Ben Affleck To Direct & Star In 'Argo'

[Asteroid-Man]

We love the film because its a great film. It's ridiculously well made, top notch acting and crazy intense

You call a script riddled with one-liners and a final product filled with continuity mistakes a "great film that's ridiculously well made"? Also the propaganda element to its intensity shown also demerits it from being considered "a great film that's ridiculously well made".

It was a splendid movie, but the only thing that makes it special really is the way they captured seventies.

Apparently not.

Frankly, I wasn't even familiar with the story that much. I followed up and while it takes some liberties, I don't think it's as bad as you say.

I kind of get where you're coming from; at the end of the day, I think the movie struck a good balance politically. I would suggest it is unfair to portray this movie as being pro-American jingoism; right off the bat, the movie makes it clear that the USA was the architect of its own problems by helping to depose a democratically-elected socialist government. Not too many Americans know their own country helped create the Iranian bogeyman they fear today.

There is also the complaint that this movie puts too much emphasis on the CIA's role in the rescue; every piece of historical evidence indicates that this really was planned and executed by Canada, with the CIA lending resource support, not the other way around as this movie suggests.

However, Canada's role has been well documented, so it is not to the detriment of the movie that it chooses to focus on just one aspect of the Canadian Caper.

It was pretty balanced for the most part. Though the Canadian involvement was downplayed

It was NOT well balanced. Not in the slightest.

Firstly, the opening sequence makes mention of how the USA and England engineered a coup to prevent Iranian Democracy from coming about, but even in this story they said the Iranians seized "US and English petroleum" which is ********. It was Iranian, and that was why the people were so upset.

Secondly, the film did not mention Jimmy Carter's failure in the entire 1979 revolution and how he is greatly to blame for Khomeini's return and rise to power.

Prior to the revolution, there was civil unrest in the south-east part of Iran. The Sunni Iranians/Pakastani-Iranians had bombed a number of Shieh mosques. The Shieh Iranians asked for Vengeance, but the Shah publicly said no, but SAVAK was secretly tasked with making a counter-strike.

This was a problem for a couple reasons - the Sunni-Iranians (few in numbers) began spreading that the Shah was a murderer, and at the same time, the Shieh Iranians were calling the Shah a traitor and a coward and non-Muslim. They saw him as a disgrace to the other Shieh's and blamed the deaths of the Shieh-Iranians on him. He became known as a murderer from both sects. Khomeini was one of the biggest Anti-Shah figures, proclaiming that the only solution to Iran's tribulations was an Islamic Republic. He became hostile and was exiled.

THAT is why the Revolution initially came about - the Shah wasn't a "murderous tyrant". His sense of self-righteousness made a mess of Government and he wouldn't correct it forcefully because he felt it wrong. After the CIA and Carter urged the Shah to spill the blood of the protesters, the Shah refused. He left for his first trip to Egypt (discussing solutions with his confident, the leader of Egypt). During his first trip, the smearing continued, with Khomeini saying that the Shah had been sneaking riches from the country into Egypt, calling him a thief. At this point, the CIA/Carter ordered their contacts in the Iranian Imperial Guard to open fire on protesters. Much blood was shed and this added fuel to the flame. "USA! USA! USA!"

The Shah returned to see all of his commanding officers urging him to forcefully fight the people (as per CIA/Carter interference). Once again, the Shah refused. Word had been fast spreading of American involvement and the argument of the Shah being a puppet to the United States was reintroduced. When Carter and his council realised that the Shah would not succumb to their will, they thought it better to back Khomeini. Introduce a new dictator who would stay loyal to you (as the first Pahlavi did and even the second for the first few decades).

While the Shah was on his second trip to Egypt, the CIA dispatched Imperial Guard Uniforms to Mujahidin and Islamic Militia to once again open fire on the protesters (this time they realised added fuel to the fire would be to their advantage). The Iranians went ape ****, and they pressed on against the barracks and the palace. They broke in, ransacked the palace (with all of the treasures intact mind you) and they began killing the Generals of the Shah (many of which were told to help push forward the coup in favour of Khomeini - pretty ironic). The United-States (through French relations) had Khomeini return to the country and a glorious party.

Meanwhile, the Shah had been growing weary (he finally revealed that he had been dying of cancer). After being denied entry numerous times, FINALLY the United States allowed the Shah to stay on American soil (not mainland) to die.

