Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Message
Author
User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#76 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:47 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:I think it's perfectly true that an exercise in rah rah populism featuring a (the?) positive event in Reaganism, CIA adventurism, and US foreign policy is absolutely inherently propagandistic regardless of how factual the material is, in the same way that Potemkin is inherently propagandistic- selecting that particular story to highlight and tell has a specific intention and effect, particularly when a lot (though not all) of the context for that story is outside the scope of the film. To call that form of propaganda a 'lie' seems foolish- it may be deceptive, but it's the kind of deception that's inherent to any narrativization of history, in varying degrees.
This in itself is an interesting critique (one I disagree with, for various reasons). But it's not O'Heir's critique. Acknowledging that any narrativising of a country's history is going to make people feel either good or bad about things, his problem is that it doesn't make you feel bad. There is only one emotional outcome he thinks one ought to have to anything involving America at this time, and that is disgust and whatever else, a position in which nuance and honest critical feeling is absent. There is nothing in Argo's emotional range that could reasonably called a lie. Indeed, I don't think there is a way to tell the Argo story honestly that doesn't make one happy, so does O'Heir prefer the story to lie about the operation so that viewers can feel sufficiently bad about their country again?

Amusingly, the one thing Argo never does is give credit for the operation to government agencies. Indeed the whole process is shown to hinge on the determination of a couple of talented outliers who have to battle against the bureaucratic idiocy of the branches of government they work for, to the point of outright disobeying orders from superiors so as to follow their individual consciences. If anything is being glorified in this movie, it's not Washington, it's Hollywood. This is really a movie about the importance of movies, of how Hollywood's wonderful fakery directly helped American citizens. It amounts to justifying film against those who'd see it as too trivial to be of any real use or help (ie. Washington).

Just like with a lot of the reactions to Zero Dark Thirty, O'Heir's piece is political signaling. What side are you on? Are you taking an unequivocally negative stance? Ok, you're on my side. That's all. It's not an intelligent critique of films' relation to history and politics, nor of how a person ought to feel at any given moment about their country.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#77 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:50 pm

It's as hollow an argument as deriding a film for making viewers feel bad, or sad, or angry. If a film makes some people feel patriotic, it's not because it's inherently patriotic or trying to portray patriotism/stir it up in its viewers.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#78 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Feb 19, 2013 12:54 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:It's as hollow an argument as deriding a film for making viewers feel bad, or sad, or angry. If a film makes some people feel patriotic, it's not because it's inherently patriotic or trying to portray patriotism/stir it up in its viewers.
Yeah. Any patriotism Argo might make the audience feel is indirect--and anyway, so what if a movie does make people feel patriotic? Uncritically hating your country is not actually any better than uncritically loving it. It just makes you resentful and unpleasant along with being inaccurate.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#79 Post by matrixschmatrix » Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:31 pm

I want to point out that I referred to the rah rah quality of the populism, not the patriotism- though I think a story of the the guys who know what they're doing getting out from under red tape and bureaucracy can still glorify the agency and country those guys represent, since that's an extremely common trope of the Dirty Harry or refighting Vietnam kind of 80s action movies, and those are always fundamentally pro-military and pro-police. It's a big, round, happy story that isn't designed like a Zodiac or even a Zero Dark Thirty where there are pieces that stick in your throat and leaving you feeling sour or muddled at the conclusion, so it's got an energizing force that more ambiguous movies don't. Where that force is projected is still pretty well up to the viewer, and it's certainly not covering everything in the flag and chanting USA USA USA.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#80 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Feb 19, 2013 1:57 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:I think a story of the the guys who know what they're doing getting out from under red tape and bureaucracy can still glorify the agency and country those guys represent, since that's an extremely common trope of the Dirty Harry or refighting Vietnam kind of 80s action movies, and those are always fundamentally pro-military and pro-police.
They can, but Argo is plainly not. Especially because the movies you cite are generally:

A. the product of extreme right-wing fears of government control, so they end up as stories of men of action undermining bureaucratic men to assert true American values against the 'weak' institutions that dilute easy moral choices between right and wrong, blah, blah, blah.

B. are about retribution or justice. For instance, the second Rambo, where the rescue of POWs is an act of expiation for the sins of the cowardly bureaucrats (and anti-war left) that resulted in America's failure to win Vietnam. And the direct result of this is that America can stop the Cold War nonsense and just fight the goddamn Russians already.

