![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatToo pretty a day to see Iron Man 3, so putting it off to next weekend, or maybe will just rent it - have not decided yet.
Did however watch Argo last night. It was deserving of all its accolades even if it reminded me a bit too much of the late 1970s and early 1980s hyper-realistic/documentary style films. Even had the same grainy lighting. Plus the hair styles, music, cinematography, and style of the 1970s/1980s films. Nostalgia hit me like a two-by-four.
Add to that, I remember the whole Iran hostage crisis, which popped up again with the Iran Contra hearings in the late 1980s, while I was studying theater in London. In the Iran Contra hearings - the claim was that the US gave Iran weapons to fight IRAQ, actually sold weapons to Iran. Right about the time that Ronald Regan got elected and the hostages were freed. Convenient that. There was speculation and still is that the CIA used the hostage crisis to get Regan elected. (I don't know how true that is, although my feelings towards Regan are admittedly similar to many Brits negative view of Prime Minister Thatcher - so I'm more than willing to think the worst of Regan and his party, the GOP was noted for being a bit on the corrupt side of the fence in the 1970s-80s. Granted they still are, but it worse back then.)
According to Wiki, the hostages were freed right after Iraq declared war on Iran and proceeded to invade the country (this is when they still hated each other - right now they are buddies - which was actually the result of our fiddling). The hostage crisis was the fault of the US and Britain - according to the movie. Apparently Iran had a great Shah who nationalize the oil and provided for the public. But alas this drove up oil prices, so Britian and the US staged a coup and installed their own Shah, a nasty guy, who lived off the populace while people starved or were tortured. But hey, low oil prices for US and Britain. (And they say cars aren't the root of all evil?) This resulted in another coup - and well a bunch of student revolutionaries storming the US embassy - and taking hostages.
They were under the delusion that the CIA ran the embassies and used them as a spy den. (Clearly they'd spent far too much time reading spy novels and watching US movies and tv shows. And not enough reading history books. Note to anyone reading this - movies are not history, they are movies. They are not real. The US govt let alone the CIA is nowhere near as competent as movies and books make it out to be.) When in reality the CIA was merely using the embassies to gather useless data, like they do everywhere. And the CIA operatives working at the embassy were fairly useless, since they couldn't speak the language. (See above where I state we're not as competent as our media makes us out to be.)
Argo doesn't really talk about any of that. It's depicting the Canadian Caper. A Canadian/US cooperative effort to rescue six foreign service officers who fled the US Embassy and set up camp across town at the Canadian Ambassador's private home with the top official at the Canadian Embassy. Which if you think about this for a minute was incredibly nice of the Canadian Embassy and Canada. They didn't have to. Iran had no issues with Canada.
They could have said no. Also they put themselves at risk. If the caper blew up - they'd get blamed. The CIA refused to take credit either way. The heroes in this story, really are the Canadians. The caper has gone down in history as the best example of a cooperative effort between two governments.
The movie tells the story of Tony Mendez - who according to the film is the CIA official who orchestrated the rescue, almost single-handedly. (Not true - there were two CIA operatives and it was mainly orchestrated by Canada.)
-Wiki on the Canadian Caper.
The focus of the movie is on the cover story and how Mendez came up with it and used it. But if you read the Wiki bit on the actual story - you'll note it was more complicated than that.
So ignoring the actual history, the movie is quite good. Affleck employs a stellar cast of character actors to inhabit his film, including go-to guy Bryan Cranston and Victor Garber, along with John Goodman and Alan Arkin, portraying the Hollywood side. The focus is on the creation of a fake movie cover story - as a means of getting the people out of Iran.
To Affleck's credit - Iran is not made to look idiotic or stupid. Nor is it demonized. We are told up front how the conflict happened and why. That said, you don't feel a desire to strangle the Iranians, and it is hard to see the country as anything other than fanatical and heartless. But - we do have Sarha - who lies to the Iranian Minister of Affairs and the Military Police, putting her life at great risk in the process. So the film is even-handed in that regard, far more so than others have been. In addition the direction, cinematography and acting is all spot on. The style is hypo-realism, where it almost feels like a documentary or video of real events. People talk over each other, the actors are not pretty,
and the film stock is faded in color.
Plot-wise? Tight. Of the films nominated for the Academy Award, Argo is by the far the tightest structurally and the pacing is pitch-perfect. Never a dull moment and the dialogue is both funny and quotable. In addition, is a surprisingly suspenseful film. Considering we already know what happened and that everyone got out unscathed, I still was on the edge of my seat throughout. Afraid someone would die. And wondering how in the heck are they getting out of this?
A good film if not a historically accurate one. So if you see it, remember it is merely "based on" a true story, it is not a true story. This is not how it happened in reality, there are a few alterations. Because reality often is stranger and more complicated, not to mention more mundane than fiction.
Overall rating? A
Did however watch Argo last night. It was deserving of all its accolades even if it reminded me a bit too much of the late 1970s and early 1980s hyper-realistic/documentary style films. Even had the same grainy lighting. Plus the hair styles, music, cinematography, and style of the 1970s/1980s films. Nostalgia hit me like a two-by-four.
