There are films that simply should not be made, and this is clearly one of them. The historical context in which a work of mass communication is created and distributed should be taken into account by morally responsible artists. It rarely is.
Bryan Cranston. and Affleck (as Mendez).
By Patrice Greanville
FILM BLITZ REVIEWS: ARGO [2012]
Ben Affleck’s latest actioner using the Iran hostage crisis as a backdrop may hit the mark as a thriller but misses the target big time by serving as a propaganda vehicle for US war in that region.
Synopsis
Already hailed as one of the year’s best, Argo is a 2012 American political thriller film directed by Ben Affleck (and co-produced by George Clooney, whose fascination with shady intel ops and Middle East intrigue is rather notable). The film is loosely based on a true story, CIA “exfiltration expert” Tony Mendez’s account of the rescue of six U.S. diplomats from Tehran, Iran at the height of the 1979 “Iran hostage crisis”. The film stars Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin and John Goodman. The film is scheduled for release in the United States on October 12, 2012.
What’s so bloody wrong with this film
TIMING
Appearing in late 2012, prior to the US presidential election, and in the midst of an all-out propaganda campaign to demonize Iran and take America to war against that long-victimized country (a stealthy dirty war of sabotage and assassination has been waged against Iran for quite some time now by NATO assets and the Mossad, with probably ample support from the Gulf royal mafia), the film can only add fuel–what else–to the flames. This film, under the guise of a thriller, can only exacerbate anti-Iranian feeling in America and elsewhere, and, in passing, perhaps as an unwitting bonus, give the sinister CIA a cuddly wink of approval. Which is exactly what you’d expect from nincompoop liberals like Affleck and Clooney.
MISDIRECTED TALENT
As film-makers Affleck (just check out The Town, a taut, absorbing heist thriller he helmed in 2010) and Clooney (Good Night, and Good Luck, Syriana) are on solid ground. Their acting, producing and directorial chops command respect and they are still maturing as artists. Unfortunately the same can’t be said for their political vision, or shall we call it…tact? For what kind of self-indulgent blindness causes otherwise smart individuals like Affleck and Clooney to suddenly become oblivious to the possibly harmful social and political repercussions of their work? We’re not talking here about being blind to issues like widespread hunger or gay rights violations, which, as card-carrying centrist liberals, both vociferously (and correctly) agitate against. With vehicles like Argo they’re messing with international politics, with the laws of the universe…entering the sphere of grand propaganda, and serving as clueless handmaidens to US foreign policy, especially when they clamor for intervention for “humanitarian reasons” in Libya, Syria, Darfur, etc. (the latest Hollywood fad), thereby providing cover for Washington’s own criminal agenda in precisely those regions. Clichéd as it sounds, as far as the ruling cliques are concerned, if Hollywood liberals didn’t exist they’d have to be invented.
BAD CELLULOID
Argo is bad cinema. Not qua technique, nor acting, nor any of the many other categories by which a complex work like a film is normally judged. Argo is bad because it is a toxic social product. By raising still higher the probability of a horrendous war in the Gulf, by glorifying what Western intelligence agencies actually do in our name, Affleck and Clooney are not doing us any favors, and no amount of entertainment can justify such undertakings. If they really sat down and thought about it perhaps they might finally get it, but I doubt it. Insulated, privileged creatures like big Hollywood celebs are largely immune to the deeper political truths that define the planet’s current dilemmas. In any case, whatever Argo’s cinematic value, this is a film to avoid. Political obtuseness, artistic vanity, or worse—witting complicity with the forces that are bringing this poor world to a tragic end—are not to be rewarded.
Of course, as usual, I probably am pretty much alone in thinking this way.
Media critic Patrice Greanville is founding editor of Cyrano’s Journal Today and The Greanville Post.
14 comments
Nope, dear editor in chief and film editor, you’re not alone. I got your message tout de suite. And you’re spot on. Like the reverse side of Lily Pad Roll. Even friends and relatives in the USA speak a similar language so the film will probably go far precisely at this time and as you point for the wrong reasons..
It’s very possible that folks like Affleck and Clooney know precisely what they are doing. It could be that the CIA even provided some of the funding for the film. It wouldn’t be the first time. See John Prados’ book, “Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA.”
Sarah Reynolds, Santa Fe
Good tip. I read passages of SAFE FOR DEMOCRACY and it’s an eyeopener. The CIA does little or nothing fr the ordinary citizens of America. All their focus is on keeping and expanding the power of the global capitalist elites. Alex Cockburn once said they should be called, the “Capitalist Intelligence Agency,” in keeping w. truth in advertising.
No, you certainly are not alone in your thinking. Your post is on the money. I am absolutely horrified. Ben Affleck is a dangerous dunderhead. Iran, as you rightly pointed out, has been demonized for decades by the US government and this movie will help that propanganda even further until it is spoken of as a truth by the masses who go to see it. If only the US government had known how easy they could push through their agenda with Mr Affleck and George Clooney as their weapons of Mass destruction.
Thanks, Vera, for your very kind words of support. Mighty glad to have you with us.
—P. Greanville, Editor
When I saw this preview in the theaters, all I could think about was something my father told me. He said, “When our government or military is planning to start a war, they start putting out little hints or kind of warming up the public to the idea.” I don’t think that is exactly what he said, but basically. This movie seemed to fit this purpose so well that it made me wonder if Affleck wasn’t personally approached by the CIA and asked to direct the film.
We notice with disgust that this movie is already receiving the super blockbuster treatment. Affleck is doing the rounds of all the major TV channel and networks.