In these movies, the lone person ignoring orders is a stand-in for true values. But plainly none of this is true for Argo. The bureaucrats come across as unfocused and thick-headed, but they aren't working against the movie's primary set of values (whatever they may be) like the action movies you cite. And Affleck's character isn't on a crusade and he isn't undermining anyone. He's not meant to be a stand-in for America's wider conscience.

Argo isn't really for the government or against the government. That's neither here nor there. The real institution being glorified is Hollywood. The Hollywood men in the film display nothing but competence and clear-sightedness.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#81 Post by Andre Jurieu » Tue Feb 19, 2013 2:31 pm

After reading that article, all I can really feel is boredom and exhaustion. It feels as if this same exact article is written every single year about one of the Best Picture contenders, to the point that it barely registers as an actual honest opinion anymore, and instead simply feels like it's just a automatic reflex that is recycled ad nauseam.

The film really doesn't appear to be taking a firm political stance on the subject of the Cold War or the US interference within the region. It does tell a story about a handful of people, whether staff within a federal agency, or members of the film industry, or diplomats, or service staff, who decide to perform the duties of their job in order to get fellow human beings to safety. There are certainly some political implications to the actions that were taken, the reactions of the opposing entity, how the filmmakers choose to portray the events, and the liberties they take to produce the film, but it seems clear that those are secondary concerns that are clearly the product of the Hollywood-system and the viewing-patterns of the North American mass-audience. It's the obvious, normal, and expected result when any creator chooses to work within a system or industry, which has known constraints.
Andrew O'Hehir wrote:...leaving us with an image of the stoical American hero (or the Mexican-American hero played by a white guy, anyway) framed in a doorway with a blonde in his arms and the flag flapping behind him.
I didn't mind the reconciliation of his marriage as much as others, but the image Affleck chooses to conclude the film with is unfortunately rather blunt. Despite the clunky ending, I have to echo the comments above, as I never got the sense that I should be cheering "USA!" while watching the film or upon reflection afterwards, at least not in the over-the-top hawkish Reagan-era way that article seems to imply. While watching the film, I got the impression that there was a palpable indifference towards the US government and its various agencies in general, as it seemed to hinder as much as it enabled this rescue. What the film does well, is convey the idea that "America" is sometimes still a function of the well-meaning people that inhabit some pockets of the country and these people are able to occasionally influence events in a positive way. In my mind, that's what the concluding scene attempts to convey more than some ridiculous ideal of the "hero returning home to his blonde-bimbo wife" or the "real 'merican family". I thought the concluding scene was more about the idea that the people who choose to do this type of work are not really the 007-types that we're led to believe through Hollywood blockbusters, but actually just people who live modest, unimpressive lives, in which their family-life often suffers due to the work they decide to perform.

I think these types of "political-propaganda" arguments against mainstream Hollywood movies that choose to use stories involving CIA operations often forget that these lower-level operatives are not spending every waking moment of their office lives plotting to destroy a foreign country and enslave their inhabitants to capitalist corporate culture, but rather are people who just try to clean-up messes or carry out their daily duties so they can get back home before 6PM. You could probably make a pretty convincing argument that perhaps that "daily grind" mentality is actually part of the problem with how the US carries out their clandestine operations and covert affairs, as their operatives have no real clear sense about how their minute actions might have a massive effect on the rest of the world. Yet, despite the fact that it's readily apparent that some of these activities, as well as the more-direct choices made by higher-level decision-makers, often have some very grave and immoral consequences, it would also be pretty ignorant to assume that everything these people do is in service of pure evil. Whether or not the details are altered or accentuated, what the filmmakers in Argo seem to be attempting to convey is that the activities of these men and women aren't just limited to killing people with a different skin colour, and that sometimes they are able to put their effort towards achieving something genuine and productive.
Andrew O'Hehir wrote:...leaves audiences high-fiving each other and humming the late ‘70s hits of the soundtrack
This statement kind of reveals just how much contempt O'Hehir has for other audience members. This seems like a case of a self-appointed opinion-maker deciding he will (no, he must!!!) teach these uniformed and unenlightened masses about the crippling error in their perception of reality! He simple owes it to them to reveal to them how incredibly stupid they all are. If someone actually witnessed these actions happen at a screening of Argo, I think I might agree to track down every reel of this film and burn them all in a massive bonfire. He seems to have confused the enthusiasts for this film with loyal fans of Michael Bay. I don't know anyone who was praising the soundtrack after watching this movie. I actually haven't seen much passion for Argo and the reactions to the film are rather muted and rarely raucous or zealous. It just seems like a modest film that achieves its modest goals and is moderately likeable. It seems to have somehow used that amicable reception to generate a great deal of momentum during awards season, but I doubt it will ever be hailed as a "masterpiece" as time passes or ever gain an ardent following.
Andrew O'Hehir wrote:...designed to foreground Affleck and his star power (instead of the long, grinding work of Canadian-American collaboration behind the scenes that made the real rescue possible)
Was O'Hehir watching the same movie I was? If Affleck's entire purpose of making the film was to highlight his own star-power, then he failed miserably. I don't think I've watched another movie directed by its lead-actor that muted the central performance so drastically, to the point where Affleck just seemed like a generic lead. In fact, Affleck seemed to go out of his way to draw greater attention to all his supporting actors.
Mr Sausage wrote:Indeed, I don't think there is a way to tell the Argo story honestly that doesn't make one happy...
I haven't checked if it's on-line, but CBC News (it was on last night's National) did a brief piece on actual events behind the story detailed in the movie. It does focus more attention on the Canadian involvement in the events, but it's generally a balanced investigation of the events. It still seems to achieve the same effect despite the dry-delivery of news journalism.
Edit: Here's the link to last night's episode of the National.

