Argo: Oscar's Best Picture and load of Hollywoodized B.S./lies?

[The_Squid]

For better or worse, people's conceptions of the past are influenced by media portrayals of it, regardless of whether they're billed as documentaries or not. Is there not something to be said about the Cold War era from the Kubrick's satire Dr. Strangelove or the immigrant experience in America through The Godfather or Gangs of New York? Is there not some bit of real experience that is not being touched upon, despite the fictional characters and stories?

Exactly... Who here thought Apocalypse Now was a great film? And who takes their knowledge of the Vietnam war from that film?

There are many good WWII films as well... Saving Private Ryan for instance. Is it bad that stupid people don't learn about historical events and only get their information from movies? Yes. Is it the fault of fictional film makers? No.

Do you think any of these films influenced their audience to learn more about the actual events? I would venture to say yes.

Ship hits iceberg, ship sinks. Seems factual to me. But everything else

was kind of fluff 'based on true events' but not completely based on

true events.

And the marines killed Osama bin Laden. And there was an Iranian hostage crisis... all factual events! And all the movies had the same sort of "fluff".

[bush_cheney2004]

And the marines killed Osama bin Laden. And there was an Iranian hostage crisis... all factual events! And all the movies had the same sort of "fluff".

Osama was killed by Seal Team Six (Navy), Special Ops Aviation (Airborne), and one K-9 (dog).

[GostHacked]

Osama was killed by Seal Team Six (Navy), Special Ops Aviation (Airborne), and one K-9 (dog).

I guess using a drone would not have been great drama for the silver screen.

[The_Squid]

Osama was killed by Seal Team Six (Navy), Special Ops Aviation (Airborne), and one K-9 (dog).

See? If I watched the movie, I would have learned something factual!!

[segnosaur]

Let's face it, the vast majority of people are going to watch Argo or Zero Dark Thirty rather than picking up a book that outlines the historical facts as much as possible. The result is a populace that has a false, hollywoodized perception of the truth.

That reminds me of a quote from the movie Dogma. An angel has appeared to one of the main characters to pass on a message. He's trying to explain who he is, and talking about various parts of the bible. "Tell a person that you're the Metatron and they stare at you blankly.

Mention something out of a Charlton Heston movie and suddenly everybody is a theology scholar."

Obviously things like conversations have to be fabricated because there's often no record of them, but why mess with the basic facts?

Sometimes the facts don't make for a compelling-enough story. Or sometimes there are other practical reasons, such as too much complexity. (For example, sometimes multiple real characters will be combined into a 'composite'.)

Lets say they did make a more factual account of the 'Canadian caper'. Not only would it be less appealing to Americans in general (since it would put less emphasis on American actions), but you'd loose a lot of the tension involved with the fictional confrontations in the airport and market. You'd also miss some of the personal conflicts that can help make 'good drama'. What would be left would be a movie about a bunch of guys hanging out at someones house and then going to the airport. Not exactly captivating cinema.

Not that they couldn't make a good movie based on the real events... just that I can see how it might have suffered as a result. (And I'm certainly not using it as a blanket statement to give all such flawed historical movies a pass... it should be discussed in a case-by-case basis.)

It's dangerous.

Well, it certainly does distort history. Not sure if I'd necessarily label it "dangerous" though.

You're assuming people are smart enough to actually remember many of those fake details. I'm assuming that in a year or 2, when people think back to Argo most people will quickly forget about details like the market scene and will be left will just the broad details... Americans fled embassy during revolution, they hid with Canadians, and got out by posing as a fake movie crew.

[Moonlight Graham]

Is it bad that stupid people don't learn about historical events and only get their information from movies? Yes. Is it the fault of fictional film makers? No.

I'm not arguing that, I'm asking: given the influence these films have, and given that they are often billed as dramatized reenactments of historical events (Argo is billed on its movie poster as "based on the declassified true story"), do filmmakers bear any responsibility for trying to represent the truth as best they can while presenting the facts in a way that is entertaining? Is it ethical for studios to make up absolute BS and misrepresent history, spreading lies and (at times) false propoganda? Filmmakers are re-writing history to make "entertainment" more profitable. Is this ethical, and should consumers demand more of the truth wherever possible (unless a film is purposefully tongue-in-cheek or a satire not attempting to represent an attempt at a "true story" etc.)?

Personally, I'd prefer films based on real events to portray the truth and have filmmakers have to work to present it in an entertaining way rather than them making shortcuts to make a film entertaning by inserting a ficticious car chase or inserting a love interest etc.

[cybercoma]

Do you think any of these films influenced their audience to learn more about the actual events? I would venture to say yes.

More to the point, films can give people a sense of the experience of a particular moment in history that a sterile handling of historical "facts" can't. There is nothing factual about experience; there are only perspectives and interpretations. Hollywood films about history are as much an interpretation of the experience of those moments as any historical monograph.

[Moonlight Graham]

Well, it certainly does distort history. Not sure if I'd necessarily label it "dangerous" though.

How is distorting history not dangerous?

