Argo
Argo
#1Argo
Posted: 10/13/12 at 3:30pmJust got back from seeing this movie, and I highly recommend it. It pulls off the difficult task of providing tension when the outcome of the movie is known. Great performances all around, and a major accomplishment for Affleck as a director.
#2Argo
Posted: 10/13/12 at 4:29pm
Saw this last night and thought it was one of my favorite movies of the year so far, it's absolutely engaging from beginning to end and it's incredibly fast paced. Affleck makes the tension run through every scene and he assembled an amazing cast who are all in top form: Alan Arkin, Bryan Cranston, Victor Garber, Clea DuVall (so good as one of the few female characters), Scoot McNairy, John Goodman, Zeljko Ivanek, Ben Affleck himself and a bunch of other actors are so good in it and all of them have good, identifiable roles. The ending is ridiculously wonderful, it really works on every level.
#2Argo
Posted: 10/13/12 at 5:54pm
I saw ARGO at the Toronto film festival. It was a terrific screening. (Slight SPOILER) The audience was highly engrossed in the film, laughing at the funny bits and literally erupting in cheers when the plane took off (even though I'm sure almost everyone there knew the outcome of those events).
I saw it again on Friday night at the Cineplex. That audience (perhaps a bit younger and less aware of the actual events), did not laugh as much at the jokes (some seemed to go right over the audience's head) and didn't seem as engrossed. However, overhearing people as they were leaving the theatre, the response did seem to be positive.
Terrific film. Definite Oscar bait. Kudos to Ben Affleck. I didn't see Gone Baby Gone or The Town. Who knew he was so talented?
erinrebecca
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/29/04
sabrelady
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/16/03
#5Argo
Posted: 10/13/12 at 11:21pm
erinrebbeca is correct. The world as viewed thru Yankee glasses. (always covered w mirrors to reflect they OWN glory). never MIND the CAnadian government was hustling its ASS off to hide and protect these people at risk of they own lives. How LUCKY we are to be a mere footnote. Yea I KNOW Ben insised the final comments be more inclusive but it still is revisionist history.
I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it.
#6Argo
Posted: 10/14/12 at 12:28am
Good film but almost total fictional account of what actually happened.
*MINOR SPOILERS THROUGHOUT (not huge ones considering how much of the story is already known)**
I get that criticism but honestly I don't think it's relevant in the case of this specific movie. I don't think at any point Affleck is attempting to create a "true account" of the events, it's always clear he's trying to make an entertaining film that captures the tension of this event. I feel that focusing so much on the Hollywood aspect of the story is very self-conscious on his part, he's clearly smart enough to know that he's making a Hollywood movie about this very Hollywood story.
And while I understand why Canadians may feel shortchanged, this is just one perspective of the story, I don't believe that the film is saying this is the whole story, but more importantly, I think it's very apparent to the audience throughout what a huge risk the Canadian ambassador and his wife (who are representative of the Canadian government as a whole) are taking, and I admire that he also gives a lot of credit to the Iranian housekeeper and contextualizes the risks she was taking.
I just think the movie is very detailed and at the same time very aware of what it's trying to do. I found it absolutely wonderful, and much more interesting than a faithful account of the events would have been.
#7Argo
Posted: 10/14/12 at 1:32am
The article of the true events in Wired seem to summarize the true events nicely.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2007/04/feat_cia/
It is a very hard line to walk in terms of trying to recreate a historical event through the lens of a Hollywood movie. Something is going to get changed or amplified or ignored. Another criticism is that Affleck is 'white-washing' the film and that if you looked at the real Tony Mendez, Michael Pena would be straight out of a central casting. Even though Affleck has gotten criticism for casting himself, I think he knew for him to get studio backing and distribution there needed to be somebody well-known in the role. Even Soderbergh, who self-financed Che and was militant of making the film in two-parts mostly in Spanish, knew he needed a star in the role rather than some unknown.
I doubt a political film like Z or The Battle of Algiers (yeah, I did my senior thesis on this film so it is still on my brain), of unknown ensemble casts, shot on location, and deeply political but captured the tension in content and most of the true historical account, could ever see the light of day in America except in a few art house cinemas. In Argo's defense, I doubt it had that level of ambition though I think making the film through 'Yankee eyes' is a know-your-audience kind of thing in a story where the details are stranger than fiction. I also think the people thinking this could somehow facilitate a war with Iran are a bit nuts. That is as bad saying the Academy Awards gave A Separation an Oscar as some kind of olive branch of peace in US-Iran relations.
