Argo – a good film that left a sour taste

[bigburner]

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It was well scripted, well-acted, and it kept me on the edge of my seat.

My high opinion was reduced when I researched a spoken line in the film which states that the New Zealand embassy in Tehran turned the six Americans away and refused to give them shelter. That is not true and is very disappointing when you consider how much help the New Zealand ambassador Chris Beeby and his second secretary Richard Sewell did provide.

Ambassador Beeby visited the six Americans while they hid in Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor’s home, played chess with them, attended celebrations with them and brought them food. He rented a vacant house with New Zealand government money as a back-up in case the Americans needed to be moved quickly if they were discovered by the Iranians. Sewell obtained the Iranian disembarkation documents that were required to get the Americans on the flight out of Tehran. He drove the Americans to a briefing and a farewell dinner party the night before they left, which was also attended by Beeby. The following morning Sewell drove the Americans to the airport where they boarded the Swissair jet.

Thank you Ben Affleck and Warner Bros for dumping on us. You could have made a small effort to get the facts right. You could have removed the line “the Kiwis refused to help”. That would have been enough. I don’t want any glory for my country. I simply don’t want a lie told about us by a country that is a friend and an ally.

And by the way, if there are any Canadians reading this post I’m fully aware that it was your ambassador Ken Taylor who planned the escape, not the CIA. I guess some of you Canucks will be feeling a bit pissed off too.

Nigel.

[sgtjim57]

Thanks for the insight. Overall I found the movie very entertaining however I feel the ending was certainly scripted as to the timing. I would certainly recommend this movie to anyone who has not seen it.

[P-Dub]

Yes, this is entertainment. It is unfortunate that people will take this film as fact. The truth of the Canadian involvement is far more than just opening a door.

I say be thankful it was just one line, which I really don't remember. I am glad to hear that New Zealand's support was more substantial than the film portrayed.

Recent Canadian news program on Argo.

[madmac]

Yes, this is entertainment. It is unfortunate that people will take this film as fact. The truth of the Canadian involvement is far more than just opening a door.

I say be thankful it was just one line, which I really don't remember. I am glad to hear that New Zealand's support was more substantial than the film portrayed.

Recent Canadian news program on Argo.

I have not seen the film yet but I do remember Canada being a major factor in their escape and I remember it truly improving our relations with the U.S. at the time. However, most films about 'real' events that took place in history rarely get portrayed properly and factual in films.......especially American one's. It's just that nature of the beast. That's why at the beginning of these films, there is usually some sort of a disclaimer that says "Based on real events". The key word there is 'Based on'!!!.

[George Bellefontaine]

Argo is a terrific piece of filmmaking based on fact but as film critic Leonard Maltin suggested, " don't get your history from the movies." A lot of things that were shown in the film, such as the incidents at the bazzar and the hair-raising incident at the airport, were there for dramatic affect and, according to even those actually involved, did not happen. But lets face it, artistic license is necessary if you want to please an audience. As for me, I loved the film and felt Affleck deserved his Oscar.

[Ovation]

I've had a number of exchanges on this film elsewhere, so (hope there is no rule against this) I'm going to copy/paste some of my posts made in other places, as this topic (historical feature films) is an ongoing professional interest of mine. (for anyone who finds this too long, sorry, I'll summarize at the bottom--this just allowed me to gather my views in one place which is convenient for me).

Factual accuracy is not the most important criterion with which to judge historical feature films (though it is among the most important). A 2-3 hour film does not have the necessary scope to avoid composite characters, dramatization of events and the simplification of historical narrative. Moreover, there are both commercial and entertainment goals to consider. Film is a far more collaborative effort than academic history.

Even academic history necessarily leaves things out, compresses material and makes choices based on intelligibility. History is not a collection of documents and artefacts. Those are data. History is analysis and interpretation of that data, with the goal of presenting a coherent account of the past. Film is just another medium by which history can be presented. It has different limitations and strengths than more traditional methods but it is no less worthy for all that--as long as no seeks to substitute it for other forms.