User avatar
gcgiles1dollarbin
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:38 am

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#82 Post by gcgiles1dollarbin » Tue Feb 19, 2013 8:37 pm

Andre Jurieu wrote:Despite the clunky ending, I have to echo the comments above, as I never got the sense that I should be cheering "USA!" while watching the film or upon reflection afterwards, at least not in the over-the-top hawkish Reagan-era way that article seems to imply.
Although this occurred on the cusp of a major power shift, it wasn't yet "Morning in America," so I'm not clear which part of the film is pro(to)-Reagan. I realize you, Andre, are just echoing what O'Hehir wrote (and that you're disagreeing with him), so my question, of course, is directed toward him. I would say that these fist-pumping audiences are a collective straw man, but I have to admit that my audience applauded vigorously at the narrow escape (which applause consequently endorses the dichotomous good-evil schematic that demonizes most of the Iranians in the film). I do think it's kind of bogus that Affleck cast himself as the CIA agent (more because he is a mediocre actor than because he is white--Mendez is of mixed European-Mexican descent and supposedly doesn't speak Spanish, so it's not like the agent's ethnic authenticity is crucial to the film's success); that there was a necessity to resort to cheap action tactics (silly chase on the tarmac); and that, as I alluded to earlier, most of the Iranians--whether part of the regime or not--were a few character sketches shy of a mindless, bloodthirsty mob. On the other hand, I think Affleck made these decisions on the basis of what would make a good thriller, not what would suit his own politics. Which is a little irresponsible, betraying a lack of interest in representing Iranian society and politics with any measure of depth, but not exactly a conscious screed to prop up American values.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#83 Post by Mr Sausage » Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 pm

gcgiles1dollarbin wrote:Which is a little irresponsible, betraying a lack of interest in representing Iranian society and politics with any measure of depth, but not exactly a conscious screed to prop up American values.
Is he really responsible for representing either of those things? I mean, we can probably agree that the movie isn't about them. There isn't much about Iranian politics or society that would illuminate the story being told. It would be bad story telling to go into it, on top of which I'm sure it would bring the actual story to a screeching halt, which would work against the goals of the movie. From that perspective, there had better be a very, very good reason to delve into the workings of post-revolution Iran from a social and political perspective, and you had better be very confident that you can adequately deal with those issues in whatever small amount of time you have for them since they'd be at best a sub-sub-plot to the actual story. Making your thriller less effective as a thriller is not a decision anyone ought to make lightly

I think the movie does a very good job of showing the dangerous instability of a society that has just gone through a revolution. Scenes showing Iranian citizens being publicly hanged or dragged into the street and shot effectively underline the danger to the Americans in hiding. The glimpses of post-revolutionary Iranian society are consistent with what we know: we see people acting as a mob, which is always, by definition, mindless (but a bit less than bloodthirsty given that no one from the opening sequence is killed), we see a people whose anger could very easily bubble over into mob violence (the scene in the city where one angry man almost causes a mob to form), and we see the new government consolidating power through violence. This stuff is what it is, and the movie could, if it wanted, go out of its way to say "but not all Iranians are like this!" in order to make liberal-minded viewers feel a little better. But in the end the Iranians who aren't angry and in a post-revolutionary fervour have no role in the story being told. They don't affect the events or the people that we're following, so showing them would not be responsible filmmaking, it would be an apology and a way to deflect criticisms from those looking to take offense. And in that sense I think Affleck was right to ignore it. The reasons for including such scenes are not the right ones, I think.