You're assuming people are smart enough to actually remember many of those fake details. I'm assuming that in a year or 2, when people think back to Argo most people will quickly forget about details like the market scene and will be left will just the broad details... Americans fled embassy during revolution, they hid with Canadians, and got out by posing as a fake movie crew.

Many times its not just the small details that are false, but main plot points and events. I'm also not asuming people are smart, I'm assuming they're not smart, hence the majority of the masses' reliance on popular media like films to inform their history rather than more credible sources ie; books and newspapers etc. Even if people were smart, it still takes A LOT of work to keep up with the most truthful versions of history and current events (newspapers, books etc.)

Edited February 26, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[The_Squid]

do filmmakers bear any responsibility for trying to represent the truth

as best they can while presenting the facts in a way that is

entertaining?

No. They are not claiming their films to be true.

Is it ethical for studios to make up absolute BS and misrepresent history, spreading lies and (at times) false propoganda?

Yes. It's called fiction and it is made for entertainment, not education.

Filmmakers are re-writing history to make "entertainment" more

profitable. Is this ethical, and should consumers demand more of the

truth wherever possible (unless a film is purposefully tongue-in-cheek

or a satire not attempting to represent an attempt at a "true story"

etc.)?

No, they are making fictional films based on historical events. Like Apocalypse Now.... Letters from Iwo Jima... etc, etc...

Personally, I'd prefer films based on real events to portray the truth

and have filmmakers have to work to present it in an entertaining way

rather than them making shortcuts to make a film entertaning

by inserting a ficticious car chase or inserting a love interest etc.

Then you should only go see those films. But to describe fictional entertainment as unethical and dangerous is a bit hyperbolic.

[Moonlight Graham]

More to the point, films can give people a sense of the experience of a particular moment in history that a sterile handling of historical "facts" can't. There is nothing factual about experience; there are only perspectives and interpretations. Hollywood films about history are as much an interpretation of the experience of those moments as any historical monograph.

I'm not arguing that any re-telling of real events is entirely factual, But some interpretations of events are closer to the truth than others,

[cybercoma]

How is distorting history not dangerous?

How is the very act of writing about or describing history not in itself a distortion of what really happened?

[cybercoma]

I'm not arguing that any re-telling of real events is entirely factual, But some interpretations of events are closer to the truth than others,

Sure, there are facts and there are "facts". To say the US didn't drop the bomb on Hiroshima would just be wrong. That's supported by empirical evidence. However, writing about history is not entirely about a sterile treatment of empirical facts. Understanding the past and people's experiences in their time is not something that can be handled empirically however.

[bush_cheney2004]

How is distorting history not dangerous?

Because it's not...that's why it is called 'fiction', or 'adaptation', or 'based on', or 'inspired by', or.....

Do you know how boring Caligula would have been without some skin ?

[Moonlight Graham]

No. They are not claiming their films to be true.

They specifically put in on their ads "based on a true story" etc. Filmmakers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the credibility of a "true story" but the luxury of editing the facts most any way they want to make it more entertaining. Maybe if you were real person in these films with fake words being put in your mouth and you doing things you never did, you might be singing a different tune.

No, they are making fictional films based on historical events. Like Apocalypse Now.... Letters from Iwo Jima... etc, etc...

No, Apocalypse Now is not "based on the true story". It's a fictional story with fictional characters based in a historical setting. So is Mary Poppins. I never saw Letters from Iwo Jima.

Then you should only go see those films. But to describe fictional entertainment as unethical and dangerous is a bit hyperbolic.

Is a movie "based on the declassified true story" purely "fictional entertainment"? Do you watch "Hotel Rwanda" and think it's all make-believe? Filmmakers have every right to and edit "true stories" in a numerous ways, I'm just asking if it's ethical.

[Moonlight Graham]

How is the very act of writing about or describing history not in itself a distortion of what really happened?

There's a difference in any re-telling of real events being a distortion of reality, and somebody purposefully distorting the re-telling of real events.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm the guy who stays in the movie theatre until the entire film has completed, including all closing credits and disclaimers. If you do this as well, you might see something like this:

"This story is based on actual events. In certain cases, incidents,
characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes.

Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious."

[Boges]

I'm the guy who stays in the movie theatre until the entire film has completed, including all closing credits and disclaimers. If you do this as well, you might see something like this:

"This story is based on actual events. In certain cases, incidents,

characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes.

Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious."

I bet you also completely read the terms and conditions of your auto insurance or cell phone contract.

It's not like I think Ben Affleck should be charged with a crime. I just think it's a douchie move. I like historical movies but I don't want to watch this one.

Argo was the subject of the Editorial in today's Sun.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/02/25/canada-snubbed-in-hollywood-ending-2

As Carter told CNN prior to the Oscars, while "90% of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian," the film "gives almost full credit to the American CIA.

"The main hero," said Carter, "was Ken Taylor, who was the Canadian ambassador who orchestrated the entire (rescue) process." But, hey, that's show business, right?

