when he embraces his wife, stars and stripes flying triumphantly). i'd be a lot more admiring of his sacrifice (well, not really) if i couldn't so easily picture his oscar speech.

it's useful, i suppose, in clarifying everything that's wrong with hollywood and the country fawning over its products. i for one am not wasting that usefulness. it's time for a fucking backlash. we need to be better than this.

[ShogunRua]

It's funny; a hardcore liberal (Affleck) makes a realistic historical film (all this shit actually happened, right down to the lynching in the street) that is very sympathetic to Iran and its people.

Some extreme wing-nut liberals, however, still perceive the film as wrong and evil. See, it dares to portray the Western embassy workers terrified for their lives in a moderately sympathetic manner. Oh, and it portrays Iranian terrorists as less than genial fellows.

How warped and insane does one's perception of the world need to be to get offended over this? Especially as a Westerner enjoying the fruits of this same society?

[Stewball]

I am usually sensitive to films being used as propaganda, but I didn't see much of it here (and grouping SLP in with it is totally baffling). As for realism, the last 20 minutes or so of Argo with it's rapid fire sequence of split-second timing capped off with that bs chase down the runway made me wonder how many other such devices were slipped into the rest of the movie. The greatest chunk of propaganda associated with it is putting it out there as being award-worthy.

[AFlickering]

It's funny; a hardcore liberal (Affleck) makes a realistic historical film (all this shit actually happened, right down to the lynching in the street) that is very sympathetic to Iran and its people.

Some extreme wing-nut liberals, however, still perceive the film as wrong and evil. See, it dares to portray the Western embassy workers terrified for their lives in a moderately sympathetic manner. Oh, and it portrays Iranian terrorists as less than genial fellows.

How warped and insane does one's perception of the world need to be to get offended over this? Especially as a Westerner enjoying the fruits of this same society?

feel free to elaborate on "a realistic historical film that is very sympathetic to Iran and its people", 'cause that's not the movie i saw (are ron howard's movies "realistic" too?). i'm not particularly biased politically though, i just don't like being treated like a moron. you're putting a lot of words into my mouth; got an agenda yourself, have you?

the SLP comparison makes sense in light of my SLP review i guess. i'm sure i wouldn't have said that if they weren't both best picture nominees, but it's a useful reference point nonetheless.

[ShogunRua]

feel free to elaborate on "a realistic historical film that is very sympathetic to Iran and its people", 'cause that's not the movie i saw (are ron howard's movies "realistic" too?). i'm not particularly biased politically though, i just don't like being treated like a moron. you're putting a lot of words into my mouth; got an agenda yourself, have you?

Yes, I do have strong political views, as you yourself do. However, I didn't see an agenda of any kind in "Argo", which is my whole point.

When you start seeing elaborate conservative political conspiracies in a completely apolitical film by a very liberal director, you're going off the deep end. If you disagree, please explain what parts of "Argo" were historically inaccurate (yes, we all know the skin-of-their-teeth escape was done for the sake of enhancing tension) and how said inaccuracy contributes to some flawed viewpoint?

[AFlickering]

i suppose i shouldn't have used the word "knowingly" in the review - the point was more that he ought to know, as this is his film and its implications (especially its celebration of hollywood's duplicity serving the safety and comfort of american people) are pretty damned obvious. i'm not saying affleck set out to do this - i'm saying i'm disappointed that someone who's made such an ambiguous, thoughtful film as gone baby gone would make such a one-dimensional all-american crowdpleaser as argo. i assume prestige and vanity are the motives and obviously not some anti-liberal agenda, but such motives inevitably precede pandering to people with a pretty reductive, self-serving view of the world. hollywood has always been rewarded for making americans feel good about themselves and their people, often at the expense of others; that's why this formula works so well.

but yeah, all the ambiguity and sense of perspective seems to vanish after the prologue and opening juxtaposition of footage showing the parallels of both sides. every iranian in this film is a device to serve the american peril storyline rather than a real human being - aside from the housekeeper, hardly humanised herself as mentioned above, the rest are all unintelligible alien figures, faces contorted with contempt and suspicion. the canadians, whose involvement was crucial IRL, are marginalised almost entirely, reduced to what i'd imagine is a pretty insulting footnote at the end about the power of international cooperation. it is claimed the brits and new zealanders rejected them outright, another falsehood. it also ignores that this kind of american duplicity is part of what caused the situation in the first place, at least in the iranians' eyes; it antagonises tensions (and parts of the iranian press have already kicked up a fuss about it, citing racial stereotyping) at a time where that's obviously not productive for anyone.

the americans' escape provides total catharsis, everything is smoothed out; he reunites with his wife on a norman rockwell porch with an american flag waving gloriously in the background, and the only slight tragic element is that he won't get any public recognition. compare that to 'zero dark thirty', which although flawed, treats its american victory with infinitely more ambiguity; the relief and triumph are almost completely tempered by despair and regret about what a mess it all is, a sadness about the situation that led to such conflicts and our own complicity, empathy for people on both sides of the struggle, etcetc. i'm not encouraged to pat myself, my country or the director on the back, whereas argo feels more like a circle jerk to me.

