Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
willoneill
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:10 am
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#126 Post by willoneill » Tue Feb 26, 2013 10:34 am

Until the inevitable "Collector's Edition"

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#127 Post by colinr0380 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:31 pm

willoneill wrote:Until the inevitable "Collector's Edition"
Let's hope that they don't wait 444 days to release it.

User avatar
Jeff
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#128 Post by Jeff » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:01 pm

colinr0380 wrote:
willoneill wrote:Until the inevitable "Collector's Edition"
Let's hope that they don't wait 444 days to release it.
Image

JabbaTheSlut
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Down there

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#129 Post by JabbaTheSlut » Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:27 pm

And in the end they're all applauding... Some well built moments of tension, but the script is not very substantial and in the end film is a quite modest thriller. What the fuck was the subplot about Affleck character's family about? Mechanics for the wrong machine.

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

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#130 Post by Drucker » Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:43 pm

JabbaTheSlut wrote:And in the end they're all applauding... Some well built moments of tension, but the script is not very substantial and in the end film is a quite modest thriller. What the fuck was the subplot about Affleck character's family about? Mechanics for the wrong machine.
It pretty clearly
SpoilerShow
makes it so that when he's trying to convince the hostages to go with his dangerous-sounding plan, it puts him in their shoes. He has something to live for, and thus, lose too. He's not just some faceless government guy we know nothing about. He's also risking some personal heartbreak by being put in the situation.

JabbaTheSlut
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Down there

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#131 Post by JabbaTheSlut » Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:46 pm

Thanks. And yes. But.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#132 Post by zedz » Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:47 pm

Drucker wrote:It pretty clearly
SpoilerShow
makes it so that when he's trying to convince the hostages to go with his dangerous-sounding plan, it puts him in their shoes. He has something to live for, and thus, lose too. He's not just some faceless government guy we know nothing about. He's also risking some personal heartbreak by being put in the situation.
I remember the good old days when professionals in movies did their job because it was their job, not because it was an extremely elaborate form of therapy.

User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#133 Post by Black Hat » Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:32 am

My apologies for the tardy reply.
Mr Sausage wrote:I'm not saying the film is necessarily neutral, I'm saying there's nothing in it that strikes me as something a neutral person wouldn't have made. The troubling elements are the type that can easily arise from choices not related to them (plus stating mistruths about the Shah and his wife that make them look worse is not something you would expect from someone making a film that was consciously against the current regime).
I see your point but does that make the choices any less inflammatory? To me it's not that the choices were about one of a neutral person's but rather an ignorant one. Now is a film obligated to present for lack of a better word a balance? Does a film have to be balanced to be good? Of course not but that's not where my criticism of the film's portrayal of Iranians is coming from.
Mr Sausage wrote:Whether or not you think people are capable of changing their minds is not a matter of compassion, it's strictly factual. I do think people can change their mind--extremists, racists, whomever--not because I've reached into the well of my compassion, but because it's a fact that humans are mutable.
Agreed and I think this applies to the community here but I've noticed that in many cases those who believe 'people don't change' are coming from a place of scorn & bitterness that allows them no compassion for anyone, let alone bothering to pay attention to facts. Once one of these people, who I believe far outnumber us on this planet, label you as whatever, it's the hardest thing in the world to get them to change that view.
Mr Sausage wrote:But now we fall into the same problem as one of our earlier arguments: do you want this film to be propaganda for your own side? Because if skill at converting extremists is your basis for judging the film's worth, then a nuanced, balanced look (that would still have to acknowledge all the deeply awful parts of the Iranian regime) isn't going to be it, either. And conscious lies, mistruths, and deceptions for your own side aren't better than those made for the other side. Whenever I come across this kind of argument, part of me thinks that the other person is just unhappy everyone doesn't share their own opinion, which makes them just one pole of a binary I'd like to stay in the middle of, if I can, when judging a film.