When Khomeini came to Iran, he was allied with the CIA/Carter. "USA! USA! USA!", only the University students (including the now President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) decided that they would raid the American Embassy (unaware of the political pact between the Islamic Republic and the USA), demanding the return of the Shah. Finally they broke in and Khomeini initially ordered that the students piss off. Only, then his advisers pointed out how much it fuelled the students. They had been oppressed by the USA for so long, and now was their chance to remove who they considered to be tyrants.

Khomeini allowed the Embassy takeover to occur, thinking he no longer needed American support.

In many reports from the students (who later went on to resent the Islamic Revolution), they were suspected that the American Embassy was a depot of spies - another reason it was a PRIMARY target. The thing with the Shah was just the icing on the cake. Their real prize? Uproot espionage. When they entered the embassy, the students found that documents were being shredded.

The students took the shreds and meticulously began reassembling them (NOT CHILDREN IN SWEAT SHOPS) and they were proud to do it for their country. This operation helped the Iranian students to dig-out all of the spies (Iranian-American and American) who had been operating (many of which had caused the deaths of countless innocent lives). They held military tribunals (not kangaroo courts) for the spies, and gave them punishment based on their actions (keep in mind, the trials were decently fair as they were still technically opperating in a manner similar to the Monarch system (the Islamic system had yet to be established). The film shows it as the Iranians trying to get dirt on the Americans, killing innocent Americans and sending children to sweat shops.

Furthermore, how many Iranians in the movie were shown as being civil? Most Iranians weren't even in favour of the bloody revolution. Those who were were either radical extremists or Militant Communists (or American influenced Imperial Guard). Almost every Iranian portrayed in this film was portrayed negatively.

What happened with the rescue attempt? Lack of preparation, and the helis crashed into each other in the desert. It was an international embarrassment. The Islamic Republic called this "an act of God in support of the Islamic Republic of Iran" - revolutionaries went ape ****. Once again, fuel to the flame.

When were the hostages finally released? The INSTANT that Jimmy Carter lost the election. The Iranian's way of sending a message that he, the Democrats and more importantly the Americans, had failed. The Islamic Republic proclaimed themselves as merciful.

Moving on to Antonio Mendez, the MEXICAN C.I.A. agent played by a WHITE American.

Speaking of Mendez, those "money shots" with the American flag were a bit much.

Now time for the Canadian **** over. The Canadians took responsibility for the Americans at the Ambassador's home and they engineered the escape. The movie completely disregards this. The CIA would handle the cover-up side, as they had access to American resources that CSIS did not. The cover was almost blown a couple of times by journalists, but again, it took CSIS to shut them back up.

The "Argo" cover-up was greatly exaggerated. I'll say about 85% of it was for the purpose of the film. Why do I say 85%? Well, first of all, it made for "great" juxtaposition of an all-American rescue mission prep. vs the "barbaric, child enslaving Iranians" in a montage sequence, and secondly because it offered an opportunity to make a jab at the current situation in the world, where the United States and Jews are constantly being attacked by the IRI.

I'm not being Anti-Semetic in saying this, but the film focused on the Jews in Hollywood for a specific reason, and that was because it provided an interested political statement in comparison to the current state of things. Usually, the large population of Jews in the Film Industry is taboo in films, running the risk of being labelled "Anti-Semetic", but when it's to go "Hey Islamic Iran, you got outsmarted by Americans and Jews! USA! USA! USA!" and it requires exaggerating the actual "Argo" element of it, it's fair game.

So let's recap shall we?

• The film calls Iranian resources American/British (when in reality, the resources were stolen by the USA/UK and reclaimed by Iran).
• The film makes the Shah out to be a murderous tyrant (when in reality, a lot of this bad rap is due to American interference)
• Jimmy Carter's betrayal of Iran is not mentioned
• The CIA's influence on the Imperial Guard is not mentioned
• The CIA's involvement in getting Khomeini back into Iran, not mentioned.
• The film portrays the Embassy takeover as without intent, but to steal information on the USA and get "vengeance" (when it was about finding the spies and Khomeini allowing this to occur as a message to Carter)
• The film portrays the Iranians making children in sweat shops piece together the images (when it was students who took it upon themselves to do this as an honour to their people)
• Mendez being white.
• American flag money shots.
• Canadian's are swept under the rug (when CSIS did most of the work)
• Americans/Jews Vs. Iran (specifically at a time where the Islamic Republic is being hostile towards them and the possibility of war looms over us)

So no, I do not think that I am exaggerating. And ALL of that, is coming from an individual who hates the Islamic Republic more than anyone you've probably ever met. We are facing the possibility of a war with Iran. If that happens, the Iranian people will suffer tremendously and the three decades of healing to the perspective of Americans to the Persian people (not the government) will be completely undone.