It's not that the Hollywood version of history is swallowed whole, but rather that it exercises a strong, often subconscious, influence on historical perceptions. Two examples from my own experience might help illustrate this. In the spring of 1976, my elementary school gathered all the grade 3 through 6 students in the main hall and had us watch Johnny Tremaine and the Sons of Liberty. I was 9. To this day, when I teach about the Boston Tea Party, the first images that come to mind are those that were in the film (and I've not watched again since then). Did the film dramatically influence my views on the Boston Tea Party? Not really. But it did effect how I imagined it looked. Another example, taken from literature (but the same principle applies), is Cardinal Richelieu from the Three Musketeers. That was my favourite book when I was a kid and I've read it at least four times (twice in English, twice in French). I've also seen multiple film versions (again, in each language). When I studied the real Cardinal Richelieu, I found he had very little in common with Dumas' version--yet I still have to fight off the impression of Richelieu that Dumas left me whenever I teach about him. What I want my students to learn about history via film includes the recognition of the power of visual imagery to shape our impressions of people, places and events from the past and the way film can augment our understanding of the past in ways other forms of presentation cannot do quite so well.

FROM ANOTHER POSTER IN THE DISCUSSION: In regards to Argo, many have said it minimized the contributions of the Canadians. That may be a true statement, but the Canadians were shown contributing. So it was a matter of prominence. Yet many have concluded that this part was factually inaccurate because they weren't at the forefront. So Argo was true and false.

For myself, I never take any movie as factual. Movie are not supposed to be factual. They are drama, entertainment, storytelling.

My response:

Yes. It was true and false. As is the same with just about any filmed version of history--feature film or documentary (the latter should not be given the benefit of the doubt nearly as often as they are, but that's for another discussion). As for Dumas' Richelieu, he was a symbol of Dumas' attitude toward the Catholic Church in his own time--Dumas did not make any great claims to historical truth for his story (unlike what Oliver Stone frequently does with some of his films, for example). Dumas wasn't trying to convince people that Richelieu was how he portrayed him in his books (there are more than one Muskeeter books). He was simply a useful symbol. However, if one does not know that about Dumas' work, then his portrait of Richelieu becomes more plausible than reality and the historical records suggest. Historical feature films often do the same (hence my particular research interest). The other thing I had working for me regarding the real vs. Dumas Richelieu is that I've examined the raw material of the time, along with books on the subject that have detailed references to verifiable material to support their claims. But you are right to point out that one should not blindly trust an historical account simply because it is in print rather than on film.

On "accuracy" as often meant by filmmakers:

Perhaps I can shed a bit of light on this specific point. In my research (wading though a LOT of books and journal articles about historical feature films, along with watching/listening to what must be hundreds of hours of extra features, interviews and film commentaries), I've found that when filmmakers (and I include the whole crew here, not just the director) speak about accuracy of an historical feature film, the bulk of their focus is on visual accuracy--costumes, sets and so on. They want to get "the look" right (let's leave aside how successful, or not, they may be). A lot of time is spent explaining and demonstrating just how close to the real thing the film looks like. An actor's ability to personify a real person. The use of period music to set the proper mood. Factual accuracy is important insofar as it does not interfere with the cohesion of the narrative (actual history is a lot less cohesive than films, or even books, make it seem). But one thing that is almost always overlooked is how the characters speak and behave towards each other (this is more problematic the further back in the past you go). You can tell a lot about the seriousness filmmakers apply to historical authenticity by paying attention to how characters behave and speak. But even then, reality is sometimes set aside so as to convey the spirit of historical truth, at the expense of the letter of it. As anyone who has watched Deadwood knows, there is an astonishing degree of foul language (the opening scene of the series alone had me running to my bookshelves looking for any trace of evidence to support such language in that time period). It is almost entirely anachronistic but it is also, paradoxically, a lot closer to the historical truth than a literal transcript of language usage of that time would appear to a modern audience. If the makers of Deadwood had been faithful to the letter of the language of that period, it would have appeared to the audience that the population of towns like that were rather more polite than they actually were. Instead, the creators transposed the language so as to properly shock, rather than bemuse, the audience. This is a case where revisionism served a quite useful historical lesson--mining towns on the frontier were not populated by polite society.

In any event, as most makers of historical feature films are not historians by training (and only a rare few choose to self-identify as historians, like Oliver Stone), the focus on visual accuracy by artists working in a visual medium is understandable, if sometimes a touch irritating to those who work in the field professionally.