At some point you're going to have to stop chasing the opinions of hypothetical people, sit down, and judge the film on its own terms based on its own achievements. Unless you really are that interested in conversion propaganda.
The first and only thing I want a film to be is whatever the director intended it to be however, as a member of an audience I think we have the right to criticize the film not just as a work of art but also in a broader context should it apply. As for me personally, yeah you mentioned this previously to me and I'd like to think that I wrote many enough words in prior posts criticizing both films solely on its cinematic merits independent of what I found troubling politically. In the case of Argo, I quite enjoyed it until the dreadful, cliche ridden, recycled every last trick in the book last act.
Mr Sausage wrote:Movies have effects. I don't think Argo's effect will be terribly political. It's not a movie that makes me antsy about what people in your country are going to think. Maybe I have more faith in average people or less faith in the power of the movies, who knows.

I would be interested in knowing how people in your country reacted to learning how deeply America messed up in their dealings with Iran (that was my biggest impression from watching the movie), but that's out of curiosity, it wouldn't affect my opinion of the film's worth.
For sure it wouldn't be a big deal there but I think specifically in the United States it sure doesn't help. I think my personal frustration is that Affleck had an opportunity here to not just regurgitate the same tired tropes of angry, Iranian savages that has been presented to the American public for 34 years and he made the choice to continue the trend. Having said that it certainly could have been much worse.

Iranians of all stripes, of which they're about a million as they're a complicated, confusing bunch, are well aware of the mistakes which were made. My observation is they're a very proud people, big on loyalty and honesty, what drives them the most crazy regarding America is its blatant hypocrisy.

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

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#134 Post by Mr Sausage » Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:13 am

As everyone is no doubt sick of hearing me talk about this, I'll try to be brief.
Black Hat wrote:Once one of these people, who I believe far outnumber us on this planet, label you as whatever, it's the hardest thing in the world to get them to change that view.
Well, as the same is true of the people disposed to hate Iran, I assume all of my comments regarding the futility of trying to change their minds with nuance and balance stands and that you agree that the movie shouldn't be including those things on their behalf.
Black Hat wrote:For sure it wouldn't be a big deal there but I think specifically in the United States it sure doesn't help. I think my personal frustration is that Affleck had an opportunity here to not just regurgitate the same tired tropes of angry, Iranian savages that has been presented to the American public for 34 years and he made the choice to continue the trend. Having said that it certainly could have been much worse.
I take your point, but at the same time I can't help feeling that much of it is inevitable given the subject and the time period. If you make a movie with a country in a revolutionary froth as its backdrop, this kind of portrayal is very, very hard to avoid, maybe impossible if you don't want to be outright dishonest. Again, let's not hold any illusions about what the aftermath of a revolution looks like. In some ways, Affleck and co. would've had to go well out of their way to show all the other, unseen sides of things that get overshadowed by the larger movements and emotions, and then only for the sake of things tangential to the narrative.

On the other hand, moments like when the mob threatens to form in the 'movie scouting scene' could've been avoided easily. A scene like that isn't inaccurate--I've had it happen to friends in foreign countries that weren't just out of a revolution and full of hurt and rage towards the person's home country--and it's easy to see why it was used, this being a thriller and that being an intense thing to experience; but it still plays somewhat cheaply on a general fear of foreigners and foreign lands and all that.

I've probably given the impression that I am being willfully ignorant about the problematic elements of this movie. But, really, I'm trying to keep them in proportion against those inclined to make too much of them. Especially those who rush to use the words "propaganda", "racism", "cultural imperialism," "anti-Iranianism," ect., when describing the movie. I don't think the problematic elements merit any of these terms. I get a sense that a lot of people see things as an all-or-nothing gambit: either a movie is totally unproblematic and therefore on your side, or it's totally on the other side and boy do we have some big, harsh words for that. Neither is true. But if people want to confuse Argo for the real battleground, what can I do.

User avatar
Black Hat
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:34 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Argo (Ben Affleck, 2012)

#135 Post by Black Hat » Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:49 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:I don't think the problematic elements merit any of these terms. I get a sense that a lot of people see things as an all-or-nothing gambit: either a movie is totally unproblematic and therefore on your side, or it's totally on the other side and boy do we have some big, harsh words for that. Neither is true. But if people want to confuse Argo for the real battleground, what can I do.
This is certainly true which I feel is a consequence of people being conditioned by the instant gratification society we live in. Everything these days has a direct 'answer' or a simple 'solution'. The one size fits all, you either are or you are not mentality which is such surface level drivel. Reality is life, decisions, happenings are much deeper, they are nuanced and delicate with painted brushes of a strong shade of gray.


Post Reply