Also, Canadians were shat on.




A Note on Nationalism:
Sorry if this came off as an angry rant - really not at all my intentions. I'm just trying to show that perhaps when I say "this film is a load of propaganda" I'm not doing it based on conspiracy or pride, but rather from a perspective of historical and social context. Americans don't have to love America. Propaganda should be beneath us. Politics and Nationalism are poison to the well-being of the world, and films like this only further their "progress". All it does is cause contention, strife and disunity. Having a background where my own people (Persians) persecute my beliefs (as a Baha'i), refusing to refer to myself as an "Iranian", and being denied identity as a "Canadian" in the country I was born and raised (Canada) by white Canadians based on visible minority (when their entire country was founded on illegal immigration and a savage genocide of dark-skinned First Nations), and having been raised to appreciate Persian, English-Canadian, French-Canadian and Mohawk culture, I have learned how futile things like Nationalism are.


***DISCLAIMER***

The above is based on released military notes, leaked files, reconstructed (once shredded) files from the embassy in Iran (once readily available to the Iranian Public - available in some books), documentaries and testimonial accounts.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Bloody hell, there's an awful lot in there that makes me wonder how much propaganda you've digested AM, unless every single one of those claims you make are proven in stone as opposed to simply a version of events told from a different viewpoint.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Here:

***DISCLAIMER***

The above is based on released military notes, leaked files, reconstructed (once shredded) files from the embassy in Iran (once readily available to the Iranian Public - available in some books), documentaries and testimonial accounts.


Obviously there must be inaccuracies in there, but it's a solid account of the history of the Revolution presenting aspects of every side. It's interesting because usually it's pretty split. Those who support Carter go "wow, the Iranians ****ed up" and Iranians against the Regime tend to go "wow, Carter ****ed us over" when really it's like a mixture of the two with reasons behind everyone's actions.

 

[The Guard]

That's all well and good, and certainly worth considering...

But I'm curious why a movie called "ARGO", which is clearly focused one one part of the event, would need to be "balanced" in the first place. There's no way a film could have presented a balanced, complete version of events with an appropriate focus on the "cover up", and not been five to six hours long to boot.

They made a movie. A Hollywood movie, with a Hollywood version of events, based on a particular viewpoint. I don't think "propaganda" is the right word for what the film contains, because the whole film makes it obvious that there was one screw up after another, and that there was a lot of incompetence at play in the government itself, and that the United States government contributed to creating many of the issues it later had to deal with.

 

[Pink Ranger]

A little disappointed and surprised Affleck didn't get the Director nom, but as a Life Of Pi booster I am happy. So conflicted ...

 

[Asteroid-Man]

That's all well and good, and certainly worth considering...

But I'm curious why a movie called "ARGO", which is clearly focused one one part of the event, would need to be "balanced" in the first place. There's no way a film could have presented a balanced, complete version of events with an appropriate focus on the "cover up", and not been five to six hours long to boot.

They made a movie. A Hollywood movie, with a Hollywood version of events, based on a particular viewpoint. I don't think "propaganda" is the right word for what the film contains, because the whole film makes it obvious that there was one screw up after another, and that there was a lot of incompetence at play in the government itself, and that the United States government contributed to creating many of the issues it later had to deal with.

I think the reason I see it as propaganda is the rather convenient timing of the film's release and the fact that not a single one of Jimmy Carter's **** ups were mentioned.

Ok this next thing that I'm about to say is pure speculation, but I feel like it might have been mentioned in the film, had Jimmy Carter been a Republican President.



Also, I'm being grilled on tumblr right now by a guy claiming me to be anti-semitic when all I did was make an observation on Affleck’s usage of “the Jewish Hollywood Executive” with the CIA and how it had political implications. It's freaking ridiculous...

 

[Figs]

Ok this next thing that I'm about to say is pure speculation, but I feel like it might have been mentioned in the film, had Jimmy Carter been a Republican President.