And since this film has our long sour relationship with the government and the people of Iran as the backdrop, I would love for somebody to take on Operation Ajax aka, the CIA got rid of their democratically elected government and re-installed the Shah. Essentially the key event that started it all and the definition of 'blowback' in the intelligence community. There is a good book that accounts for Operation Ajax with the very Hollywood title, All the Shah's Men. It also had Teddy Roosevelt's grandson as the CIA's coordinator of the operation.
Updated On: 10/14/12 at 01:32 AM
#8Argo
Posted: 10/14/12 at 1:54am
I hope to see this movie this week.
You go to movie theaters to watch movies. Movies with characters that you love, stories that move you, etc, etc, etc.
If I wanted to watch a documentary, I would watch the documentary. I want to watch a movie.
If I wanted to know the events, I'd read the Wiki page.
#9Argo
Posted: 10/14/12 at 11:17am
I don't really understand the complaints about this film--often by Canadians, and often by Canadians who haven't seen the film. Many of these were raised during the Toronto film festival, when very few people had seen the film. (I'm Canadian myself, I did see the film, and disagreed with the anti-American sentiment. Hello, Canada, we've already made our films about this subject--or didn't you know?)
ARGO is a Hollywood thriller based on real event that highlights international tensions... and international cooperation. It shows the violence and tragedy of the situation... yet the rescue unfolds without any violence (no one is killed--good guys or bad guys; although there is an atmosphere of killing and we see the results of killings that are peripheral to the main characters' story). Canada is justly praised for their involvement in this mission--but Canada (and Canadians) are not the main characters in this story.
If you want that perspective, there are a number of other films you can see.
"Escape from Iran: The Canadian Caper" was shown on CTV and CBS, I believe, back in the early 1980's. And there was also a CBC documentary "Escape from Iran: The Inside Story" and a documentary called "The Iran Hostage Crisis: 444 Days to Freedom (What Really Happened in Iran)."
This story has been told, and now it needs to be told in a new way. ARGO is able to highlight Tony Mendez's involvement (a real life CIA agent doing real life international espionage) and the involvement of Hollywood (who knew about the patriotism or the contributions of, in this case, a leading Hollywood makeup artist?). Americans should be proud of these people.
Yes, some of the film is fictionalized to make it an exciting, suspenseful thriller. For example (slight SPOILER), Ken Taylor (the Canadian ambassador to Iran who harbored the six Americans) has said that he bought the plane tickets, so the drama in the film involving the Swissair tickets was made up. Who cares? This movie is not a documentary, it's an intelligent, yet populist film that is competing against the likes of James Bond for an audience. The fact that Affleck has made a populist film will mean that far more people (American people, esp.) will see ARGO and learn about this important incident of recent history. And maybe it will make people think more about the complexity of foreign policy and global diplomacy. It's not simple. It's very complex. So, I applaud this film: it's smart AND it's fun.
----------
Edit to add: ARGO number 2 at the box office on its opening weekend.
"Argo, from Warner Bros., grossed a strong $20.1 million from 3,232 locations in its debut to easily take the No. 2 spot. The critically acclaimed film surged 47 percent from Friday to Saturday as moviegoers flocked to see the period political thriller, about the rescue of six Americans during the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis.
Affleck both directed and stars in the $44 million film, which received a glowing A+ CinemaScore, guaranteeing a long run for the film throughout awards season.
The movie's opening weekend was fueled by older moviegoers -- 93 percent of the audience was over the age of 25, and 52 percent over the age of 50 -- but Warners is confident the audience will expand. In terms of gender, 54 percent were females."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-report-taken-2-argo-378852
----------
This is an interesting article on the Hollywood backstory behind ARGO: The Odd Hollywood History Behind Ben Affleck's 'Argo'
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ben-affleck-argo-odd-hollywood-history-374054
----------
And here's the backstory to ARGO on the CIA website written by Tony Mendez himself (fascinating reading): A Classic Case of Deception
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/winter99-00/art1.html
#10Argo
Posted: 10/14/12 at 1:23pm
***SPOILERS ABOUT ENDING***
Affleck has also been very clear that they made up the plot about the Iranian government finding out about the hostages which is basically what the whole last sequence is about. It's still one of the most suspenseful things I've seen in a really long time, and I wouldn't want another version of it that was more "real," as someone else said, it still wouldn't be realistic at the end of the day, it's a movie.
Canmark, couldn't agree more with your post, very informative too!
sabrelady
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/16/03
sabrelady
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/16/03
#14Argo
Posted: 10/15/12 at 12:31am
and may B we can do a moovvie bout Canadians killing Osama Yo MAMA?
GREAT moments in Canadian history!
