This movie has to be so ordinary and sober to win an academy. Having said that this movie turned out to be so obvious. I not really oppose for its Academy win only but also its presence the nomination list. Probably im coming out very strong, therefore i need some other perspective on this movie.
shareIt was an election year.
shareI liked it a lot and It was much better than previous winner the hurt locker
shareI had mixed feelings on my initial viewing of Hurt Locker too. After seeing it a few more times over the years, it really is a very good movie.
I don't anticipate having the same experience with Argo, however. Like the OP said, this movie really is just so "ordinary."
It was a gripping movie...I remember the whole thing in my lifetime. Also loved Life of Pi, but Argo was awesome,,and so much better than Lincoln...
share[deleted]
All that suspense-building crap was pretty much a scene-for-scene homage to Star Wars, which is probably the one artistic device that made the film worthy of Oscar consideration. Just sayin'.
shareNot that I disagree, but both Carter and Taylor had (have) reasons to downplay CIA and make Canadians the heroes.
Had the mission gone wrong, I'm certain CIA would have gotten the blame, because the relations to Canada were more important.
Many things are easy to see as untrue, but I think it would be gulible to not look for the truth somewhere between Mendez story and the Official one.
Spot on
Typical Hollywood movie stuffing up the facts and then exaggerating them complete with the utterly stupid ending.
And why the Canadian embassy was invaded leaves everyone guessing!
Who cares if it's 'almost total fiction'. I would sure hope so! I paid my money to see a good cinematic story, not a documentary with actors doing 're-enactments'.
Someone much smarter than I once said 'never let the truth get in the way of a good story'. I happen to believe it.
Never defend crap with "It's just a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds
[deleted]
Let me say I understand the point you are making 100%. I am not someone who is familiar with the facts of the case (or 'truth' as you interestingly put it), and I find it very interesting that so many of these facts were changed so blatantly and self-servingly.
However, I would like to make 2 points.
1) If the Sheardon story was so important and interesting, there is no reason it can't be told at a different time. The filmmakers decided to focus on Mendez and his story while obviously 'incorporating elements' - the words the producers would no doubt use - of other peoples stories for the sake of condensation.
2) Just because the facts were changed, but this mean Argo is simply a 'bad movie'? As someone without knowledge of the facts, I feel none of the indignation you obviously feel about the changes. It's the same as almost any biopic. People who know the facts of the story usually feel quite put out by various omitions, changes, and 'twistings of the truth'. But people who have little to know knowledge of the facts of the stories are usually happy enough just to be taken for a good ride with good characters.
Having said all that, Argo really did nothing for me as a film or as a story. I'm just attempting to provide a bit of perspective regarding the artistic (and commercial) process of adapting a true story. It's never a simple process, and it is utterly impossible to please everybody.
Never defend crap with "It's just a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds
[deleted]
I'm not usually one for conspiracy, but you truly do make a compelling case, and I can't rebuke anything you have said.
I like to try to have faith in the AMPAS, and try to trust in its integrity as a contest, and as a guage of what films are worth checking out, if nothing else. Sadly we all know politics has long since infiltrated the Oscars. It's a massive shame that it is to such a disconcerting - and far reaching - extent.
Never defend crap with "It's just a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds
[deleted]
"I think Americans really need to ask themselves WHY those changes were made. Was it just to "make it more exciting"?"
Yes, the changes were made to make the film more exciting and have greater appeal to its target audience, Americans. Comparisons of Argo to Jud Süß and the U.S. in 2014 to a police state like Nazi Germany in 1940 are ridiculous. Incidentally, Germany had already had Kristallnacht in 1938 which publicly showed the world barbaric treatment of Jews so a film like Jud Süß two years later was really pouring gasoline on the fire.
I do not think Argo was made to influence Americans' attitudes toward Iran. A propaganda film that is trying to get people to go to war has nationalism as an underlying theme and shows great injustices being committed by the "belligerent country." The films typically have martyrs and a sad ending. Argo has a happy ending with everyone getting out of Iran. Very few adult Americans had their opinion of Iran substantially changed by watching Argo. The average American already has a negative view of Iranians and view Iran as a hostile country. Nevertheless, the idea of going to war with Iran is an anathema to Americans.
[deleted]
This is a quote of mine from a previous post, a part that you never responded to. I am posting it again because you again implied that Tony Mendez and the CIA did nothing at all. And I just have to disagree with that. And again, I think it is fortunate that the cover stories for the houseguests turned out to be unnecessary. But, if they had not prepared back stories, and had been asked at the airport, the outcome would probably have been deadly.
I'm going to take a little bit of an issue with your use of "exclusively" here. The Canadian government did provide passports, but blank passports would've been useless. The visas and entry stamps were needed to show that the houseguests had originally entered Iran. Someone needed to create those stamp forgeries, and that was the CIA and Tony Mendez. The passports were essential, but so were the stamps.
[deleted]
I would agree, Mark Lijak's article is interesting reading. In fact I think I suggested that you read it several months ago.
He clearly finds lots of people involved in the entire situation heroic. He completely appreciates everything the Canadians did for him, his wife, and his friends. He seems to think that the movie story was helpful to the houseguests, and as he was actually there I think I will take his word for it that it was not completely unnecessary. It is also clear from this article, that Ben Affleck is not the first person to have neglected John Sheardown in the telling of the events.
Perhaps, you could use a little bit of his attitude towards the entire situation, especially as he can completely separate the movie from reality.
Ignorant Americans don't need a movie to "dredge up resentment" against Iran because the average ignorant American has NEVER gotten over the hostage crisis. They cleave to it like mother's milk and have taught their children to do the same. If Argo really were a propaganda movie the opening titles, which make America look pretty bad, would be removed and Iranians would be sawing off the heads of hostages (whether it really happened or not) because that is what the typical ignorant American expects from Muslims, not people who are angry but not particularly brutal. Since not a single American is killed in the movie, Argo fails miserably if it's intent was to "dredge up resentment".
