TV Tropes Org

Forums

Live Action Film:
Argo (2012).
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [32]  1
2

Argo (2012).:

 26 Canid 117, Thu, 15th Nov '12 6:11:54 PM Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
Unfair to Iranians? What did they seize the embassy in 1979 by accident or something? Did they fail to release the hostages for over 400 days because of some wacky goof where the paperwork got lost? I'm all for the whole "Don't demonize other people" thing but what the hell?
"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des Ursins
 27 CPF Mfan, Thu, 15th Nov '12 11:53:44 PM from A Whale's Vagina
I am serious. This is my serious face.
Argo provides the uninitiated Westerner with a crash course in the nature of the Iranian people as if out of some kind of hawkish fairy tale. Not just the regime, the people. In Argo, somewhere amid the exciting escape of six sympathetic American victims, we are treated to hordes of hysterical, screaming, untrustworthy, irrational, bearded and lethal antagonists. Some of them are pivotal characters that advance the plot. Others are just bystanders in seething crowds. It doesn’t seem to matter. The point is, these are the villains.

Yeah, that was totally Argo's fault. It's not like there actually was a violent, hysterical, screaming, irrational, bearded, and lethal mob in real life or anything.

Or more specifically, the Iranians. All of them. There is not one positive Iranian subject in the entire story.

This person has very clearly not watched the movie. For example, there is Sahar, the Iranian housekeeper who refuses to give up the hostages to the revolutionaries.

Would it be instructive to learn more about why young Iranian people were resentful of the United States housing the dictatorial Shah they’d worked to overthrow? Might it be helpful to explain that not all Iranians were Islamic formalists who supported Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini?

They did that! If anything, the film was too harsh towards everyone other than the Iranians. For example, there was no American oil interests in Iran, the coup was Britain's idea.

This is to say nothing of the more incendiary moments, such as that of a barking flock of Iranians stomping on an American flag. Scenes like that are clearly meant to arouse the emotions of a Western audience. And in a fiction-meets-reality kind of kismet, here’s a Hollywood movie that finds convenient kinship – and symbiotic validation – in today’s news cycle, as American politicians hammer away at the message that Iran and its people represent the greatest threat to global peace.

Did he not see the scene where the Americans were doing the exact same thing to show they were Not So Different? And once again: this isn't a racist or inaccurate portrayal, it is simply what happened.

The author of this article is an asshat.
...
 28 3of 4, Sun, 18th Nov '12 8:32:50 AM from Five Seconds in the Future. Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Feeble Turtle Duck
"Would it be instructive to learn more about why young Iranian people were resentful of the United States housing the dictatorial Shah they’d worked to overthrow? Might it be helpful to explain that not all Iranians were Islamic formalists who supported Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini?"

Can than please every movie set in Nazi Germany show the circumstances which paved the way for Hitlers ascension? In a 45 Minute Essay during the movie, pretty please? Beginning with the Treaty of Versailles?

...*rolls eyes*
LMage: NO ONE ASKED FOR YOUR WITCHCRAFT THREE
In fairness, the US is not currently dancing on the edge of a war with Germany. People's perceptions of Iran have serious implications at the moment, so taking more care than usual to deal accurately with the subject is justified.

 30 3of 4, Sun, 18th Nov '12 2:46:36 PM from Five Seconds in the Future. Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Feeble Turtle Duck
The question the author made was not about better historical accuracy. He was asking for a "why the US are at fault for this in the end" in it.
LMage: NO ONE ASKED FOR YOUR WITCHCRAFT THREE
He was asking for historical accuracy, reflecting the facts that 1) Iranian resentment of the US had clear reasons based on US actions (involvement in the coup against Mossadegh and support for the Shah's repressive government, in addition to harbouring the Shah after the revolution) and 2) Iranian opinion was not united, and many who supported the revolution did not support the fundamentalists.

edited 18th Nov '12 3:20:56 PM by WarriorEowyn

 32 Canid 117, Sun, 18th Nov '12 5:03:10 PM Relationship Status: Hello, I love you
He was asking for something that was already in the damn movie. It's like the guy was so intent on being morally superior to the movie that he forgot he has to actually tell the truth to do so.
"War without fire is like sausages without mustard." - Jean Juvénal des Ursins
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 32
 1
2


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy