I’ve been trying to find time to go see Argo since it was released, but I haven’t been successful. I have a hard time believing it is really better than Lincoln. Of course, historical accuracy is more important to me than the average consumer of Hollywood entertainment, so I am pretty biased against Argo since it isn’t historically accurate in the least. As far as I know, the story told in Lincoln really happened, and happened in much the way it is depicted. That alone makes one movie better than the other.
But, then, Lincoln demythologizes the 16th president, thereby making him greater, and potentially edifying the viewer. Argo mythologizes its characters and sanitizes history, leaving the viewer as clueless as the moment they entered the theater.
And, really, they actually failed to fact-check the opening to the point that they got the name of the Shah wrong? Holy crap.
That’s so pathetic that I’ve lost my desire to see this film. Best Picture, my ass.
I’ve seen both, and, history aside, just as stories told on film, I think Lincoln is clearly better. Why Spielberg wasn’t able to buy himself Best Picture I have no idea. Or, as is often the case, maybe the Academy was just going for feel-good-about-the-US propaganda.
The first five minutes of the film were intended to make sure nobody who saw it had any “feel good about the US” going on.
Their one shot at actual history stepped on the dramatic role of the Americans as white hats trying to escape Iranian black hats.
So you think the Iranian mullahs orchestrated a revolution against the secularizing Shah to install the most medieval, clericalist, Islamist, theocratic regime in the world because they were pissed at America for overthrowing a democratic, secular, leftist one?
Just asking.
That’s not why they executed the revolution. It’s likely the reason they took the American hostages, though. They wanted the CIA to stay the fuck out while they secured governmental controls.
Timeline Islamic Revolution and hostage taking – year 1979
Jan. 16 Shah leaves Iran, at request of PM Bakhtiar
Feb. 14 1st attack on US Embassy in Teheran – Valentine’s Day takeover
Oct. 22 President Carter accepts plea for treatment, Shah enters the US
Nov. 4 2nd attack US Embassy and hostage taking would last 444 days
CIA top secrets revealed from shredded documents
US indebted to Israel’s Mossad as their operations in Africa are compromised
The Mullah’s demanded the return of the Shah for a hanging …
Thanks for this reminder, Oui. Do we know if the Ayatollahs, many of whom witnessed the 1954 coup, viewed the hostages as a hedge against American counter-revolutionary spy work as well?
The working theory is that due to the “snub” of Affleck as Director for Argo by the Directors branch of the Acaddemy, the “industry” voter became a bit of a rally around Argo particularly the actors branch. And it pretty much worked in Argo’s favor. Lincoln was locked out of all awards other than Best Actor (no one could come close to DDL), and Ang Lee beat out Spielburg for “Life of Pi”
Lincoln has much more egregious departure from history than Argo. In Argo it’s the usual chase scene at the end that departs and every viewer pretty much recognizes it as such. Also they’ve added the Allen Arkin character, again for drama, but he doesn’t detract from the John Goodman character who is amazing hence the essential drama is solid the John Goodman character a treat and historical. the way Lincoln’s wrong depiction of the vote on emancipation (CT voted against whereas in real life, at great sacrifice they voted for) and their defensiveness on the insult to CT is a serious problem. CT was the residence of Harriet Beecher Stowe. Do not mess with that.
And that chase scene is actually a bit of a letdown, given the rest of the film was a really good, intense escape flick.
Judged as movies and NOT as history, Lincoln was better, though, I thought.
Heck of a good political drama, factual or not.
And an amazing acting job by DDL.
agree, the chase scene was a let down. DDL is a master. There are other issues with Lincoln, must find the column I read that expressed very well the race situation with Lincoln – passive black ppl waiting to be liberated. but here’s one on the omission of Frederick Douglass
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/lincoln-where-was-frederick-douglass/2012/11
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/therootdc/post/lincoln-where-was-frederick-douglass/2012/11/28/2
12a4e76-3978-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_blog.html
Here’s the link – the link in my comment above doesn’t work.
The movie Glory about the MA 54th is excellent, but also shortchanges Frederick Douglass whose sons signed up for the MA 54th.
Agreed about Glory, an amazing film that few, however, would want to see twice.
That ending is just way too hard to watch.
The ending of Glory was very brave. We’re accustomed to a different conclusion to our military worship stories. Feeding each and every soldier into the maw, and having their universal, useless sacrifices highlight their heroism, was plenty subversive. More subversion, please.
It was the scene between Lincoln and Mrs. Keckley on the front steps of the WH that almost made me cringe and shout where the fuck is Frederick Douglass?
So many wonderful performances, such high production values, and lovely cinematography stuck in a deeply flawed movie.
Bonus points: Argo, which I haven’t seen, will further obscure the extremely fine Canadian TV movie Escape from Iran: The Canadian Caper (1981), which I have, and which tells the story in a far more compelling and humane manner.
