There were plenty of deviations from history noted there, but I didn’t see how any of them diminished the Canadian role.
And you can’t think of any reason why a film-maker might choose to focus on that particular day and a half? :dubious:
I’m picturing a White Star Lines executive, complaining about how no one ever makes movies about their ships that didn’t sink.
No I can’t think of a reason why, because most of it was complete bullshit. The hostages jumped at the chance to be a Canadian film crew, nobody needed any convincing. Moreover the fucking walk through the bizarre didn’t happen, the airport scene never happened so yeah, I have no fucking idea why Affleck shoveled all this bullshit, and then smugly suggested his character saved the hostages rather than the Canadians risking their lives for weeks, some of whom didn’t even get a mention.
It’s because Canadian history is almost as boring as Canadian present, and the filmmaker’s goal was to keep the audience awake.
It was A harrowing time as I recall, this bullshit movie did NOTHING to capture its true essence. It just another fucking narcissistic American who thinks the world revolves around them.
Jesus, some of you need to relax and remind yourselves it’s just a movie. Affleck didn’t shit on a moose and wipe his ass with a maple leaf. I say that as the spouse of a Canadian myself.
Others have already pointed out that the role of the CIA was intentionally downplayed at the time, and the involvment on the Candadians emphasized, to protect Americans still held hostage. On the DVD that just came out, some of the hostages and President Carter talk about the operation without complaining that the movie gave short shrift to Canada. Not to mention that Taylor actually comes off in the film as pretty damn heroic anyway.
The scene at the bazaar never happened. They got through the airport without incident. Who the hell cares? Dramatizing those scenes does no injury to the reputation of Canada in any way, and they make it a better movie.
You’re dreaming if you think there is a “backlash” against Affleck or the movie, considering it’s the most awarded movie and director of the year.
It’s fine if you didn’t like it. I didn’t like Zero Dark Thirty. We have different tastes. But this was a very well-crafted, well-shot, well-directed, throwback type movie that most people really liked without getting all twisted because it dramatized and condensed the events.
Flying Dutchman - Lincoln contained some imagined scenes, and for whatever reason changed some state’s votes, but overall has been hailed as pretty historically accurate.
Honestly, I’m not sure why there isn’t more backlash against Affleck playing the lead character - who was Latino in real life, and I think would have made the events more interesting to watch if they’d cast a Latino actor in the role.
I suppose in the world of factual inaccuracies some are more important than other. My bigger complaint is that Ben simply has poor acting skills.
Yeah, he’s definitely limited in that regard and his biggest flaw as a director is that he casts himself in his movies - but I think in this one he manages to act well enough to service the movie.
Hey, he only got his shirt off once, though there were quite enough lingering close ups of our enigmatic-yet-empathetic hero.
Did I miss his backstory/context or did he just arrive on screen like everyone else?
By hero I’m sure you’re referring to the only *true *hero in the movie - Canadian ambassador Ken Taylor. I don’t recall his shirt coming off though. 
Affleck’s character’s backstory was mainly that he has a family that he’s pretty estranged from due to his constant travelling (so he’s very busy in this job), that he’s done this a lot of times before without ever leaving someone behind, and that he’s worked with John Chambers (Goodman) on previous missions. He’s also a master forger.
I agree about Affleck casting himself - The Town was a great movie but he was the weak link in it. As opposed to Gone Baby Gone which was also a great movie, and featured Casey Affleck who is a better actor than his brother. All three were well-directed.
Right. I understand it’s not accurate and I understand that this is well known history in Canada and not so well known in the U.S. I know the movie minimized the Canadian role the same way, say, U-571 played up the work the Americans did at the expense of the British. I am saying it doesn’t matter all that much. It’s annoying when people tout movies as historically accurate and they are not, but they can tell whatever story they want.
Or imagine if they’d done something crazy like making Lincoln a vampire hunter. 
Backlash or not, he didn’t look like a Tony Mendez and his acting was not the high point in the movie.
That bugged me, and so did realizing at the end of **The Impossible **that it was based on the story of a Spanish family.
Hey when your country only does something internationally noteworthy 2 or 3 times a century, you hope they get it right. 
I hear the upcoming Geddy Lee/Rush biopic takes place entirely in Wichita, Kansas.
ETA: Ok, that was obviously a joke but now I kind of want to see what that movie would be like.
Truth is Canadians have done a fuck of a lot noteworthy its just the giant next door likes to take the credit.
You’re mistaken. We’ve never tried to take credit for Bryan Adams or Poutine.
And which Latino would they have cast that had the box office mojo to support a period piece that most of the world doesn’t really care about? The decision to cast Affleck was certainly not purely financially driven, but Hollywood counts beans more than anything in the decision-making process (and foreign box office significantly eclipses domestic box office). I think the decision to cast Affleck – well, Affleck to cast himself – was not a bad choice.
Glib, but missing the point.
Jennifer Lopez, obviously.