I hadn’t ever heard that angle. I’m certainly willing to entertain it though.
Thanks.
*Argo *is a pleasant, low-key movie of the sort that Hollywood used to grind out every week. Sure, its history has the accuracy of *Django *but in films history is like scenery: you show the best view through a window even if that means the sun rises in the west.
*Lincoln *was a work of art. Art in one of the older senses, a work of great sweep, technique, and accomplishment that elicited complex emotion from its audience. Art does not mean unflawed; it’s the sum of the greatnesses that count.
I’m trying to keep calm and rational here, but inside I’m seething. How can anybody look at *Argo *and *Lincoln *together and put *Argo *higher? Have we all gone collectively nuts?
Well, not all. I agree with what DMark and a lot of others here say. Especially about the part where we look back in a few years and ask what was in the water.
Amongst very, very, very much else, I was impressed how the airport ticketing terminal updated, before the WWW/Internet came into the public domain. Still, they got the clothes right.
This, a thousand times this.
I liked how nobody on the Iranian side figured out radio or phone technology.
… We must drive to the airport to stop those passengers!
… We must run to the control tower to stop the plane!
… We must drive like maniacs to stop the plane!
… It’s taken off! Too bad there’s no way we can communicate with the pilot to turn the plane around! 
FWIW, while I agree Argo wasn’t the best film of the year (or of the nominated - Lincoln was), this win doesn’t bother me as much as the extremely pedestrian Oscar-Bait extraordinaire The King’s Speech winning over The Social Network, Inception, Winter’s Bone, or even 127 Hours back in 2011.
Though Colin Firth probably deserved the B. Actor award. Maybe.
I think Argo was quite good. My choice this year would have been Life of Pi, which I thought was utterly fantastic. But I also realize it wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea (esp the religion parts of it), so I understand why it didn’t sweep everything.
I have no problems with people who say that Argo wasn’t a fantastic film. I don’t completely disagree - but I will add that this was a year of many very, very good films but none that was completely amazing (my caveat: Life of Pi, but like I said not everyone agreed). So in a year of above-average nominees, an above average film won.
Didn’t they try calling the tower with no answer?
Does anyone else have trouble with “Based on a true story” movies? It always seems like the filmmakers are cheating. I’m interested in the story “Argo” tells, but the movie itself is not true.
Yes, I know that parts have to be fictionalized since no one can know or remember exactly what was said or done and when. But as I’m watching, I feel as if I’m being seduced into believing that I’m supposed to believe that what the makers have put on the screen is a depiction of an actual event.
For instance, with “Argo”, the climatic runway chase at the end. The film’s ending wouldn’t have been as dramatic without this, and yet it has no basis in reality. So for the film to have its maximum impact, I feel like I’m suppose to appreciate that it is “Based on a true story”, yet it uses completely untrue constructions to create this impact. I was excited by the climatic chase, but felt deceived when I later learned that it was an untrue part of the true story.
Like “true story” films themselves, I’m conflicted.
No, they had to run along corridors. With flat feet, making lots of noise. It was that original.
The sad thing is that IRL there was no chase, but the plane did get delayed due to technical faults and in that time the Revolutionary Guards arrested someone sitting near the group. That would have been much more gripping.
As it is, while Argo would not have been my choice, I find some of the criticism s and explanations for it’s win wrong headed. It’s not like Crash it won the Golden Globes and BAFTAs as well as SAG. Those could not have been due to Afflecks snub.
I’m pretty sure they did use the phone/radios when it made sense. But I haven’t seen it since it came out last year so I might be misremembering. I’ll have to pay attention when I re-watch it.
As far as not using the radio to call the plane back, it was a SwissAir flight. They would not be any obligation to turn around. That’s why the cars were sent out to stop the plane.
No, there’s nothing wrong with changing real-life events to tell a story. Fiction kind of wouldn’t exist without that. Where it gets awkward is how all of that is presented, and yes, people who make movies usually make it sound like their stories are much closer to real life than they actually are. With Argo, that showed in the way they gave the CIA almost all of the credit while minimizing what the Canadian government did as well as in the ending. At the risk of a hijack, I think I’m less bothered by the fictional elements in Argo than I am by the fictional elements in Zero Dark Thirty, where the filmmakers went even further overboard in insisting everything was true to life and that they were just presenting the facts.
I have not seen the film…
From CNN opinion piece “With ‘Argo’ win, Hollywood air kisses itself”: link
Man… I thought I was cynical. 
I agree that it sounds unlikely. FWIW, though, Jimmy Carter and the official accounts from the CIA and Mendez all concur that this happened.
Carter also concurs with Taylor that the operation was 90 percent Canada and 10 percent US, but it’s not clear where, specifically, they disagree with Argo’s characterization. I don’t think they’re suggesting that the Canadians conceived of the movie idea or set up the Argo backstory; if that were true, they’d be saying that the CIA and Mendes are lying, not just that the movie is inaccurate. Taylor made a point of saying that the CIA was only in Iran for a day and a half, which seems to say that the movie focused too much on the extraction and not enough on the danger faced by the Canadians in harboring the American escapees.
If that’s the basis of complaint, then I think that’s fairly narrow. The movie certainly makes clear that the Canadians were acting heroically and that the Ambassador was placing himself and his family in personal danger. Affleck could have devoted more screen time to the period of confinement, but not doing so seems like just an artistic choice (and a defensible one, in my view), and not a distortion.
Certainly, Taylor may have something else in mind, but if so, I don’t see that he’s really set forth what that is.
When you want to sell “The Last Temptation of Christ” in Peoria, you better make Jesus an American.
My theory is that it’s karmic balance for War Horse having been nominated at all.
Seriously, though, I think Argo may have been perceived as the younger, hipper choice, despite being set in the 1970s and in its own way hokier than Spielberg (usually a strange place to be ;)). There’s also a certain talking-dog aspect to Affleck – his, well, workmanlike acting makes it seem like that much more of a marvel that his movie-making skills are good at all, even if not the best.
There were more than just a “few facts” distorted in the film, and it sort of made the Canadians look like they were the bit players. That just pissed me off. Affleck will have to apologize for the inaccuracies for a long time. I guess having a pal like Clooney as a co-producer doesn’t hurt in Hollyweird.
Lincoln or Life of Pi- far better films.
He doesn’t have to apologize. That’s a strange thing to say about a very good (but historically inaccurate) movie.
Then why did he say what he said at TIFF? He “wishes” he could put people in the story but they ran out of time? pft.. When a former President says it’s totally inaccurrate, when American hostages who were there says its wrong to leave key people out of the story who were the real heros, then it’s not even based in fact. Poetic license is one thing, screaming untruths is something else. An okay movie that turned into a cartoon at the end isn’t good.