As for the Goebbels comparison, I don't think I've ever read anything more ridiculous in my life. Goebbels was hired by the Nazi's to do exactly what he did; create hate and resentment toward the Jews. You expect me to believe that famous liberals Ben Affleck and George Clooney are part of some secret government plan to build up resentment of Iranians so the conservative aspects of our government can have their way? OK. Whatever.
Last but certainly not least, the Obama administration is not looking to invade Iran. They're the only administration since before the Islamic Revolution that even has considered resuming diplomatic ties with Iran and in fact is looking to bypass the Republican hate mongers in Congress in an effort to ease up on sanctions.
Others may fall for your conspiracy theories and hate mongering (which is no different from the hate mongering in Congress, BTW; you just have a different target) but I won't. Argo is a movie. No more, no less. It is not part of some secret propaganda machine, not everyone is out to get you and there is no plan for a New World Order
I think Americans really need to ask themselves WHY those changes were made. Was it just to "make it more exciting"?
LOL !! Just how many of the over 300 million Americans do you think saw this movie ?
You talk like the entire population is mandated to 'go to the movies' every time a new movie comes out LOL !! Such a silly person you are !!
I think Americans really need to ask themselves WHY those changes were made. Was it just to "make it more exciting"?
LOL !! Just how many of the over 300 million Americans do you think saw this movie ?
You talk like the entire population is mandated to 'go to the movies' every time a new movie comes out LOL !! Such a silly person you are !!
I don't see why it matters so much. Almost every historical film I've seen has strayed from the source material. I used to get mad about it but, I learned that what I feel doesn't matter. Directors and screenwriters are going to do as they please and there is nothing that me and other people can do about it. Plus I always feel you should judge a film on its own and not that stuff around it (this includes book adaptations too).
Now with that said, I think this film is alright. It's no masterpiece by any means but it is a good film to pop in if you wanna pass 2 hours by.
[deleted]
BetterLikeThis, I think your problems with the movie being unrealistic is possibly blinding from just simply evaluating the movie from a critical standpoint. To incriminate a movie because it does not tell the whole story is silly because that would disqualify all movies that are based on real life and most documentaries from the possibility of being great films. Like I've said before, Argo is not a great film. But the reason I don't think it is great has nothing to do with it being accurate. I don't care at all about that. There are other reasons I don't like it. The Goodman-Arkin dialogue scenes have no real purpose except to be funny, and they are not. It is cliche-ridden. Mendez is watching something on TV and suddenly has an epiphany. His superiors are extremely reluctant to go through with his plan. They don't think there is any way this crazy idea will work, which means that it undoubtedly will. Then there is the entire sequence at the airport that is so outrageous it's almost embarrassing. Someone picks up the phone at the last possible microsecond. The hostage that has been the most dismissive of Mendez's plan ends up being the one that saves the day. And the whole idea that the Iranians would chase a plane down a runway is just preposterous. What were they gonna do if they caught up with it? Jump on it? Why didn't they just have the plane's takeoff delayed?
share[deleted]
The tagline for this movie was "Based on the exaggerated true story." So calm your tîts
shareSo true...
shareThere are no rational reasons. Its just political bullsh*t. In a year when the best film in a decade came out, 'Life of Pi', they give the award to this? Just total BS.
"For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest"
In a year when the best film in a decade came out, 'Life of Pi', they give the award to this?
You will be underwhelmed by 'Argo'.
I'm a civilian, I'm not a trout
I thought it was a passable film for a highly fictionalized (and thus distorted) "based on real events" movie. But if a passable film is now Best Picture material, Hollywood really has run out of ideas.
shareBen Affleck shows that he still isn't up to the A-grade quality of actors like George Clooney. Clooney would have delivered a far better performance of Mendez than Affleck struggled with.
shareThey have run out of ideas for years, hence all the re-makes
share[deleted]
Same reason Obama got Nobel Peace Prize
share"Same reason Obama got Nobel Peace Prize"
Well, at least they made a movie. Obama had not been in office for even 9 months when the Nobel committee announced their decision. Considering subsequent events -- the bombing of Libya, expansion of the "War on Terror" and the large increase in the number of drone strikes carried out under Obama in Pakistan -- the award became not just premature but absurd.
Well, it's more exciting than Lincoln, and it is interesting as to how they pull the escape off, maybe that's why it won. But I'd have voted for Lincoln.
"Did you make coffee...? Make it!"--Cheyenne.
"Well, it's more exciting than Lincoln, and it is interesting as to how they pull the escape off, maybe that's why it won. But I'd have voted for Lincoln. "
See, now i was actually really surprised by how 'exciting' i DID find "LINCOLN".
I went in expecting to be bored by it, but the political wheeling and dealings
were actually pretty interesting.
"You have offended my family, and you have offended the Shaolin Temple..."
No rational reason. Lincoln was a much better movie.
Look, it was in a barn. People do a lot of stupid things in barns.
[deleted]
Basically.
Look, it was in a barn. People do a lot of stupid things in barns.
The editing in the movie was first class.
We are cancelling the apocalypse
Argo probably had the widest appeal. I could see the voters being like "Well, if Life of Pi isn't going to win, then Argo is my second choice!" "Well then, if Lincoln isn't going to win, Argo!" etc.
Going by IMDb, Argo and Silver Linings Playbook has 7.9, and Django Unchained has 8.5. The rest of the nominees has less. So if Django Unchained wasn't going to win, it was a fair choice
[deleted]
They forgot to edit out about 120 minutes!
share