User avatar
gcgiles1dollarbin
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:38 am

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#84 Post by gcgiles1dollarbin » Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:25 am

Mr Sausage wrote:
gcgiles1dollarbin wrote:Which is a little irresponsible, betraying a lack of interest in representing Iranian society and politics with any measure of depth, but not exactly a conscious screed to prop up American values.
Is he really responsible for representing either of those things? I mean, we can probably agree that the movie isn't about them. There isn't much about Iranian politics or society that would illuminate the story being told. It would be bad story telling to go into it, on top of which I'm sure it would bring the actual story to a screeching halt, which would work against the goals of the movie. From that perspective, there had better be a very, very good reason to delve into the workings of post-revolution Iran from a social and political perspective, and you had better be very confident that you can adequately deal with those issues in whatever small amount of time you have for them since they'd be at best a sub-sub-plot to the actual story. Making your thriller less effective as a thriller is not a decision anyone ought to make lightly

I think the movie does a very good job of showing the dangerous instability of a society that has just gone through a revolution. Scenes showing Iranian citizens being publicly hanged or dragged into the street and shot effectively underline the danger to the Americans in hiding. The glimpses of post-revolutionary Iranian society are consistent with what we know: we see people acting as a mob, which is always, by definition, mindless (but a bit less than bloodthirsty given that no one from the opening sequence is killed), we see a people whose anger could very easily bubble over into mob violence (the scene in the city where one angry man almost causes a mob to form), and we see the new government consolidating power through violence. This stuff is what it is, and the movie could, if it wanted, go out of its way to say "but not all Iranians are like this!" in order to make liberal-minded viewers feel a little better. But in the end the Iranians who aren't angry and in a post-revolutionary fervour have no role in the story being told. They don't affect the events or the people that we're following, so showing them would not be responsible filmmaking, it would be an apology and a way to deflect criticisms from those looking to take offense. And in that sense I think Affleck was right to ignore it. The reasons for including such scenes are not the right ones, I think.
I could care less about equal measures of "good" and "bad" characterizations as a sop to my liberal sensibilities, but I would like some level of complexity that sustains my interest. For example, equally weak, in my opinion, was the "good" Iranian housekeeper Sahar who, to my mind, is nothing more than an embodied signifier of Affleck's fear of being accused of Islamophobia. It's a script's scale-balancing tactic at its most banal. All of which is to say: I agree with you that simply trading "bad" for "good" would be a meaningless exercise.

Judging by your description of a taut thriller, I might be more open than you toward digression, flab, and lulls in action films. I really do think a filmmaker--whatever genre he operates within--has some responsibility to portray vexed historical events like the Iranian Revolution with a modicum of nuance, credibility, and depth. The argument from there is whether or not Affleck did just that, and, that's, of course, where you and I seem to disagree.

User avatar
feihong
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:20 pm

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#85 Post by feihong » Wed Feb 20, 2013 5:51 am

Mr Sausage wrote:But in the end the Iranians who aren't angry and in a post-revolutionary fervour have no role in the story being told. They don't affect the events or the people that we're following, so showing them would not be responsible filmmaking, it would be an apology and a way to deflect criticisms from those looking to take offense.
When are we going to get the movie that has time for these people? The populist American movie that takes the common Iranian citizen seriously? That's what I want to see. Section 8 has been in and out of the Middle East for a while now without ever bothering to consider the people who live there, and the cultures that have grown from and which permeate these places. The cultures of the region always remain inscrutable and relegated to "exotic" background of long shots.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#86 Post by MichaelB » Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:19 am

feihong wrote:When are we going to get the movie that has time for these people? The populist American movie that takes the common Iranian citizen seriously? That's what I want to see. Section 8 has been in and out of the Middle East for a while now without ever bothering to consider the people who live there, and the cultures that have grown from and which permeate these places. The cultures of the region always remain inscrutable and relegated to "exotic" background of long shots.
This was the thing that annoyed me about Argo - its opening section seemed to herald a more sympathetic and nuanced take, and the rest of the film was the usual sinister brown people babbling incomprehensible gibberish and jabbing guns at people. Which is more than a little depressing considering that only a year ago A Separation won the Best Foreign Film Oscar, at least in part for offering a complex, nuanced portrait of modern Tehran-dwellers as recognisably human individuals who have far more in common with bourgeois Americans than otherwise.