Add to that, I remember the whole Iran hostage crisis, which popped up again with the Iran Contra hearings in the late 1980s, while I was studying theater in London. In the Iran Contra hearings - the claim was that the US gave Iran weapons to fight IRAQ, actually sold weapons to Iran. Right about the time that Ronald Regan got elected and the hostages were freed. Convenient that. There was speculation and still is that the CIA used the hostage crisis to get Regan elected. (I don't know how true that is, although my feelings towards Regan are admittedly similar to many Brits negative view of Prime Minister Thatcher - so I'm more than willing to think the worst of Regan and his party, the GOP was noted for being a bit on the corrupt side of the fence in the 1970s-80s. Granted they still are, but it worse back then.)
According to Wiki, the hostages were freed right after Iraq declared war on Iran and proceeded to invade the country (this is when they still hated each other - right now they are buddies - which was actually the result of our fiddling). The hostage crisis was the fault of the US and Britain - according to the movie. Apparently Iran had a great Shah who nationalize the oil and provided for the public. But alas this drove up oil prices, so Britian and the US staged a coup and installed their own Shah, a nasty guy, who lived off the populace while people starved or were tortured. But hey, low oil prices for US and Britain. (And they say cars aren't the root of all evil?) This resulted in another coup - and well a bunch of student revolutionaries storming the US embassy - and taking hostages.
They were under the delusion that the CIA ran the embassies and used them as a spy den. (Clearly they'd spent far too much time reading spy novels and watching US movies and tv shows. And not enough reading history books. Note to anyone reading this - movies are not history, they are movies. They are not real. The US govt let alone the CIA is nowhere near as competent as movies and books make it out to be.) When in reality the CIA was merely using the embassies to gather useless data, like they do everywhere. And the CIA operatives working at the embassy were fairly useless, since they couldn't speak the language. (See above where I state we're not as competent as our media makes us out to be.)
Argo doesn't really talk about any of that. It's depicting the Canadian Caper. A Canadian/US cooperative effort to rescue six foreign service officers who fled the US Embassy and set up camp across town at the Canadian Ambassador's private home with the top official at the Canadian Embassy. Which if you think about this for a minute was incredibly nice of the Canadian Embassy and Canada. They didn't have to. Iran had no issues with Canada.
They could have said no. Also they put themselves at risk. If the caper blew up - they'd get blamed. The CIA refused to take credit either way. The heroes in this story, really are the Canadians. The caper has gone down in history as the best example of a cooperative effort between two governments.
The movie tells the story of Tony Mendez - who according to the film is the CIA official who orchestrated the rescue, almost single-handedly. (Not true - there were two CIA operatives and it was mainly orchestrated by Canada.)
The critically and commercially successful film Argo, based loosely on this event, was released in North American cinemas on October 12, 2012. In the film, the role of John Sheardown and his wife Zena were omitted for reasons of length and cost. The film includes elements of both fact and fiction. In particular, the film gives the impression that the CIA managed the rescue almost single handedly, when in fact it was primarily orchestrated by the Canadians. Former President Jimmy Carter acknowledged this in an interview in 2013, whilst also praising the film. In addition, the film incorrectly states that the six American diplomats were turned away by the British and New Zealand embassies. The American diplomats actually spent one night in a British diplomatic compound before it was agreed by all involved that the residence of the Canadian Ambassador would be better suited.
-Wiki on the Canadian Caper.
The focus of the movie is on the cover story and how Mendez came up with it and used it. But if you read the Wiki bit on the actual story - you'll note it was more complicated than that.
So ignoring the actual history, the movie is quite good. Affleck employs a stellar cast of character actors to inhabit his film, including go-to guy Bryan Cranston and Victor Garber, along with John Goodman and Alan Arkin, portraying the Hollywood side. The focus is on the creation of a fake movie cover story - as a means of getting the people out of Iran.
To Affleck's credit - Iran is not made to look idiotic or stupid. Nor is it demonized. We are told up front how the conflict happened and why. That said, you don't feel a desire to strangle the Iranians, and it is hard to see the country as anything other than fanatical and heartless. But - we do have Sarha - who lies to the Iranian Minister of Affairs and the Military Police, putting her life at great risk in the process. So the film is even-handed in that regard, far more so than others have been. In addition the direction, cinematography and acting is all spot on. The style is hypo-realism, where it almost feels like a documentary or video of real events. People talk over each other, the actors are not pretty,
and the film stock is faded in color.
Plot-wise? Tight. Of the films nominated for the Academy Award, Argo is by the far the tightest structurally and the pacing is pitch-perfect. Never a dull moment and the dialogue is both funny and quotable. In addition, is a surprisingly suspenseful film. Considering we already know what happened and that everyone got out unscathed, I still was on the edge of my seat throughout. Afraid someone would die. And wondering how in the heck are they getting out of this?
A good film if not a historically accurate one. So if you see it, remember it is merely "based on" a true story, it is not a true story. This is not how it happened in reality, there are a few alterations. Because reality often is stranger and more complicated, not to mention more mundane than fiction.
Overall rating? A
no subject
Date: 2013-05-12 10:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-12 10:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-13 09:28 am (UTC)