That's one thing I'll agree with you on.

 

[Paradox1]

How good is this movie? I'm curious because it seems to keep winning all these awards the golden globes, PGA , and tonight the sag.

 

[jacobed]

It's phenomenal

 

[Gianakin_]

It's very good, but nowhere near Oscar-worthy.

 

[Raiden]

It's very good, but nowhere near Oscar-worthy.

Well, this is better than some of the past Oscar winners like Shakespeare in Love and Crash, and I think it is as good or better than the other BP nominees for this year's Oscar.

 

[Gianakin_]

Agreed, in the sense that some of those contenders/winners were'nt Oscar-worthy, either.t:

 

[redhawk23]

What exactly is "convenient" about the timing of the release? We've had tensions with Iran for decades and will likely continue to for quite some time. At what point could this movie have been made at an "inconvenient" time?

 

[terry78]

I think some people are letting their politics get in the way of appreciating good filmmaking, like with Zero Dark Thirty.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I think some people are letting their politics get in the way of appreciating good filmmaking, like with Zero Dark Thirty.

terry, when a film demonises an entire culture, it ceases to be "good filmmaking". For this very reason, I refuse to accept any John Wayne film or "Birth of a Nation" as "good filmmaking".

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

terry, when a film demonises an entire culture, it ceases to be "good filmmaking". For this very reason, I refuse to accept any John Wayne film or "Birth of a Nation" as "good filmmaking".

I disagree.

Listen, I hate Birth of a Nation. Can't stand it. To me, it's the most racist and offensive thing Hollywood ever did that I do not want to watch again (I was forced to watch it for film class). Same with John Wayne. F**k him and his racist/blacklist supporting ways.

But politics and content aside, Birth of a Nation is good filmmaking from an objective technical point of view. Since it really only gets shown in film schools and some classic screenings, I don't think people other than film students or hardcore cinephiles watch the movie, but it's still a groundbreaking movie that I do not want to watch ever again.

And as much as I hate John Wayne, I will have to say both Stagecoach and The Searchers are great movies.

 

[Paradox1]

Thanks for responses and I thought the movie was great. I don't think this movie demonizes anyone because there is a set up of the US and UK budding their noses in the internal affairs of another country by disposing of it's leadership. That kind of thing makes everything the Iranian did afterward seem justified. To do something like that takes extreme arrogance and sense of entitlement.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Just saw this, thought it was pretty damn suspenseful as well as entertaining. It's late and I see someone spent a lot of time *****ing about it upthread, welcome to the internet rite? I'll read that crap tomorrow if I'm bored but as far as I'm concerned Affleck's three for three. Hard to believe a few years back nearly everyone considered him a washed-up joke, now he's riding a best picture win and a fair amount of critical acclaim.

If I have a complaint it's that the six weren't detailed enough. I remember them as Tate Donovan, Clea Duvall, the one who kinda looked like Cheech, and the other three. They could have used some fleshing out. An extra 5-10 minutes to get to know them wouldn't have been out of line, I don't think.

Still, I give it a B+. Great film.

 

[kvz5]

This is hilarious.

http://storify.com/andylevy/argo

 

[redhawk23]

This movie was entertaining but I still fail to see how it was the most well made movie overall last year.

 

[Gianakin_]

Same here. It shouldn't have even gotten any Oscar noms, imo.

 

[Lord]

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...ffleck_s_iran_hostage_movie_is_the_worst.html

 

[Pink Ranger]

I actually would like to see the actual movie of Argo itself (the unfilmed science fiction script they were using) to be made at some point.

 

[Lord]

I'm glad you post the RT ratings here. It proves that Affleck's directorial ability is no fluke, and I think Argo will become one of those films that will be remembered fondly for many years to come.

This film deserves accolades and it will be remembered.

As I was watching it I got this weird feeling in my filmmaker's conscious saying "See this movie right here! Well, it ain't leaving and it's here to stay."

What a great film. And the Star Wars references with Ben's son just upped the film with subtlety.

Are you serious? As Asteroid-Man mentioned this film is very one-sided and can be perceived by many as racist, exactly the kind of film that is viewed more negativelly as years pass.

 

[jacobed]

Hahaha racist? Haha no not at all. The only thing they did was downplayed the role of the Canadians and I suppose making the main character white instead of Mexican. I'd hardly call that racist