Someone - Mark Cousins, possibly - argued that despite Argo's considerable merits as a thriller, there's something very iffy about the timing of its production. This story has been in the public domain for a good fifteen years, so why make the film specifically at a time when people are fearful about a possible US attack on Iran?

Jazzkammer
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 4:52 pm

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#87 Post by Jazzkammer » Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:12 am

If apologists of Argo think a balanced take on Iranian society is not needed in this film to placate the film's liberal viewers, then they are correct. Liberal viewers will take this film with a grain of salt, and recognize the one-dimensional depiction of Iran and the implicit endorsement of CIA meddling in foreign countries for what it is.

The reason Argo could benefit from a more balanced take on Iranian society, is to make it useless to Conservative viewers who want their xenophobic war-mongering views validated by highly lauded American CIA thriller, and to prevent this film from being conveniently serviceable as the timely, xenophobic agitprop that it will work as for jingoistic American conservative politicians and their supporters. The timing alone of this film (when Republicans are trying to rile up tensions between USA and Iran, with Argo being inadvertantly useful in this regard) renders it problematic.

After all, as an aspiring Democrat politician, it is in Ben Affleck's best interests to disappoint expectations of Republican viewers that have pre-determined ideas of what they are going to take away from Argo

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#88 Post by Drucker » Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:30 am

Jazzkammer wrote: After all, as an aspiring Democrat politician, it is in Ben Affleck's best interests to disappoint expectations of Republican viewers that have pre-determined ideas of what they are going to take away from Argo
#-o #-o #-o #-o #-o

I should probably say more than just that.

I'm just confused. Are you upset that Affleck created a film that would advance a pro-American viewpoint by denigrating Iranians? Or are you mad that people interpret it that way? Because this last comment makes it seem that Affleck is responsible for how his audience responds. And if that's the case, then I guess we should be mad that those same "Republicans" sing "Born In The U.S.A." as a patriotic anthem on July 4th.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#89 Post by Mr Sausage » Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:36 am

gcgiles1dollarbin wrote:I could care less about equal measures of "good" and "bad" characterizations as a sop to my liberal sensibilities, but I would like some level of complexity that sustains my interest. For example, equally weak, in my opinion, was the "good" Iranian housekeeper Sahar who, to my mind, is nothing more than an embodied signifier of Affleck's fear of being accused of Islamophobia. It's a script's scale-balancing tactic at its most banal. All of which is to say: I agree with you that simply trading "bad" for "good" would be a meaningless exercise.
The housekeeper may indeed be that. But that depends on two things:

A. is she real? Did the Canadian embassy actually have an Iranian housekeeper?
B. if the above is true, then Ockam's razor to Affleck's fears of being accused of Islamophobia. Not just because she has to be there, but because we need to be told why she didn't just turn them all in, ending the movie. The other option would be to ignore the housemaids and pretend they are all very stupid and unobservant, which would not have been better.
gcgiles1dollarbin wrote:Judging by your description of a taut thriller, I might be more open than you toward digression, flab, and lulls in action films. I really do think a filmmaker--whatever genre he operates within--has some responsibility to portray vexed historical events like the Iranian Revolution with a modicum of nuance, credibility, and depth. The argument from there is whether or not Affleck did just that, and, that's, of course, where you and I seem to disagree.
It's not that I'm less open than you to "digression, flab, and lulls" in action films. Those may or may not suit me just fine. I wasn't approaching this issue as a matter of personal taste, but from the perspective of the filmmakers, their goals, as well as filmic necessity.

I think if the filmmaker were taking, say, the Iranian revolution as his direct subject (rather than as the necessary background to another, more focussed and personal story), then that filmmaker does indeed have a responsibility to treat those historical events with whatever you say. Otherwise, I don't think that is so. I don't, for example, think that some sort of intimate drama set within the general backdrop of the Civil War should be responsible for tackling that war with nuance and complexity, either, if those complexities bear no direct relation to the story being told. Nor do I feel the same about a film set in another country. I'm fairly uninterested in film as a political and social tool, and some of the comments and feelings here are along the lines of whether Argo should be changing society's attitudes to Iran. I tend not to evaluate films based on whether they are advancing my agenda. (I like Rambo: First Blood part II for instance, even tho', politically, it's ridiculous).

