Argo (2012) ****½ /5: A accurate portrayal of a moment in time.

Argo is certainly one of the best films of the year as it actually captures vividly a moment in history. This film highlights the significance of art direction and cinematography and a director that can synthesize these elements around an engrossing story.  The film seems as if it is capturing a moment in history because of how the story is told; it does not feel like other films that have a complete story that takes place over a particular period of time where there are significant moments of catharsis so that a particular character can come to some earth shattering conclusion about life. It feels as if the characters became swept up in the tide of history as a result of a particular event. In this case it is a diplomatic crisis being faced by the US regarding the Iranian revolution of 1979 where the corrupt and exploitative Shah was ousted by the populace and was forced to seek asylum in the US. The revolution saw the return of the radical Muslim cleric Ayatollah Khomeini who removed the negative cultural influences associated with the US backed Shah’s rule and replaced with precepts associated with the Islamic revolution. The US embassy in Iran at the beginning of the film is under attack because the Iranians are demanding the return of the corrupt, megalomaniac Shah to Iran to answer for his crimes against his people. The film is not biased as it does mention the excesses of the Shah and his corrupt household including his wife that embodied these corrupt excesses by having milk baths as the poverty stricken populace was forced to forage for food like mangy street dogs. Most of the corrupt leaders of the world indulge in these excesses but because the populace is making money they tend not to notice. The protesters break down the barriers of the embassy and force the members of the embassy to burn and shred important documents however amidst the pandemonium six employees at the embassy manage to escape and seek refuge at the Canadian embassy.  It is up to homeland security associated with the CIA to discover a way out for these six whom the Iranian revolutionary guard are actively seeking so as to add to the list of the hostages already captured at the embassy during the rout. One particular CIA member, Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck), who specializes in getting people out of hostile situations such as this, chances upon an opportunity to use the guise of a false film production team scouting for locations as a means to infiltrate Iran and rescue the six employees of the US embassy that are housed as refugees at the Canadian embassy. Should they be found it is possible that they will be executed by the Iranian revolutionary guard. How the guise of the film production is used to get these people out is well executed and filled with taut like suspense throughout  towards the end where it meanders a bit in wrapping up the story.  The plan is thorough particularly  as Mendez along with his supervisor Jack O’ Dannell (Bryan Cranston) has to enlist the aid of a  film producer such as Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), makeup artist John Chambers (John Goodman), the establishment of a fake production company, a press release and the assignment of roles to the six escapees. Mendez seems like a man on a mission, a solitary man who is thorough at his job; so thorough it seems that he has isolated his wife and child. He assumes, at first, an inscrutable position but even he has to deal with the pressure as he too puts his life on the line and has to contend with a particular exiled member Joe Stafford (Scott Mcnairy) of the US embassy escapees who refuses to trust him at first. That relationship between Mendez and Stafford is the best relationship established throughout the film and it is effective particularly in one crucial moment of the film.  This relationship makes the film effective and ensures that it has some dramatic license because had it been merely an historical retread then it might not have been as suspenseful as a result of this relationship. It put some brakes on the breakneck speed or the momentum that the film gathers as the story progresses.

What’s good about this film?

The best thing about this film is the many layers presented and the ability of the director and the screenwriter to condense the historical material in truly entertaining fashion. I admired the means of introducing the film through illustrations documenting the history of Iran which was once the home of the mighty Persian Empire prior to the introduction of the Islamic empire under the Abbasid and Umayyad empires. It also documents the main leaders of Iran during the 20^th century that were able such as Mossadegh who nationalized the oil industry, the corrupt Shah that profited from the surplus extracted by the workers in service to the  American capitalist oil companies and Ayatollah Khomeini who was the face for the Islamic revolution of 1979-where Iran is proclaimed an Islamic republic- when the film begins. Both Jimmy Carter and Khomeini play their game of politics as those on the ground throughout the bureaucracy must put their ideals into action. This is where the film takes place because through the bureaucracy we watch these nations go head to head whereas the other means would be direct military conflict. The storming of the embassy, the escape of the six employees from the embassy and their eventual housing by the Canadian government that receives credit for the eventual escape was all well executed by Affleck and his team. The Canadians were credited with the escape so as to avoid further escalating tensions with Iran which would put the other American hostages that were captured at the embassy in further jeopardy. This is all well executed and explained and so this film can actually serve as a historical document regardless of the dramatic licenses taken and the skewed humour. This can serve as material for historians prepared to examine the diplomatic crisis between Iran and the US during this period. The film itself is not biased because the Iranians are not treated as inferiors but as capable and worthy adversaries and this is why the tension is made evident as the dramatic escape attempt unfolds. As Mendez warns, members of the revolutionary guard were trained in the US and so the third and last checkpoint of the airport would be the most significant hurdle to be faced. There is also a significant scene where Mendez is selling his false B film production to an Iranian official, who must send the documents to the cultural ministry for approval, who says when he hears about the film that deals with aliens and the use of Iran as a location of ‘snake charmers and flying carpets’. This is one of the great references to the Islamic revolution which was essentially a cultural revolution in response to the infiltration of American culture under the corrupt shah who profited by the mass exploitation of the workers in the oil industry by taxing them heavily. The official informs Mendez that before the cultural Islamic revolution most of the cinemas showed pornographic material which was testament to the corrupt American influence which is supposedly democratic.

The portrayal of the B movie industry was also well documented. I liked that Mendez was inspired by the great B movie film The Planet  of the Apes.The reference to creating a Star Wars (1977)rip off is classic. It is classic because it grounds the film within that particular time. The interaction with the elements necessary to get a B movie production off the ground is also wonderful to behold in all its simplicity and directness when film producer Lester Siegel encounters a worthless screenwriter-who he must convince to sell the rights to the film Argo- that delights in creating worthless, forgettable B movies. The creation of the press release and the film production company also demonstrated the level of depth in this film which could only come out of a real live event or a moment in actual historical time. You cannot imagine all of this without the internal logic required to fill gaps in such an exercise. There are some humorous exchanges courtesy of Lester but it is all superficial and only meant to make these characters endearing but it is welcome for those into that sort of thing.

The cinematography on display is magnificent and this film will be nominated in this category. When you see that spectacular shot of Istanbul, Turkey or the shot of Iran as the plane lands into Tehran then you will understand what I am talking about. All of the main characters seem grounded in their elements except Ben Affleck who stands out too much in the fore ground and his acting is not as great as his skill in directing. The art direction is also superb as the film captures a period in time such as the vehicles, the architecture and modes of dress for the late 1970’s and early 80’s.

The fate of the six escaped members of the US embassy is well documented. The sorrow of despair and the joy of hope realized is all documented here and highlights that it is a process that must first be set into motion. This is played out significantly when Joe Stanford initially refuses to cooperate with mendez because he does not trust particularly when Mendez gives him a false name when the two first meet and even admits it simply because he is a CIA operative. This stalls the escape attempt briefly but eventually there is a compromise and the humanity of Mendez as a CIA operative is revealed when he admits his true identity and so bridging the gap. The process where the six refugees have to master their false identities as a Canadian film crew is also absorbing and technically efficient without it being dull particularly when you take into account that mastering this identity is the difference between life and death. We see this in one of the most dramatic scenes where the one at first most reluctant displays mastery in deceiving the revolutionary guard particularly with his knowledge of Farsi.  Most people were sceptical of the plan probably because it was based on a B movie production and such a plan was never executed before. We see this when the plan is scrapped by the secretary of state, in favour of military intervention, and is only executed when Mendez disobeys orders because he refused to forsake his fellow citizens. Had he not disobeyed orders they certainly would have been found out.

We get to understand that these are ordinary people and despite all the corruption inherent in the American system we must sympathise with their plight to some extent. It will be difficult to resist being caught up in the suspense. even the CIA through Jack O' Dannell who must try and negotiate the bureaucracy so as to preserve the livelihood of his soldier in the field of battle. The issue related to the award presented to Mendez near is testament to the complexity of  relations between the US and Iran during this period. This film is relevant in light of tensions between the two countries today. The release of the film is timely in light of the US seeking to infiltrate through  drone attacks and economic sanctions because of fears of Iran's nuclear programme. the film definitely highlights that the Iranians are to be taken seriously. The US cannot invade Iran without serious consequences.

The images of Ayatollah Khomeini and Jimmy Carter loom over this film like great monoliths that are the embodiment of this conflict particularly the former whose poster seems like a truly influential personality without being seen. 

Affleck improves remarkably over his last superficial effort The Town (2010) which barely matches this current film in terms of depth. He is certainly a director to be reckoned with in the future and if he keeps up the good work exhibited here it is only a matter time before he scoops the gong of best director.

The use of Iranian music also emphasized the context developed throughout this film. It blended in seamlessly.

What’s bad about this film?

The only problem with this film is the dramatic license taken with the historical material and so at times it does seem superficial particularly the character of Lester who seems endlessly repetitive and loses all distinction as he becomes caricaturized as a means of standing out ‘Argo go fuck yourself’ becomes a bit stale over time because it does not mean much. When he endlessly repeats this it becomes mind numbing. He loses force as a historical character and while I admit that with fiction one is tempted to take licenses and therefore exhibit the quirkiness of a character it is clear that although this is a movement in time peopled by special characters that made it happen it is still necessary to make them stay grounded. If they are no longer necessary get rid of them or leave it to the final statements. Characters resonate more after they make their impression and leave.

Affleck should stand behind the camera instead of being up front on screen. This would have made the historical document of this film seem more complete and so make the character distinctive without us seeing Affleck front and centre acting. The other characters meld in but not so Affleck although you need a star to push a film like this. This is an example of dramatic license taking centre stage. The character would have been more sympathetic if it did not look like Affleck seeking sympathy from the wife and son which is not as affecting in this film. The return home could have been enhanced earlier by making reference to the return home and so that dramatic license would have been more affecting towards the end. It seems too formal near the end. Affleck tried this in The Town and it did not work and so he needs to work on this element of his story (no it should not be history). The motif associated with the return home is clearly something that Affleck wants to emphasize in his films but it will come in time don’t try and impose it on the film. If he wanted to emphasize the homecoming the character should have been placed front and centre after all the introductory scenes. An external observer could have commented on the urge for man to return home after his sojourn into the wilderness. It would have enhanced the dramatic qualities by being able to point to this ordinary man putting his life on the line for the government and the citizens of his country.  Something like that would obviously seem melodramatic in the proceedings of the actual escape but it is necessary if you want to evoke some emotion. It is difficult and the subtle approach is probably best here but if the audience was able to be cognizant of the sacrifice of this individual then it would be evident and the emotion would come through. It is evident but it is lost to some extent by the escape which is the most engrossing element. Some external comment was required to drive the point home on behalf of Mendez. This is not a major complaint but the family affair seems more like an afterthought and demonstrates the incompatibility with the historical logic demonstrated in this film and the dramatic license that seems imposed from above.

The movie would have seen prosaic had it not been based on historical fact. This demonstrates the value of history because the facts cannot lie and no one can protest its inaccuracy on the basis of the presentation. One would see the film receive lower ratings on the basis that it was a mere thriller had it not been based on a historical event.

The idea was so crazy that it could only be real. Nothing is crazier than real life when it is thrust into your face so expertly.

_________________________________________________________________________________

This is one of the year’s best films