On the diversions from the facts in the last section of the film:

Very good points (and among the arguments scholars like Robert Brent Toplin, John O'Connor and Natalie Zemon Davis make in support of historical feature films as viable supplements to traditional presentations of history). There is a film I often use called Black Robe. It is about the journey of a Jesuit missionary to Huronia, in the company of some Algonquins. A common critique of the film, made by historians specializing in the period, is of the journey during winter. In reality, no Amerindian guide would have countenanced such a journey (nearly 1500 miles) in late fall/winter. However, by setting the journey in winter, Bruce Beresford (whether intentionally or not) created a powerfully effective shorthand for making the audience feel the hardship of the journey. It is not true to the letter of historical fact, but it is quite true to the spirit of the experience. The scene in the airport in Argo is similar. It deviates from the factual record (for reasons of drama and narrative coherence) but it certainly helps the audience empathize more fully with the anxiety the escapees must have felt.

On the influence of pop culture on public historical perceptions:

I've been teaching history for over 20 years now (and have spent a considerable amount of time of the past 15 years examining films like this in terms of their influence on the general population's perception of history) and this is nothing new. Films like this don't overwrite history so much as flavour it. And while it can be annoying, it can also serve as a launchpad for discussing the events themselves (I was partly inspired to study 17th century French history at university because I wanted to learn about the real France as opposed to the depiction of it in The Three Musketeers--and I loved that book).

On a factual error in Lincoln that has been criticized (the wrong vote for Connecticut for the amendment):

Even though I was aware of the actual vote before watching the movie (I've taught that period of history several times), it didn't really faze me in the film itself as the dramatic tension was quite effective. If I'd been a consultant on the film, I might have suggested Spielberg simply skip over Conn. and a few others (so as to not single out Conn.) rather than contradict the historical record, but, as it stands, it will make an interesting discussion point about dramatic license vs. historical records when I use this film in a class someday (besides, Tony Kushner, the screenwriter, is on record with respect to Munich--another film for which he wrote the screenplay--as deliberately choosing dramatic impact over strict accuracy, so this was not too surprising to me).

To sum up: historical feature films should never be the final word on a topic, nor used as such (though, sadly, they are often the only reference for particular topics for many people). However, such films can and frequently do bring a useful perspective to bear upon the topics they present and they should not be casually dismissed. Even a "bad history film" can be the basis for a good teaching moment (I have sparked many productive discussions in class with films that, on their own, are neither especially good as films nor as history). I understand the frustrations of those who feel slighted by the inaccuracies in such films and a number of them could have been avoided. But commercial feature films are in the business of entertaining first and worrying about the details second. Ideally, both would get full attention, but filmmakers are not historians, they are storytellers--and traditional, "real" history is full of distortions (sometimes intentional, many times not) that persist in large part because they make for a better "story".

(sorry about the length, but I'm thinking of submitting a paper to a journal on this subject and this allows me to play with some ideas outside the formal setting of academia)

[aud19]

And by the way, if there are any Canadians reading this post I’m fully aware that it was your ambassador Ken Taylor who planned the escape, not the CIA. I guess some of you Canucks will be feeling a bit pissed off too.

Nigel.

I think we're likely more used to American re-writing/minimization of Canadian involvement than you are Nigel :lol: Our role has been minimized for any number of things including our participation WW2, Afghanistan etc and a complete re-write of the fact that they actually lost the war of 1812 :lol:

[Chris D]

I'm looking forward to seeing this pic. Affleck has become a rather good filmmaker. Not expecting it to be 100% accurate, but I definitely expect them to get the meat and importance of the story correct. On true stories like this, I expect the story elements to be factual and straight. I have no problem filling in gaps with drama to provide continuity in the story. But if a movie CHANGES a fact or event, to make it more dramatic or whatever, then yes, I have a problem. (other than something more minor, like consolidating story background characters into one to clean up the background clutter)

[Ovation]

I'm looking forward to seeing this pic. Affleck has become a rather good filmmaker. Not expecting it to be 100% accurate, but I definitely expect them to get the meat and importance of the story correct. On true stories like this, I expect the story elements to be factual and straight. I have no problem filling in gaps with drama to provide continuity in the story. But if a movie CHANGES a fact or event, to make it more dramatic or whatever, then yes, I have a problem. (other than something more minor, like consolidating story background characters into one to clean up the background clutter)