As for whether Affleck portrayed the Iranian Revolution accurately, well, from the small glimpses we are shown I think he captures the mood accurately, at least from the perspective of the characters. We're only given glimpses (very little time is spent outside the Canadian Embassy in the Iran scenes), but there's nothing inaccurate in those glimpses. I mean, violent revolution is a terrible thing to witness, and we are essentially seeing a brutal tyranny consolidating power. The question is whether Affleck is responsible for giving us more than those glimpses, and we know my answer on that.
feihong wrote:When are we going to get the movie that has time for these people? The populist American movie that takes the common Iranian citizen seriously? That's what I want to see. Section 8 has been in and out of the Middle East for a while now without ever bothering to consider the people who live there, and the cultures that have grown from and which permeate these places. The cultures of the region always remain inscrutable and relegated to "exotic" background of long shots.
I don't know, feihong. I would love to see a movie that examined the day-to-day lives of Iranians, both now and directly after the revolution. That would be interesting. I don't know how easy that would be for an American company to film; it would have to be done outside Iran. But big events and major issues by their nature overshadow the average person and anyone not directly affecting things. Add to that the fact that, as Don Delillo rather accurately predicted in his novel Mao II, we kind of live in an era of mobs, masses, crowds, and the mentality they bring. I think the average individual in society and history is becoming a bit lost in general.

But: in the absence of the above movie, I'm not going to put all of my hopes on Argo. I don't like demanding that movies be totally other than they are just because it would be my preference. I want to see the movie you talked about, but I see no reason to demand that Argo be it.

RE: the timing question a couple of people raised above. Those arguments sound awfully conspiratorial to me. I don't know when a 'good time' to bring out movies involving Iran would be. And until you've done the work to eliminate all of the likelier explanations for the movie coming out now (and answer questions like when it went into production, was this the first time production started, was it ever in development hell, ect.), I'm not going to entertain the conspiratorial one.

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#90 Post by MichaelB » Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:43 am

Mr Sausage wrote:RE: the timing question a couple of people raised above. Those arguments sound awfully conspiratorial to me. I don't know when a 'good time' to bring out movies involving Iran would be. And until you've done the work to eliminate all of the likelier explanations for the movie coming out now (and answer questions like when it went into production, was this the first time production started, was it ever in development hell, ect.), I'm not going to entertain the conspiratorial one.
Just to be clear, I don't for one second suggest that Affleck deliberately set out to make an explicitly anti-Iranian film at a time of increased US-Iranian tension, so I don't buy the "conspiracy" argument either. But neither do I think it's particularly helpful to ignore or belittle the fact that a film about this particular subject taking this particular stance has been made and released at this particular time. Films based strongly on real-life events (especially real-life events whose repercussions resonate to this day) do not exist in an apolitical and ahistorical vacuum, however much their makers would like to believe otherwise.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#91 Post by Mr Sausage » Wed Feb 20, 2013 12:00 pm

MichaelB wrote:
Mr Sausage wrote:RE: the timing question a couple of people raised above. Those arguments sound awfully conspiratorial to me. I don't know when a 'good time' to bring out movies involving Iran would be. And until you've done the work to eliminate all of the likelier explanations for the movie coming out now (and answer questions like when it went into production, was this the first time production started, was it ever in development hell, ect.), I'm not going to entertain the conspiratorial one.
Just to be clear, I don't for one second suggest that Affleck deliberately set out to make an explicitly anti-Iranian film at a time of increased US-Iranian tension, so I don't buy the "conspiracy" argument either. But neither do I think it's particularly helpful to ignore or belittle the fact that a film about this particular subject taking this particular stance has been made and released at this particular time. Films based strongly on real-life events (especially real-life events whose repercussions resonate to this day) do not exist in an apolitical and ahistorical vacuum, however much their makers would like to believe otherwise.
Sorry, I thought you were just bringing up someone else's quote (Mark Cousins?), I didn't mean to imply that you, personally, held conspiratorial arguments. Hence I never attributed the argument.

