The Torontonian Reviews: Argo

Ben Affleck’s Argo does a decent job in dramatizing the now declassified reality of the so-crazy-it-might-just-work resolution to a little-known side story to the 1980 Iranian hostage crisis. Affleck’s attention to detail and production values are high, but issues occur in his stretching of the narrative for edge-of-your-seat cheese.

Based on the true, outlandish story of the successful exfiltration of six Americans pretending to be a Canadian film crew to avoid capture, Argo is a well-made film, but at times is false and inflated. If Affleck’s third feature were a cartoon, it would be an feature-length, big-budget episode of “Scooby-Doo”: that is, if Scooby and crew were ever involved in a hostage crisis on the world stage. Affleck’s Tony Mendez plays the role of Shaggy, albeit a more responsible incarnation; the six stranded Americans adopting the various roles of The Mystery Gang. (Speaking strictly visually, the coincidence of this comparison is uncanny. They even drive a van with a striking resemblance to the Mystery Machine.)

Argo is steeped in accomplished camerawork, excepting issues with motion blur from some overambitious tracking shots through and around CIA offices. These offices are where Bryan Cranston’s bulldog government official shines. As we’ve seen from “Breaking Bad,” Cranston is the best thing about Argo; his performances coming and going far too quickly. Argo‘s first act also has some welcome comic relief, though this produces the unintended effect of the film feeling like two separate movies. Jokes relating to the facade of Hollywood and the film industry at large are funny at first, but it does not take long for them to grow tiresome.

The Scooby-Doo image works, I think, because Argo is paced with devotion to the short attention span. Affleck employs far too many photo finish coincidences and “just-made-it”s that are distinctly invented for show, dragging the seriousness of this true story adaptation down to the depths of Hollywood hackery. (Ironic, really, as much of the jokes in the opening reels relate to this very frustration.) Artificial extensions in these types of movies are inevitable, but Argo’s are repetitive and lame. The Hanna-Barbera contrivances are unnecessary here, as the story is tense on its own merits. This could have been avoided with better dialogue.

I understand this is a must, to some degree. It’s a given that most audiences know how this story ends, assuming Affleck is sticking to the “script” and assuming moviegoers have access to Wikipedia. It’s only natural that the film tries its hardest to maintain a steady level of adrenaline. I get it. For the first few times, anyway, or at least until we run out of eyes to roll.

Somehow, this movie will get a pass. Not from me, but from others – despite these artifices which are hard to ignore. Take, for example, a moment at the Iranian airport, paraphrased for your amusement: “Sir, our system shows you have no tickets,” an airport employee says to Mendez and co. “Can you just check again, please?” Mendez replies.

Cut: the scene jumps across the world, back to the offices of the CIA; its agents scrambling to make miracles happen. They activate the flight and the boarding passes in record time. “Our apologies,” the employee says, looking at the updated records again. They pass the first gate. Shaggy and his gang have made it through another checkpoint. If only it weren’t for those meddling Iranians!

…which reminds me; it would be remiss to not discuss Argo‘s uncomfortable issue of bias. It sounds obvious, but the film portrays Iran very poorly; incessantly hammering home the seriousness of the conflict through loud, angry mobs. I’ve never been to Iran, nor was I alive to see this event unfold in real-time, but Argo seems anti-Iranian to a fault, going out of its way to show 99% of the civilians of the country as savages. I wish I didn’t have to type that word, but at times Argo plays like a zombie horror flick; with hordes of men and women clambering for blood and chanting “Death to America”. Where are the rational, sympathetic Iranians in this film? Are we supposed to believe Sahar, the Canadian ambassador’s housemaid, fulfills a “civilized” quota? Perhaps, but her character is shaky and her motives unsure. If she is Affleck’s solution to this problem, then Sahar is a failure of an antidote.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 
•