If this bothers you a lot, I suspect you're not a big fan of films based upon real events, as this is done all the time. Often, filmmakers "get away with it" because the parts they change are not common knowledge among the viewers and/or the change is done in such a compelling way from a dramatic standpoint that exceedingly few people notice it during the movie. Real life (and thus, real history) is often incoherent and lacks a narrative structure. Storytelling demands, with few exceptions, coherence and narrative structure. The "reel history" is often reconfigured in ways that are inconsistent with the chronology of real events (Elizabeth, with Cate Blanchett, is notorious for this among historians, though it got very little press back in the day) in order to present a narrative that heightens dramatic tensions at the expense of factual accuracy. Moreover, filmmakers (even documentary filmmakers--often less subtly than feature film directors) will alter the depictions of events relative to the facts in order to generate a more authentic sense of feeling from the viewer. The example of Black Robe (it is among those I posted above) is illustrative of this effect--the viewer is meant to experience (vicariously, of course) the arduous nature of the journey undertaken by the central character. Setting the journey in late fall/winter is factually inconsistent with the travel habits of Algonquins in the 17th century, but it is an effective visual short-hand for conveying the hardship of the journey.

Of course, not every sidestepping of the facts and chronology is successful at creating the feeling the filmmaker is seeking to elicit from the audience, but the attempts are not automatically illegitimate. Truth and fact, in history at any rate, are related but not synonymous.

[George Bellefontaine]

Interesting discussion, fellas.

[wkhanna]

A few days earlier, The Wife & I watched this film.

She liked it & was glued to the edge of her seat with a 'white-knuckle' grip on a couch pillow.
I, on the other hand, felt as though I had already seen it due to its Hollywood style & predictability. It stirred little plot-based tension though I did feel the acting was solid.
Constantly throughout the film The Wife kept asking if I remembered the events in the film from history. Additionally, she kept asking why things were happening the way they were.
I spent much of the time explaining to her that this was not in fact a 'true' account of what happened.

With no disrespect intended, I feel my wife represents the 'average American' as she seemed to feel that since the film was 'based' on a true story, that most of it was in fact 'true'.

This common attitude leads to a distortion of history when so many are simply too lazy to perform due diligence prior to forming steadfast opinion based on spoon-fed 'entertainment' that is deliberately becoming indistinguishable from news or fact owing to the way we are deluged by ad-based information from today’s unrelenting bombardment of media from all sides given the 4G connectedness & all things Tweeted, U-Tubed, streamed & displayed. I swear I smell Fascism in the air.

The issue that makes this a potential danger in my estimation is that there are many who are aware of this phenomenon & make use of it to sway public opinion. Now in my late fifties, I am beginning to understand what the original Anarchist movement was really about.

[Chris D]

Just watched this movie. Then was intrigued/prompted by a few things, that led me to re-watch the whole thing with the pop-up commentary from the real-life participants. Then came back to this thread.

First, I really liked this movie. Not overwhelmed, but really liked it. :4: out of :5: One of the things I really liked about it is that this is less than half of the Iranian hostage story, but the part that I actually knew nothing about. The 52 hostages is the part that is more well known to most of us.

Second, yes, that line really jumped out at me too, from Bryan Cranston's character, that the "Brits and Kiwis" turned away the 6 fugitives--wouldn't let them stay, and they ended up at the Canadian ambassador. I paid particular attention to this and during the commentary, and several of the real people made similar statements, particularly in regards to the Brits, and "other agencies" that decided it was too risky to let the fugitives stay. Sounds like there definitely is more information behind the scenes than we know about.

Third, yes, it seems that parts were definitely dramatized, beyond just adapting a story for the screen. Particularly, listening to the commentary, it seems the whole end part of the Iranians find out the true identity of the Americans and chasing them down to the wire was totally made up. Personally, it seems weak to say that was done to capture the feelings of the fugitives--it seems evident that was done to create a climax to the 3rd act, where a big one didn't quite exist in the real story.

But here's something that REALLY bothered me about this. First, I get angry when I remember certain historical crises, and the way our national leaders handled/mishandled them. The Blackhawk shooting debacle in Mogadishu is one. The Iran hostage crisis is another. President Carter left his people in captivity for 444 days. *444*. Far more than a year. Didn't even end up bringing them back. Didn't happen until he was voted out of office. So I was enjoying the movie, and interested in the credits, as I watched through them. Then halfway through the credits, President Carter comes on, and talks about how it was a "success, because eventually every hostage came home, and nobody got hurt." That ticked me off, and through the commentaries, he popped up several more times, taking credit for things, and finally in one regarding the issue of the true story being classified at first, said, "we talked about telling the real story, because I certainly needed the positive public opinion, with the hostages and all." Are you kidding me? Then this same man pops up when modern crisis happen, and preaches on how he thinks they should be handled. Any man that avoids conflict at all costs, even at the sacrifice of his own people being held at gunpoint, is someone I have no respect for beyond the title and position.