[ShogunRua]

i'm saying i'm disappointed that someone who's made such an ambiguous, thoughtful film as gone baby gone would make such a one-dimensional all-american crowdpleaser as argo.

More vague, unsupported rhetoric. Again, most people did not view it as a "one-dimensional all-american crowdpleaser". They viewed it as an apolitical, dramatized account of a real-life event. You choose to view it as some evil conservative political work, which is made more hilarious by its writer and director (Affleck) being a hardcore liberal.

but yeah, all the ambiguity and sense of perspective seems to vanish after the prologue and opening juxtaposition of footage showing the parallels of both sides. every iranian in this film is a device to serve the american peril storyline rather than a real human being - aside from the housekeeper, hardly humanised herself as mentioned above, the rest are all unintelligible alien figures, faces contorted with contempt and suspicion. the canadians, whose involvement was crucial IRL, are marginalised almost entirely, reduced to what i'd imagine is a pretty insulting footnote at the end about the power of international cooperation.

A very strange argument. For starters, one could argue that EVERY character in the film save Affleck's character is a cardboard cliche rather than a "real human being", and is only a "device" to serve the storyline. Seriously, think about how much depth any of the American captives are given. Not much!

More importantly, the film is about the American survivors, not the plight of the Iranians. You criticizing it for not including the latter would be like criticizing a kung fu film for not featuring enough musical numbers.

It's not what the film is even about!

it also ignores that this kind of american duplicity is part of what caused the situation in the first place, at least in the iranians' eyes; it antagonises tensions (and parts of the iranian press have already kicked up a fuss about it, citing racial stereotyping) at a time where that's obviously not productive for anyone.

Ah, I see. We needed a film that is sympathetic to the Iranian terrorists that took the hostages. Anything less than that is malicious conservative propaganda, right?

What's hilarious is that this comment is presumably written by a upper middle-class European/American liberal. You know, the type of person that those Iranian terrorists would love to kill if given the chance?

[AFlickering]

For starters, one could argue that EVERY character in the film save Affleck's character is a cardboard cliche rather than a "real human being", and is only a "device" to serve the storyline. Seriously, think about how much depth any of the American captives are given. Not much!

pretty good point, and one which i think serves my fundmental criticism that everyone in this film is a vessel - the americans for sympathy, the iranians for fear/suspicion - rather than an actual person. i'm incapable of connecting to a film that professes to be "based on true events", "topical" (affleck has said this) etc and yet doesn't contain realistic people. i'm not necessarily against generic thrillers with crappy characterisations, but in that context, it feels like bullshit. this was always the main point i was making.

More importantly, the film is about the American survivors, not the plight of the Iranians. You criticizing it for not including the latter would be like criticizing a kung fu film for not featuring enough musical numbers.

It's not what the film is even about!

i'm not asking for it to be "about the plight of iranians", only to accept that iranians aren't all just crazed hordes of zombies/inept morons/sneering assholes etc. but even discounting that, it's still only a black and white version of how it played out from an american perspective, as well, one which glosses over any and every detail which stops the americans being the sole virtuous heroes of the situation.

Ah, I see. We needed a film that is sympathetic to the Iranian terrorists that took the hostages. Anything less than that is malicious conservative propaganda, right?

no, we needed a film that's not sympathetic to every single american and unsympathetic to every single iranian. i'm sure this would grow organically out of a film that actually had fleshed out characters rather than bland ciphers. hell, even something like 24 is wayyyyy more nuanced.

What's hilarious is that this comment is presumably written by a upper middle-class European/American liberal. You know, the type of person that those Iranian terrorists would love to kill if given the chance?

why not just say "iranians", seeing as you seem to consider "iranian terrorists" a tautology? also, for the record, i'm not so blinded by rage toward people who wish ill upon me that i fail to consider them real people with real motivations.

[ShogunRua]

pretty good point, and one which i think serves my fundmental criticism that everyone in this film is a vessel - the americans for sympathy, the iranians for fear/suspicion - rather than an actual person. i'm incapable of connecting to a film that professes to be "based on true events", "topical" (affleck has said this) etc and yet doesn't contain realistic people. i'm not necessarily against generic thrillers with crappy characterisations, but in that context, it feels like bullshit. this was always the main point i was making.

Your "fundamental criticism" makes no sense, because "Argo" was never a serious character study, and any personalities would always take a backseat to the dramatic tension and escape.

i'm not asking for it to be "about the plight of iranians", only to accept that iranians aren't all just crazed hordes of zombies/inept morons/sneering assholes etc.