Like others already said : You are not alone. Thanks for all these statements and this great article. Sorry for my english as i am french. Here too a lot of propaganda is delivered. Good news is : our stars are so bad ( in acting or as writers) that nobody cares…but still it’s the same propaganda unfortunately…
Delia Tremont-Vaughn says:
Agree entirely with preceding comments. And Mr Greanville is quite right in calling ARGO a toxic social product to be avoided like the plague. I certainly will no matter what the incestuous Oscar crowd says.
In fact I want to see the liberal bunch behind ARGO explaining their participation in this concoction when the bombs start dropping for real all over the Middle East and central Asia and who knows where else as a result of American/Israeli meddling in the region…soon after the next election.
Like many Americans and foreign observers I don’t think it matters one fig who wins in November: this is a war show brought to us by the US ruling circles, as clearly there is majority consensus for this kind of recklessness, and the whole Mideast has been in their sights for a new-minted form of domination for decades.
A bit late in this discussion, I dare to propose that propaganda flicks are nothing new in Hollywood. A nonsensical and cruel one was Inglorious Basterds depicting Germans as half idiots. One needs only to see a movie like Das Boot to understand that their military suffered equally and with great courage. The modus operandi of Hollywood depends on excessive nationalist self glorification which to me at least points to a deep national self doubt. But it sells and thus Hollywood totally lacks any insight in or shame about itself. Whether it is Uris’ Exodus or Saving Private Ryan, its many products feature immature heroes who can overcome any alien malefactor. It truly is part of a national myth based in fact on guilt. Guilt about our prosperity and guilt about our feelings of superiority. It is clearly seen too in cathartic movies about the South like A Time to Kill. But as Dylan sang: Because something is happening here But you don’t know what it is Do you, Mister Jones ? I would of hand bet that this insidious new adventure flick Argo will do quite well in Iranian cinemas.
No matter the entertainment value, Afleck’s Argo is pure propaganda, just in time for US elections and for the final escalation of the coming attack on Iran. I was present in Tehran in those times. The film does not attempt to reflect the revolutionary passions at work and makes of this peaceful people a warlike nation similar to the USA. Iranian students attacked the US Embassy as an act of frustration against US influence pervading Iran since the CIA overthrew PM Mossadeq in 1953 and installed the frivolous but bloodthirsty Shah into a society of total apartheid between rich and poor.
I had never witnessed such a display of fabulous wealth at the top of the mountain of Tehran, of an elite’s whose sewage ran down open ditches along the streets to the poor quarters below, while the torture chambers at Evin Prin were full, in times when the air among a great student population smelled of revolution, real revolution, despite the Shah’s troops alternately firing on the crowds or jumping down from their trucks and joining the revolutionaries, a revolution that would not be averted by a regiment of US Marines as was popularly said among the rich.
It is no excuse that Argo is fiction; it will be viewed as current reality. One wonders who financed this film–CIA, Israel? Moreover it is emblematic that it was filmed in Istanbul not Tehran, whose people, landscape, bazaar are as different as New York City and Miami, symbolic of the intellectual lie of the film itself.
____
NOTE: GAITHER STEWART’s latest novel, LILY PAD ROLL, examines the stealthy extension of US military power across the world, the constant warmongering against Iran and similar nations in the crosshairs of American politicians and ruling circles, and the very questionable if not downright criminal objectives of US foreign policy.
I don’t know how many people will see this comment, but I urge everyone to go to the Internet Movie Database website (imdb.com) and give this film a one star rating. Also, consider writing a review and don’t forget to “like” other reviews critical of this propaganda film.
I find the critics panning this film disgraceful. What do you expect? That Affleck should have labeled it as a “documentary”? Get real.
That something like ARGO is not billed as a documentary is hardly good enough. YOU may know the real history between Iran and the US but I bet the vast majority of Americans don’t have a clue. And the same goes for the CIA which, while the subject of lots of espionage thrillers (think The Bourne series, for one) and movies depicting it as largely a force for international evil, a tool not for American security but mostly to advance the agendas of huge corporations, or unaccountable plutocracies, is still pretty much ensconced in American culture as an “above ground” and legal outfit instead of the mafia it really is.
So, yes, it is the timing and the content, both, that damage this film, whatever its claims to artistry it may have in other areas.
Also, I disagree that in America’s doctrinal system—2012—there’s such a clear labor separation between Hollywood and “the media”, since all major mass communications systems are owned by the same corporations and people at the top, and therefore carry water for the same 0.0001% disseminating the same narratives. Have you ever thought why we are in such a horrendous mess? Because our public is so well informed?
The occasional well-meaning deviations and touches from the status quo-buttressing script have no chance of turning the tide of disinformation and encrusted ignorance, and really there are no true left filmmakers reaching the masses with regularity. ARGO does not provide an exception to this rule.
Thus, when it comes to the great myths propping up a clearly antisocial system, practically all major sectors of the infotainment industry sing the same tune.
Lastly there is no law for “artists” in Hollywood to make only escapist or “artistic” films devoid of proper social or political comment. Many fine people have tried their best down the years to educate the public using themes that both entertained and informed. Such careers of course usually don’t have a long life expectancy in America and must conform to the money imperative, which further restricts the clarity of their message. Thus, at best, the outer boundary for most liberals (think Oliver Stone, for example) is to present social crimes as originating in flawed individuals, rarely locating the problem in an entire system of social and economic relations.
While not all art is moral, all great art has a moral dimension, a moral core. That goes for movies, novels, paintings and so on. In that sense a good movie is always welcome, but doubly so when its content is morally uplifting in the political sense. Conversely, when a film, wittingly or unwittingly, reinforces a propaganda theme leading the nation and the world to a cataclysmic war, that film must be criticized above and beyond its artistic claims.
Your implicit acceptance of the Hollywood status quo with its primacy of commercial values at a time of global crisis for humanity and the planet is an acceptance that needs urgent reexamining.