[George Bellefontaine]

Yeah, Chris, I always felt most US Presidents had plenty of backbone, but Carter seemed like a wimp to me. He's got a lot of nerve taking credit for anything that happened during that crisis.

[Ovation]

Just watched this movie. Then was intrigued/prompted by a few things, that led me to re-watch the whole thing with the pop-up commentary from the real-life participants. Then came back to this thread.

First, I really liked this movie. Not overwhelmed, but really liked it. :4: out of :5: One of the things I really liked about it is that this is less than half of the Iranian hostage story, but the part that I actually knew nothing about. The 52 hostages is the part that is more well known to most of us.

Second, yes, that line really jumped out at me too, from Bryan Cranston's character, that the "Brits and Kiwis" turned away the 6 fugitives--wouldn't let them stay, and they ended up at the Canadian ambassador. I paid particular attention to this and during the commentary, and several of the real people made similar statements, particularly in regards to the Brits, and "other agencies" that decided it was too risky to let the fugitives stay. Sounds like there definitely is more information behind the scenes than we know about.

Third, yes, it seems that parts were definitely dramatized, beyond just adapting a story for the screen. Particularly, listening to the commentary, it seems the whole end part of the Iranians find out the true identity of the Americans and chasing them down to the wire was totally made up. Personally, it seems weak to say that was done to capture the feelings of the fugitives--it seems evident that was done to create a climax to the 3rd act, where a big one didn't quite exist in the real story.

But here's something that REALLY bothered me about this. First, I get angry when I remember certain historical crises, and the way our national leaders handled/mishandled them. The Blackhawk shooting debacle in Mogadishu is one. The Iran hostage crisis is another. President Carter left his people in captivity for 444 days. *444*. Far more than a year. Didn't even end up bringing them back. Didn't happen until he was voted out of office. So I was enjoying the movie, and interested in the credits, as I watched through them. Then halfway through the credits, President Carter comes on, and talks about how it was a "success, because eventually every hostage came home, and nobody got hurt." That ticked me off, and through the commentaries, he popped up several more times, taking credit for things, and finally in one regarding the issue of the true story being classified at first, said, "we talked about telling the real story, because I certainly needed the positive public opinion, with the hostages and all." Are you kidding me? Then this same man pops up when modern crisis happen, and preaches on how he thinks they should be handled. Any man that avoids conflict at all costs, even at the sacrifice of his own people being held at gunpoint, is someone I have no respect for beyond the title and position.

The issue with Carter attempting to take credit I will leave to a time when I've seen the extras (I've only seen the film in the cinema), but I would like to address an observation you put under spoiler code. I will do my best not to circumvent the code. You criticize the idea that a certain decision might have been made for one reason and offer a more likely, in your view, reason for that decision. I do not think they are mutually exclusive things. The scenario you deem more likely is, in fact, exceedingly common in such productions. However, that does not necessarily prevent the other motive from being a significant consideration as well. Moreover, like any work of art--fine art or commercial art--the creators' intentions are not the end of the matter but rather the beginning. The audience may well come away with an impression that dovetails nicely with the overall tone of the piece even if it was not a deliberate choice on the part of the artistic creator.

Hope that was clear enough to understand and circumspect enough to respect the spoiler code.

[Chris D]

Ovation- I love your perspective and commentaries with films, and I'd LOVE to sit in on your classes someday. I don't find myself in Montreal very often, though, unfortunately.

[George Bellefontaine]

Ovation- I love your perspective and commentaries with films, and I'd LOVE to sit in on your classes someday. I don't find myself in Montreal very often, though, unfortunately.

Yeah, Paul must have some of the happiest students alive.

[Ovation]

Thanks. They're not always happy though (they do have to do some actual work :lol: ). And my classes are actually in Vermont (nice scenic drive for me to go to work).

[George Bellefontaine]

Now there's a man who really loves his job.

[Chris D]

Aha... well, who knows. I don't think I've ever even been to Vermont before, but there's a chance I might be spending more time in New York state in the future, so maybe I'll get over there sometime.

[Ovation]

Just picked up a used copy of this today (for 12$, it seemed a reasonable cost--local video store offers a lifetime guarantee on their used discs). Hope to have time to look at the copious extras soon.