No one sane that watched the film left with that impression. I'm not even sure what you wanted the filmmakers to do, either. Because of the intrinsic subject matter, they HAVE to portray members of the Iranian military as well as the rioting crowd that did in fact take the US consulate hostage. (Go yell and scream about the bias of history and reality if you dislike these facts)

What is the problem with this? Do they have to balance this out with scenes of random Iranians petting kittens?. And of course the audience knows this doesn't apply to every Iranian. Every time that you see an Eastern European villain on screen in a FICTIONAL movie, do you lament what an unfair stereotype it is? And that everyone will think all Eastern Europeans are murderers and kidnappers? Well in this case, you're complaining about Iranian villains directly taken from real events. Not even made-up.

Sorry that reality doesn't fit your world-view. Maybe you should change the world-view, instead of complaining about reality?

but even discounting that, it's still only a black and white version of how it played out from an american perspective, as well, one which glosses over any and every detail which stops the americans being the sole virtuous heroes of the situation.

Details which you have failed to mention in every post thus far.

no, we needed a film that's not sympathetic to every single american and unsympathetic to every single iranian. i'm sure this would grow organically out of a film that actually had fleshed out characters rather than bland ciphers. hell, even something like 24 is wayyyyy more nuanced.

This isn't even true. The film was very sympathetic to the Iranian housekeeper. Also, I do want to point out how perverted your thinking is.

We need to make the US hostages less sympathetic/more odious, and the Iranian terrorists, military, and rioters that hung people in the street more sympathetic? This is the way actual terrorists think, by the way.

It's what allows them to kill innocent civilians and think they're doing God's (Muhammed's) work.

why not just say "iranians", seeing as you seem to consider "iranian terrorists" a tautology? also, for the record, i'm not so blinded by rage toward people who wish ill upon me that i fail to consider them real people with real motivations.

Please don't ascribe your own black-and-white view of the world to me. You're a fool if you don't think the Iranian rioters/military/police that took dozens of innocent people hostage in 1980 and killed others in the street qualify as anything but "terrorists". You're also a fool if you think this applies to all Iranian people.

However, I do see the tautology of "Westerners/Americans = evil and guilty" used constantly in your thinking, which is strange considering that you're presently enjoying the fruits of said Western society.

The only one "blinded by rage" and bias is yourself. You're upset that real events don't fit your warped perception of the world. Again, I suggest changing the way you view the world instead of shaking your fist at an apolitical film.

[AFlickering]

Your "fundamental criticism" makes no sense, because "Argo" was never a serious character study, and any personalities would always take a backseat to the dramatic tension and escape.

ok, i see your point. this discussion really boils down to:
"argo fails to be this"
"argo was never trying to be that"
"oh okay. why on earth is it getting so much buzz if it's just an unambitious, rote suspense film?"

it's a matter of context for me; maybe i read the opening to be something more than it was, and i went in with expectations of something more in-depth, not just because of its popularity, but because of the potential for commentary in its fake movie sub-plot, and due to my perception of affleck as a thoughtful, daring filmmaker. either way, it's disappointing that it's such a generic escape thriller, and that the "topicality" is so superficial (read: award-baiting).

but even discounting that, it's still only a black and white version of how it played out from an american perspective, as well, one which glosses over any and every detail which stops the americans being the sole virtuous heroes of the situation.

Details which you have failed to mention in every post thus far.

the most obvious thing is how it disregards all the other nationalities involved in helping america out (yes, there's a little canada in there, but nowhere near an accurate amount).

no, we needed a film that's not sympathetic to every single american and unsympathetic to every single iranian. i'm sure this would grow organically out of a film that actually had fleshed out characters rather than bland ciphers. hell, even something like 24 is wayyyyy more nuanced.

This isn't even true. The film was very sympathetic to the Iranian housekeeper.

it firstly treats her automatically as an object of suspicion, then ignores her for a while, and even when she decides to help out there's little interest in her motives or well-being, she's purely a suspense device. i hardly think this constitutes being "very sympathetic toward iran and its people".

We need to make the US hostages less sympathetic/more odious, and the Iranian terrorists, military, and rioters that hung people in the street more sympathetic? This is the way actual terrorists think, by the way.

It's what allows them to kill innocent civilians and think they're doing God's (Muhammed's) work.

Please don't ascribe your own black-and-white view of the world to me. You're a fool if you don't think the Iranian rioters/military/police that took dozens of innocent people hostage in 1980 and killed others in the street qualify as anything but "terrorists". You're also a fool if you think this applies to all Iranian people.

However, I do see the tautology of "Westerners/Americans = evil and guilty" used constantly in your thinking, which is strange considering that you're presently enjoying the fruits of said Western society.

The only one "blinded by rage" and bias is yourself. You're upset that real events don't fit your warped perception of the world. Again, I suggest changing the way you view the world instead of shaking your fist at an apolitical film.

i don't oppose america (it's my favourite country in the world, oddly enough), i oppose generalisations, cartoon stereotypes and the reduction of sprawling, emotionally complex real life events into clichéd, patriotic narratives of suspense and triumph. it just so happens that hollywood is the most obvious and prolific producer of such works, and the film itself implicitly recognises that fact. if i came across an iranian film with those same qualities, i'd be just as critical.