What irked us even more, however, was Chris Terrio, who won the best adapted screenplay for writing the Argo script, giving no shout-out to Ken Taylor but a huge one to Tony Mendez, the real-life CIA operative played in the movie by Ben Affleck himself.

But, that said, it gave Affleck both a script and an acting role that was too good to be true..

[bush_cheney2004]

I bet you also completely read the terms and conditions of your auto insurance or cell phone contract.

Correct.....I read all the fine print. When it comes to a motion picture, much information is disclosed in the credits and additional content may be included (out takes, bloopers, etc.). A lot of work goes into film projects, and the "little people" are credited at the end. A member mentioned Letters from Iwo Jima above and anybody who walked out 'early' would have missed lots of content as part of the credits.

It's not like I think Ben Affleck should be charged with a crime. I just think it's a douchie move. I like historical movies but I don't want to watch this one.

I think Bennie can handle such criticism.....all that money eases the pain.

Argo was the subject of the Editorial in today's Sun.

President Jimmy Carter is not the best source for such clarification given the topic.

[August1991]

Because it's not...that's why it is called 'fiction', or 'adaptation', or 'based on', or 'inspired by', or.....

Do you know how boring Caligula would have been without some skin ?

To my knowledge, there was no "skin" in Argo.

For me, it was the ridiculous car chase on the runway in Tehran at the end that turned Argo into an absurd movie. (I think that Charlie Chaplin asked: "Why do we have to end every movie with a car chase?")

----

As it happens, I've been to Tehran, been to the Canadian embassy, been to the homes of Canadian diplomats in Tehran (admittedly once the embassy was re-opened). The movie is entirely fake. Fake like the scene in Casablanca when Bogart/Bergman go for a drive in Paris.

Argo entirely misrepresents Iran, Iranians and Iranian bureaucracy. The exterior of the Canadian Embassy sort of looks like the depiction in the movie.

I overlooked all of this fakeness (to my eye) because it was a Hollywood caper movie. But when Argo portrayed the car chase on the runway, Chaplin-style, it crossed a line IMHO. This is Keystone Kop comedy, I thought.

----

Nowadays, people can watch "The Best Years of Our Lives" and while dated, they can see its basic truths. In 50 years or so, when people watch "Argo", they will view it as best a joke - a parody of reality: a Keystone Kop comedy.

Edited March 4, 2013 by August1991

[segnosaur]

Well, it certainly does distort history. Not sure if I'd necessarily label it "dangerous" though.

How is distorting history not dangerous?

When I hear the term 'dangerous' I assume it means that there is a risk of actual harm.

Yes, its unfortunate that some people will get a distorted view of what happened. (Again, that's assuming that people actually remember the incorrect details.) But the incident occurred several decades ago, and isn't something that's directly relevant to current events. I can't see (for example) Canada declaring war with the U.S. over the issue, nor international relations changing over incorrect depictions of the events. Furthermore, anyone who's view of events was changed from the depictions given in the movie wasn't likely to be involved in political science and/or historian anyways.

So yes, some people's knowledge of the events was distorted, but the ultimate 'harm' would likely be minimal.

They specifically put in on their ads "based on a true story" etc. Filmmakers want to have their cake and eat it too.

Well, I guess the issue is the use of the phrase based on a true story, the key part is the term "based on".

If you've ever seen the movie "Changeling" (about a woman in the 20s who's child goes missing, and the cops return the wrong child but nobody believes her) they actually use "the true story" (not just "based on"), because the writer took a lot more effort to get the details just right. (The writer actually included newspaper clippings from the time with the script to show just how real the story was.

So, lets take a look at what the story got right:

- The Iranian embassy was overrun (and the movie did point out there was American interference in Iranian politics previously)

- 6 Americans did hide out with Canadians

- A plot was hatched to get them out by posing as a film crew (complete with scripts, storyboard drawings, etc.)

- The CIA did have involvement in getting the people out

- The extraction was successful

- I should also add that I think it did a successful job at portraying the emotions and political situation at the time

To many people, that's close enough to be given the label "based on a true story" (as opposed to the label "THE true story")

Lets take a look at some of the things the movie got wrong:

- Fake events added (to add drama/tension)

- Less credit given to the Canadians (as well as workers for embassies at other countries)

- The details of the lives of the Canadians when in hiding was altered

Maybe if you were real person in these films with fake words being put in your mouth and you doing things you never did, you might be singing a different tune.

Have you ever seen the movie "The Blind Side" (based on the true story of a white family that adopts an African-American teenager, who then goes on to play football.) The real Michael Oher complained about how he was depicted not knowing football before he was taken in (in fact he had already played football before); but his adoptive parents basically told him "suck it up... sometimes the story is more important than the details" (to paraphrase).

[GostHacked]

I'm the guy who stays in the movie theatre until the entire film has completed, including all closing credits and disclaimers. If you do this as well, you might see something like this:

"This story is based on actual events. In certain cases, incidents,

characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes.

Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious."

Well, people think a lot of this 'reality tv' is real. Thanks Hollywood.