#15Argo
Posted: 10/15/12 at 2:14am
Not sure how it's any different from any other jingoistic account of a historical event. If it were a Canadian-made film, the American side would've been downplayed. If the events were between Britain and France, those countries would skew it their own way.
If you're going to the movies for a history lesson, you're going for the wrong reason.
sabrelady
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/16/03
sabrelady
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/16/03
#17Argo
Posted: 10/15/12 at 1:12pm
THIS is how young the real man was at the time- not Victor Garber's white haired ageing wimp.
YES i GET it is "BASED" on a true story not IS a true story . BUT frankly I don't like the Yankee "divine right" to diminish others in order to promote themselves and their actions.
And for the record, I object anytime historical fact is rewritten for dramatic purposes ( see The Elizabeth I movies). BE cause peoples is stupid and the movie's version is what they will believe IS true.
Updated On: 10/15/12 at 01:12 PM
#18Argo
Posted: 10/15/12 at 1:50pm
I doubt Victor Garber was cast as a wimp. He is a well-respected character actor and a friend of Affleck- I believe Garber was the minister at the Affleck-Garner wedding.
I can understand the frustration with moviegoers more outraged by an adaptation of Harry Potter not being word for word but accepting a film on a non-fiction event being " just a movie". That said, Argo is on par with The Social Network than a film like The Midnight Express.
sabrelady
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/16/03
Bluemoon
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/28/04
#21Argo
Posted: 10/15/12 at 2:46pm
Good grief. Did you go off your meds? Is your caps key stuck? Do you poop out at parties? The answer, my friend is in this little bottle...
It's a film about a incident in history. It's not a documentary - it takes artistic liberties and makes POV choices. To rage against it with such vitriol is rather extraordinary. Your broad-sweep statements, ("he world as viewed thru Yankee glasses. (always covered w mirrors to reflect they OWN glory." and
"BUT frankly I don't like the Yankee "divine right" to diminish others in order to promote themselves and their actions.") seem to me to be unfair and overblown. Have you always felt this way about American media? What to you think about Americans - in general and individually?
Updated On: 10/15/12 at 02:46 PM
#22Argo
Posted: 10/15/12 at 3:16pm
Looking forward to this so much...and glad to see Clea Duvall onscreen. I was just wondering what happened to her?
And Canada is just jealous.
"In Oz, the verb is douchifizzation." PRS
sabrelady
Broadway Legend Joined: 5/16/03
#23Argo
Posted: 10/15/12 at 3:42pm
A quote from the Toronto Star Film Reviewer Peter Howell
And the film stays mainly true to the historical record in the early going. Affleck effectively recreates the 1979 capture of the U.S. Embassy by dissident students, who were angry that the Americans had granted New York asylum to the deposed Shah of Iran, hated and ailing. The six U.S. diplomats who escape through a back door find safety at the Canadian Embassy, after being turned away by other countries.
But then 69 Days Later appears on the screen, and the Hollywood play time Taylor speaks of really kicks in. From this point on, as a bearded and bossy Affleck takes charge under the indulgent command of his CIA superior, well played by Bryan Cranston Argo becomes almost total fiction.
The third act is chock full of thriller clichs, including suspicious passport control officers, miracle computer file transfers (and this is 1980!) and airport tarmac chases. They all do what theyre supposed to do, just like a Big Mac sliding down your throat.
The film, alas, is also full of regrettable stereotypes. Every Iranian, save the Taylors noble housekeeper, is depicted as swarthy, shifty and dangerous. Affleck also cant resist a quick shot of women in hijabs eating Kentucky Fried Chicken, for an aha! moment of hypocritical Iranians embracing American culture.
Should we expect anything else from Hollywood, which is in the business of distorting the truth to sell as escapism?
Affleck has learned his lessons well. He transforms the Canadian Caper into an exciting American con job, with a Hollywood ending better than the real-life Hollywood ending, truth be damned.
Hes mindful of that famous quote from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
Argos legend will be taken as fact by many people, Canadians among them. But Affleck has at least changed an offensive postscript, seen at the films TIFF premiere, which implied that Canada and Taylor had taken false credit for the rescue.
Pass the popcorn, and for anybody who still wants to quibble over the historical details, Afflecks film has a catchphrase for you: Argo f--- yourself!
Updated On: 10/15/12 at 03:42 PM
#24Argo
Posted: 10/15/12 at 3:51pmI would get involved in this "fight" but it's one of the stupidest "fights" in the history of the Internet. To argue that a movie that ITSELF says is BASED ON ACTUAL EVENTS isn't 100% accurate is like arguing that a tuna steak didn't pop out of your can of Chicken of the Sea.
Videos