gcgiles1dollarbin wrote:I would be interested to know if she is based on a real character, too, however given that just as many elisions and omissions from history as inclusions compose this film's dodgy testament to actual events, I don't know that simply having existed accounts for and justifies her appearance in a film like this one (at least not in a way that satisfies Ockham's almighty razor). For example, she could be a composite character of sorts, based roughly on several people, but Affleck's decision to construct this hybridized character still begs questions that my fear-of-Islamophobia hypothesis attempts to answer. What's more, even if Affleck said in an interview, "She is a plot device, not a consolation to Iranians," I would still maintain that her posterboard presence has the same effect. That's how little faith I have in authorial intent!
How that character came to be constructed is a good question to ask. But as for your hypothesis, I think you're wrong, and I'm not sure what, precisely, your criticism here would be. You said:
gcgiles1dollarbin wrote:[the housekeeper] is nothing more than an embodied signifier of Affleck's fear of being accused of Islamophobia.
We know she serves a direct function in the thriller plot. That's not deniable. She increases the suspense, the sense of instability in which danger could spill out at any time for those in hiding. You don't have to look hard for her functional purpose in the story. Even if this wasn't her intended purpose (tho' I think it was) it's true nevertheless. So I don't see how you could say she is "nothing more than an embodied signifier."
Then you go on to admit that, even if Affleck said she was a plot device and not a consolation, you would still argue that she has the effect of providing liberal-minded people with a consolation, or Affleck with a defense against anti-Iranianism. Well, if that wasn't how the character was intended, then all of those effects are incidental. So do you intend to criticize Ben Affleck and co. for
accidentally having a character that shows they aren't against Iranians and that not all Iranians are of the same political opinions?
I'm not sure where you're taking any of this. You're going to criticize the movie for accidentally having an element you argued above was positive (ie. an average Iranian who isn't mindlessly against America)? Why? If it was intended this way, I could see a criticism, but not if you thought it wasn't.
gcgiles1dollarbin wrote:Here again, I think we have very different views on "filmic necessity," which by your usage suggests absolutes that may or may not be just traditional storytelling in narrative film-- all depending on what you mean by this--but if something is "necessary" in the construction of a film, I have never discovered it... thank God. Perhaps one person's "filmic necessity" is another's "personal taste."
Well, approaching something from the perspective of filmic necessity just means considering whether this or that thing is necessary for the film to be A, or for it to be B, or whatever else. I don't know that this implies absolutes because of course I didn't answer "necessary to what?" which allows 'necessity' to be contingent (which it is).
You assume that what I meant was: only certain things are necessary to make a good thriller. My actual point is the opposite: what is unnecessary to it (not the same thing), indeed what may work against it. At the same time, what I also meant was: what is necessary for the film to be considered responsible or irresponsible. Now, I'm sure that you do in fact think certain things are necessary for Argo to be considered responsible, and my point has always been that they aren't. Not absolutely, just based on its goals, intentions, and a bunch of other things I've mentioned.
As the discussion has never been about whether you or anyone else likes Argo or not, personal taste--mine or yours--isn't at issue. You can like or dislike anything you want, that's fine by me, there's nothing there I want to discuss. Whether the movie ought to have included certain things in order to be responsible, or be politically this or that, or be a good thriller
is what I'm interested in discussing, however.
gcgiles1dollarbin wrote:Putting aside these "meta" issues, I want to revert to my original point: I don't believe Affleck intended this as aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran (and I'm still wondering what the Reagan reference in O'Hehir's article meant, given that Carter was still president), but that doesn't prevent such an over-simplified account from being used conveniently by those predisposed to despise the country.
I call this the "what about the idiots?" argument, and people have gone back and forth about it on this board. My reaction: Confirmation Bias is what it is. Don't expect that a carefully nuanced and balanced portrayal of an event is going to be used any less conveniently by people on the opposing side who want to argue for their narrative of the world. They don't see nuance and balance anyway, all of that will be lost on them, so there's no point demanding it for
their sake. And propaganda for your side will just be dismissed by them. Films should just not worry about those people, there is no winning.
gcgiles1dollarbin wrote:No one is going to hold Affleck legally responsible for a war with Iran if that ever happens, but I nonetheless think it is far more commendable (and far more interesting) to honor the complexity of incendiary historical events, even at the expense of plot economy.
Most people do think this way about the stuff that seems important to them right here, right now. But once this brief pocket of time has passed, and let's say the events in Iran are no longer at issue, how exactly are these random deviations and unrelated scenes weighing down the movie and reducing its effectiveness as a thriller--how will these bits be seen by an audience? What will they look like when there is no political necessity for them? More or less aesthetically nonsensical? Do viewers tend to be kind or not to thrillers from the past that aren't very thrilling because they padded their tight script with stuff that served a limited political purpose (maybe)?