Argo (2012) R 120 minutes
Based on true story, Gritty, Historical, Political Drama, Political Thriller, Suspense
Director: Ben Affleck
Cast: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Victor Garber, John Goodman, Alan Arkin, Kyle Chandler
A lot/Strong : Language, Violence
Some/Mild : Alcohol, Death, Gore, Nudity, Torture
No : Drugs, Sex
Overall grade: "A-"
The Verdict: "A must-see movie despite the historical inaccuracies and some story unevenness"
Directing: "A", Acting: "A-", Visual Effects: "N/A"
Story Line: "A-", Aftertaste: "A-", Date Movie: "F"
Family Friendliness: "F", Original Concept: "No"
“Argo” is a solidly built, but not always historically accurate drama with the several interconnected plot lines of varying quality masterfully woven together by the little known until now screenwriter Chris Terrio and by Ben Affleck who directed the Movie and was one of the producers.
The Oscar-rumored “Argo” is another successful step in the Mr. Affleck's transition from one of the most unrealized promising young Hollywood actors to one of the most prominent young Hollywood directors, previously known for the well-done “The Town" (2010) and “Gone Baby Gone” (2007).
Frankly speaking, I am very happy that it was Ben Affleck who ended up directing “Argo” Judging from the end result, from the noticeable chemistry between the movie and its director, Ben Affleck turned out to be a perfect choice to direct the kind of a movie “Argo” is.
I am afraid to even think what a disaster could have happened if “Argo” were directed by someone totally unsuitable for the task, like Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich.
While I like “Argo” a lot and even consider it a “must-see” movie, the uneven quality of its intertwined Story lines as well as some relatively easy noticeable historical inaccuracies do not allow me to call this heartfelt movie a masterpiece.
The first plot line is based on the historical events of the Iranian revolution of 1979, from its beginning, to its progression, to its results. While flawlessly executed from the professional perspective and offering the highest level of authenticity in almost every small but expressive detail, the powerful emotional tale told in “Argo” is plagued with the avoidable historical inaccuracies and simplifications. As a result, the movie misses an opportunity to seriously and thoughtfully explore the tragic historical events. That somewhat reduces “Argo” to merely a high quality entertainment piece that just happens to utilize the real life tragedy to skillfully play on our raw emotions provoked by it.
At least, the authors were bold and honest enough to mention that the corrupt, brutal, and functionally impotent Shah regime, overturned during the 1979 revolution in Iran, had been forcefully installed as a result of a military coup d'état organized by CIA together with MI6 in 1953.
To the movie credit, it showed very well how the innocent people, both Americans and Iranians, became victims and ultimately - hostages (both literally and figuratively) of the ignorance and the unhealthy ambitions of their power- and influence-hungry leaders and governments.
The second and the core plot line in “Argo” focuses on the remarkable story of the six American embassy workers. It features the escape from the occupied by the militant crowds embassy building, the difficult time they spent trapped in the Canadian embassy without much hope, and of course the complex and risky rescue operation that even included a fictional movie production company setup in Hollywood.
Just as the story of the Iranian revolution, the hostage rescue story, while well-written, well-directed, and well-acted, regrettably contains some historical inaccuracies. In a nutshell, “Argo” over-emphasizes the role of CIA at the expense of the Canadian and British allies whose role is unfairly distorted and downplayed in the movie.
In addition to the avoidable distortions, the story contains some pretty much unavoidable “enhancements” that I do not count against “Argo”: the added suspense elements absent in the real life story the movie is based on.
Spicing a thriller up with some artificially injected suspense is often a necessary evil as in many cases it is almost impossible to create a watchable, appealing to the audience thriller and keep it fully realistic.
In the story told in “Argo” everything happens at the last possible moment, everything routinely hangs by a thread, and everything requires a little miracle to move forward. The reality, of course, was a little more uneventful and a little less suspenseful.
Unfortunately, the two remaining story lines of “Argo” – the “government agencies” line and the “Hollywood cover up” line are far less authentic, far less original, and far more formulaic and “Hollywoodish” than the hostage rescue mission and the Iranian revolution stories.
Every time “Argo” attempts to reveal how the various government agencies worked together on the rescue mission details, the powerful original story yields to the one big, long cliché that has been shamelessly wandering from one movie to another for a long, long time.
“Argo” did not add anything new or anything even remotely original to the old, well-established, and excessively stereotyped formula that can be easily taken from “Argo” and inserted into any other movie that is in need of some workhorse “government agencies” line. Similarly, it could have been taken from any other movie, even from a “B” movie, or from some outdated TV show, and inserted into “Argo” in an almost unaltered form.
The other quite unimpressive plot line was a secondary in nature story of the CIA operation getting a cover-up in Hollywood. While not bearing much significance in the movie, the “Hollywood cover-up” story has ironically become the most popular, the most well-known by general audience thanks to the movie marketing campaign effort.
It was painful to watch good actors Alan Arkin and John Goodman in this predictable, forced, and unauthentic low farce much more appropriate for a bad TV show than for a gritty political drama based on a true story.
Unfortunately, similarly to the “government agencies” line, the “Hollywood cover-up” line appears to be a large artificial supporting construct without any independent value aside of being a handy plot device.
In a striking contrast with the rest of the movie, this lightweight superficial story does not seem to make even a slightest attempt to seriously explore a captivating topic of the secret cooperation between Hollywood and CIA to save the lives of American citizens.
From the acting perspective, “Argo” is mostly a delight to watch.
The actors who played the hostages were believable in their memorable portrayal of the ordinary people experiencing an immense stress caused by the extraordinary, life-threatening circumstances.
Ben Affleck had a difficult task as well. In addition to directing the movie, he needed to be very careful in his performance as CIA agent Tony Mendez, “Argo’s” main character. The key was to avoid the temptation of playing James Bond, Jason Born, or any other traditional action movie hero at all costs and instead, to portray an ordinary man with an extraordinary courage, honor, sense of responsibility, and unfailing love for the people who need help and protection.
Fortunately, Ben Affleck found all the right accents for his role. As a result, his decidedly restrained, unflashy, but nuanced and powerful performance was arguably the best acting work in the movie.
Bryan Cranston managed to overcome the limitations of his clichéd “boss” character and was good as usual in the supporting role of Jack O’Donnell, Tony Mendez’s supervisor.
Another solid, memorable performance in the movie was by Victor Garber who intelligently played the role of Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor.
Overall, “Argo” once again proves that life is the best story teller. The movie is at its best when it remains close to the historical truth. The further it deviates from the truth, the more fictional elements it adds, the less satisfying, deep, and convincing it becomes.
“Argo” is not a true masterpiece because it can be easily broken into the several components of an uneven quality. Mixing the outstanding scenes with the considerably weaker ones has a negative effect on both the movie watching experience and the aftertaste.
Despite the historical inaccuracies and some story unevenness, “Argo” nevertheless remains a must see movie, and arguably one of the best movies of 2012.