I didn't mean to ignore or belittle the effect of the film's timing. I was more interested in whether or not the filmmakers ought to be culpable for a bunch of factors that could very well be outside of their control. I asked when a good time to release this film would be, and I was trying to imply that there may never be a good time, or if it comes it could come ten years down the road. You can't really predict that kind of thing very well, so you ought to go ahead, make the movie you want to make and release it. The way films in Hollywood get made, it often comes down to a small window of opportunity that comes up, and those who are interested jump on it and hope it pans out. I would not be surprised if the opportunity just happened to come up, and those interested jumped on the chance because they saw no other opportunities in the future. For all I know Affleck and co. had been planning this movie for years and only now found the opportunity to actually make and release it.

So the timing may be unfortunate, but I'm not going to read too much into that.

User avatar
gcgiles1dollarbin
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:38 am

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#92 Post by gcgiles1dollarbin » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:53 pm

Mr. Sausage wrote:The housekeeper may indeed be that. But that depends on two things:

A. is she real? Did the Canadian embassy actually have an Iranian housekeeper?
B. if the above is true, then Ockam's razor to Affleck's fears of being accused of Islamophobia. Not just because she has to be there, but because we need to be told why she didn't just turn them all in, ending the movie. The other option would be to ignore the housemaids and pretend they are all very stupid and unobservant, which would not have been better.
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!
Mr. Sausage wrote:It's not that I'm less open than you to "digression, flab, and lulls" in action films. Those may or may not suit me just fine. I wasn't approaching this issue as a matter of personal taste, but from the perspective of the filmmakers, their goals, as well as filmic necessity.
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."

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. As MichaelB said,
Films based strongly on real-life events (especially real-life events whose repercussions resonate to this day) do not exist in an apolitical and ahistorical vacuum, however much their makers would like to believe otherwise.
This is the premise upon which I insisted earlier on the filmmaker's "responsibility to portray vexed historical events like the Iranian Revolution with a modicum of nuance, credibility, and depth." 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.

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#93 Post by matrixschmatrix » Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:08 pm

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)
Having made a similar reference myself, I think it's that the contrast between Carter's presidency and the spirit of Reaganism and Reagan's election in particular is inextricably intertwined with the Iranian hostage narrative, even if it doesn't actually fit with the timeline of the events in the film- in the same way I think you could discuss Last of the Mohicans in terms of a story of the American character, for all that they were still part of Britain, and the politics of Britain are a significant part of the work.

User avatar
gcgiles1dollarbin
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:38 am

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#94 Post by gcgiles1dollarbin » Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:13 pm

matrixschmatrix wrote:
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)
Having made a similar reference myself, I think it's that the contrast between Carter's presidency and the spirit of Reaganism and Reagan's election in particular is inextricably intertwined with the Iranian hostage narrative, even if it doesn't actually fit with the timeline of the events in the film- in the same way I think you could discuss Last of the Mohicans in terms of a story of the American character, for all that they were still part of Britain, and the politics of Britain are a significant part of the work.
Understood. I'm just going to choose to pump my fist on behalf of Carter and the Canadians. :D

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#95 Post by Andre Jurieu » Wed Feb 20, 2013 3:40 pm

Some part of me really thinks we're giving Argo far too much credit in terms of its overall and lasting influence in contemporary society, whether in the US or on a global level. This is a mildly successful film that probably will be awarded a prize that no one will remember in a few years. In the political and cultural landscape of America, it might pop up a couple times as a reference during interviews with a few insane politicians on Fox News or MSNBC, and then it will be discarded as pop culture moves onto the next award-season product. While it's certainly exhibits the systemic flaws of a Hollywood prestige pic, I feel as if it's just too casual of a movie to have any noticeable or lasting effect on our collective perceptions or cultural fiber.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#96 Post by Mr Sausage » Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:58 pm

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)?

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#97 Post by Mr Sausage » Wed Feb 20, 2013 5:01 pm

Andre Jurieu wrote:Some part of me really thinks we're giving Argo far too much credit in terms of its overall and lasting influence in contemporary society, whether in the US or on a global level. This is a mildly successful film that probably will be awarded a prize that no one will remember in a few years. In the political and cultural landscape of America, it might pop up a couple times as a reference during interviews with a few insane politicians on Fox News or MSNBC, and then it will be discarded as pop culture moves onto the next award-season product. While it's certainly exhibits the systemic flaws of a Hollywood prestige pic, I feel as if it's just too casual of a movie to have any noticeable or lasting effect on our collective perceptions or cultural fiber.
I'm with you on this. When people have a vested interest in something (like how others think of Iran), it's easy to stop being proportional (example that popped to mind is when Sean Penn sent Trey Parker and Matt Stone a letter telling them they should not have made Team America because it could affect the outcome of the election).