Probably not a good idea.
Just saw “Django Unchained,” not because I’m a Tarantino fan and in spite of loathing the trailer but because I heard an African American woman on some radio program that said she like it. If one would like a mash-up of “Unforgiven,” “spaghetti westerns,” the “Gone with the Wind” version of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” and “Roots,” it’s not as bad as it sounds. However, what it’s not is racist. Waltz is very good — but as Tommy Lee Jones can do no wrong for me, I may not be as objective after I see “Lincoln.”
Sometimes the Academy gets it right and sometimes it gets it wrong. (How Green Was My Valley beat out “Citizen Kane” and “The Maltese Falcon” in 1940). How it passed on “Brokeback Mountain” in favor of “Crash” (while at least giving Ang Lee the director’s award) will forever remain a mystery to me. For that matter, “Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon” is a glorious movie. And the The African Queen wasn’t even nominated for best picture. Could boringly go on and on.
Did Zero Dark Thirty get any awards for anything? And was it a good film? I haven’t seen it.
Am waiting for it to hit the discount theater — that way I only complain when a movie truly sucks like “John Carter.” Other than a tie in some category, “Zero …” was shut out. Probably for good reason even if the quality of the movie is good as it has taken on the stench of propaganda and that’s a bit of a sore spot with Academy members that aren’t just old but have long memories.
Off to see “Lincoln” today.
I saw both movies and Lincoln should have won best picture. I wonder if the Academy wanted to “spread the wealth around more.” Also, Argo was a feel good movie. What feels good about Lincoln having to go to such lengths in order to abolish slavery? Of course, it was a huge accomplishment at that time, but some people don’t want to think about a country’s history unless it is positive. As of yesterday, Lincoln had domestically grossed about $50 million more dollars than Argo, so audiences certainly like the movie Lincoln.
You’re all forgetting the fact that Argo places Hollywood industry types and the worldwide mythology of Hollywood itself as necessary ingredients for the mix that rescued these Americans. I believe this was the biggest factor that caused the movie industry to lean its support to Argo. Besides, it continues to be a bad bet to wager opposite a Nate Silver data-driven prediction.
Look, I loved Lincoln. It definitely comes off as more credible than Argo, and incorrectly naming the Shah was an embarassing error, but I was grateful that the film, right off the bat, traced the taking of the Embassy hostages back to the CIA’s support of a coup against Iran’s democratically elected President in 1954, who was executing the taking of Iranian oil fields from foreign companies and nationalizing the industry. This history is understood by all of us, but the average American is NOT aware of it, so the big cream pie Argo’s initial storyline throws at Ike’s decision to use the CIA and the power of Big Oil is something we can all be grateful for. That, and the pleasure of a big, intriguing, suspenseful entertainment.
The average American is probably OK with a coup to stop a nationalization.
Americans are not big on socialism, as you recall.
Is not about socialism or communism, see Saudi Arabia. From the start as California-Arabian Standard Oil Company (CASOC)
in San Francisco to full Saudi ownership of ARAMCO today.
Saudi power will encompass the Arab nations from Marocco to the Persian Gulf and the boundary with the heretic nation of Iran – see my diary later today.
Oil production per country in barrels/day
Americans would be much less OK with our military helping execute a foreign coup to prevent a nationalization if they understood how comparatively little a single country’s decision to nationalize its oil industry impacts world market prices, and if they understood how many of these military misadventures have led to the hatred many internationals feel for us, and how costly the resultant blowback has been in blood and treasure.
How many Americans understand these things? More than pre-Iraq War II, that’s for sure.
I haven’t seen either one but I do know you’ve got it exactly wrong. The historical inaccuracies in Lincoln were much more egregious than the ones in Argo, and there was simply no need, dramatically, for them.
You owe Argo an apology, and Steven Spielberg owes us all an apology.
This is a good write up on the historical accuracy of Lincoln http://barrybradford.com/2012/11/is-the-lincoln-movie-historically-accurate/
I am satisfied. It is a great and important film with lots of lessons to offer 21st century Americans.
Argo is not IMO the better film but I very much enjoyed it. It is historical drama not history. Liberties we taken to make it a better drama and to better tell the message it intended. If it gets people thinking and interested in what geo-politics of the late 70s has to do with today, then I am cool with that.
That said I seriously wonder if sticking closer to the real story, particularly about their exit, wouldn’t have been the better story.
And in any event, Lincoln, Argo, Djinga, Zero Dark Thirty and Flight were all far better movies than we usually get fom Hollywood these days and they were all out at the same time. It has been a long time since I went to any movie in the theater but I saw them all in the lat few months.
Argo is not a bad film. It’s entertaining, but hardly Best Picture material. Some of my issues with it:
Other than that, as I said, an entertaining movie.
Well, most movies are not entertaining, so we’ve already gained a significant concession. As for some of the rest: