Faking it With "Argo"

Thanks to Roger Ebert and the power of Hollywood hype, the current front runner for the 2012 Best Picture Oscar is Ben Affleck's "Argo." Not trusting that hype for a second, I had to go see and judge it for myself.

So how good is "Argo" exactly? Well, Affleck has managed to make a film about the Iran hostage crisis that acknowledges how complicated and ugly the situation was for all sides, but resolves in a fairly feel-good fashion. His focus is the true story of the Canadian Caper, where CIA operative Tony Mendez, played by Affleck, went into Tehran to "exfiltrate" six U.S. Embassy workers who managed to escape detection by the Iranians, and were hiding out with Canadian Ambassador, Ken Taylor (Victor Garber). Better yet, Mendez got them out by pretending that the seven Americans were a film crew, scouting locations for a fake science-fiction film called "Argo." So while Affleck does wrangle with Mideast tensions and politics at times, mostly this is a caper film with a prominent Hollywood angle, one that has clearly taken a lot of dramatic license with actual events. It's also a far more entertaining and self-assured piece of work than any of Affleck's previous films.

On a fundamental level "Argo" is very straightforward and predictable, hewing to Hollywood formula chills and thrills. It didn't surprise me that most of the really tense climax sequences and last minute complications turned out to be totally invented. Affleck has already taken some heat for downplaying the contributions of the Canadians, skipping over or simplifying major events, and leaving out several instrumental figures in order to emphasize the heroism of Mendez and his colleagues at the CIA. The portrayal of Iran and the Iranians would make my old freshman-year World Literature TA cry, with the amount of Orientalist stereotyping and old tricks like having your antagonists speak loudly and aggressively in a foreign language to up the tension. Even Mendez's complicated home life was fabricated. And do I even need to point out that Ben Affleck doesn't look remotely Latino enough to be playing a man named Antonio Mendez? Affleck does a decent job, but it's a glaring inconsistency.

However, there's no denying that Affleck made most of these changes to the film's advantage, deftly avoiding many of the pitfalls that usually come with this kind of material. At no point are the proceedings ever overly complicated or impenetrable, never resorting to talking heads or torrents of exposition. At the same time, he never lets it devolve into a typical action thriller either. Though incidents were manufactured, they maintain a strong sense of realism and plausibility. After a quick storyboard history lesson on the Iranian Revolution in the opening sequence, actual period newscasts and interviews help to establish how the Iran hostage crisis was playing out, and the response of the American public. He gets the feel of the era right, not just the little details in the art design, but the filmmaking itself. “Argo” often follows the lead of the great 70s political thrillers like "All the President's Men" and "Three Days of the Condor."

My favorite scenes, however, happen during the film's detour into Hollywood, portrayed as delightfully seedy and full of hacks. Mendez needs to create a fake movie and a fake production company to back it, so he goes to celebrated make-up artist Jack Chambers (John Goodman), who helps him to recruit producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) into the plot. Goodman and Arkin inject some wonderful humor and liveliness into the film as their characters help Mendez try to make "Argo," a blatant "Star-Wars" rip-off, look like a legitimate movie. Some of their antics border on farce, but then Mendez has to actually go to Iran and execute the mission, and this is where the movie turns into a real nail-biter, as thrilling and nerve-wracking as any action film this year. I could predict every beat, and every twist, but it was still completely absorbing.

Affleck's direction is superb, especially as he's building the suspense and intercutting between the different players. I love the little moments where the six Americans are simply waiting, trying to pass the time and bury their frustrations. On a cerebral level I knew some of the big dramatics were invented, and didn't find them terribly convincing, but I still got a rush watching them. Even better than the finale were the opening scenes that depicted the takeover of the U.S. Embassy, and the gradual escalation of the attack. There's very little onscreen violence in the rest of the film, but that opening helps keep the possibility of violence very real and immediate throughout.

Of all of Affleck's controversial choices, I think the most controversial may be who gets the final word as the end credits roll. From some grumbling I heard in my audience afterwards, the Iran Hostage Crisis is still a sore sport for a lot of people, but at least this may help them talk about it a little more easily. I was born right around when this took place, and I've rarely heard a thing about the event. In fact, "Argo" is the first time I've seen any kind of dramatization of the Iran hostage crisis, which many Americans seem to prefer to ignore and forget.

Is "Argo" a great film? I don't think so, because it so often chooses to be entertaining over being illuminating or profound. It's a good, solid thriller though, and braver in some ways than I was expecting.
---