I doubt Argo plays an important role in anything, hence I'd like to discuss it as a film rather than a potential policy maker.

User avatar
gcgiles1dollarbin
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2010 3:38 am

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#98 Post by gcgiles1dollarbin » Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:57 pm

Mr. Sausage wrote: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."
If you concede that there are more than five thousand ways to skin a cat, then the results intended with one plot device can be achieved in a variety of ways that don't include that particular device. She didn't have to be an Iranian housekeeper. (Again, I feel like there is this conflict in our discussion between what is "necessary" and what has been chosen deliberately among a multitude of possibilities.) I am arguing that there are probably reasons aside from plot mechanics that account for her presence, and in particular, I am arguing that it is very likely she is a manifestation of Affleck's desire to avoid accusations of Islamophobia. (As I said above, when it comes to what I would prefer, I don't care about liberal/conservative values in this discussion: I would have preferred a more fully realized, more involved, more nuanced treatment of the subject which includes a more thorough examination of Iranian interests during this period.) In addition, I am asserting that her presence is a flimsy afterthought, perhaps that very sop to liberals that you maintain should be avoided in pictures like these. But above all, I suppose that I am asserting that no effect is incidental. None! There are no accidents when it comes to art--only arguments made in the production's aftermath. I am not arguing, like you, for a positivist view of a film's purpose, that we can somehow know that this film is A or B, because Ben Affleck or Chris Terrio or Tony Mendez might have said so in Premiere, or that principles of logic applied to art somehow dictate that it is so.
Mr. Sausage wrote: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.
Who's accusing anyone of being an idiot? Why not take a poorly rendered depiction of the revolution and exploit it to your political purposes, if it's there for the taking? As for confirmation bias (which I'm assuming you mean to be the tendency to favor information that serves your own beliefs), say goodbye to the forum if you refute all examples of that! We do choose our arguments, all of us, attempting to put evidence in the service of our arguments, and if you have decided that that's cherry-picking, then there is no escape for any of us.
Mr. Sausage wrote: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.
But that's all I'm discussing: what I want. What "ought" to be and what I want are identical, as they are for all people. If you have no interest in my opinion, that's fine, but there is no difference between an "ought" and a preference, which apparently is another fundamental divide between the two of us, as per:
Mr. Sausage wrote: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.
Phew. I'm done. You're phenomenal! I mean that--no snark. And you can have the last word, if you want, but I can't believe you are pursuing this after I was pumping my fist on your behalf just a couple posts ago! :wink:

User avatar
matrixschmatrix
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 11:26 pm

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#99 Post by matrixschmatrix » Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:58 pm

I don't think it's necessary to think the politics of a film are intentional on the filmmaker's part or heavily influential to the larger culture for them to be a major point of interest in a film and how it's interpreted, nor do I think it distracts from discussion of a film to discuss its politics and political context. Moreover, any American movie set in Iran is going automatically to bring up political questions, as the nature of Iranian society and how we perceive it is a major question in American politics.

Affleck may not have had any overt political aims in mind when making the movie- in fact, I'd be surprised if he did- but to some degree, that makes the questions of how he chose his subject and how he chose to depict Iranians that much more interesting, as it means it's sort of a default view of what 'Iran' means to Hollywood right now. That's a subject worth discussing, I'd say, and frankly somewhat more interesting than the well-made but unremarkable moviemaking on display in it.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#100 Post by knives » Wed Feb 20, 2013 7:48 pm

I agree and am reminded of a conversation on The Train that I had some years back elsewhere. I'm a huge defender of Frankenheimer's version, but the person I was talking to described it as pretty much the way you see Argo to which I disagreed primarily on the fact that Frankenheimer goes in depth on the psychology of the Nazi trying to with this story reveal aspects of this story's obsession to explore the core obsession of the Nazi character without the moral issues of showing the actual atrocities. Affleck had he wanted to could have done just that here. Likewise he could have gone Penn's route and looked at how art reflects the world and vice versa. Instead Affleck exclusively is concerned with making a good thriller in which case he should have picked a topic (as he did in his past two films) which does not have these questions and many others attached to it. By ignoring all of the none pure entertainment aspects not only does he make a more bland feature, but one that has some pretty nasty implicit implications accidentally too.

Post Reply