Argo (2012) Any excuse for its historical revisionism?

I watched Argo this morning and although its a good entertaining film its lack of historical accuracy is shocking. Only at the end as a postscript does it allude to the decisive Canadian involvement in the rescue of the American hostages in Iran. Taking the film at face value it appears that the whole victorious exercise was the sole work of the CIA. This is nearly as bad as that shameful piece of revisionism U571. Also in the film a CIA operator states that the 6 hostages went to the British & NZ embassies first and were turned away. Wrong wrong wrong! The Brits actually sheltered them for several days and the hostages only moved on to the Canadian embassy as they would have been more plausible there due to the similar accents. Also no mention is made of the New Zealand embassies help in transporting the 6 Americans to the airport. Is it ever justified to edit history in films that are based on true stories? IMO there was enough drama in what actually happened to still make a great film. Shame as Ben Affleck if he stuck to the facts could have made one of the best films of the past 20 years, a real classic that would have truly deserved the best picture Oscar. A film that the United States and Canada could both be proud of.

__________________
ZX65 on Playstation Network

I would say Argo is one of the most overrated movies of the past 20 years... How could Ben Affleck be worried about historical accuracy if the movie is about his own self pity?

I think that often times even the news is inaccurate; people even get the truth wrong when they're reporting about an event they were part of. When I watch a movie "based on a true story", I just take it with a grain of salt and enjoy the show.

Yes but surely if a film is based on historical events with named people who actually took part in the events depicted then the film has a duty to be as correct as possible.
Would a writer and director of a biopic take massive liberty's and changed that persons background/events etc?
If they want to make **** up then do just that and write an original fictional story.

It's not like Americans know the actual story anyway, but I've always been a stickler for historical accuracy in event or person-specific films that assume the role, so yeah, I know not to bother watching Hollywood historical films anymore

That's true, but I'm sure thousands of other movies have done the same thing so I wouldn't pick on Argo. It doesn't bother me because I don't expect a movie to be completely accurate. I definitely don't think you're wrong; it's just not something that hinders my personal enjoyment of a film.

I'm British and I am disappointed about the part of the film where a CIA operative says 'The British embassy turned them away' as in the real event the British embassy did not. I can understand that by skipping those scenes it tightened up the pacing of the film but ultimately that false statement didn't need to be in the script at all, so why include it?

I don't see why what country someone lives in matters; in this day, everyone has access to the same research. I just don't 100% trust everything I hear or read anyway.

I was more saying that most viewers will just take it as is without questioning it

Yea, you're right about that.

And in that quote lies my point. The falsities in this film could then be taken as historical fact.
Anyway its just a Hollywood piece of 'entertainment' but when making films about world history, be it political or social, keep it accurate.
Otherwise you will have films that are designed solely to evoke an emotional response and not inform its viewers.

Ok....lets talk about U571.







Only joking

It is a fair point, and it's also so very common. Maybe it doesn't bother me because I'm too skeptical, meaning that I don't take much as fact anyway.

I'm skeptical as well but I'm not opposed to art being more informative. Can you imagine if video games were re-concieved as educational? Tons of people would be more knowledgeable.

And well you shouldn't, especially when watching movies because they're pretty much all historically inaccurate. They've all got an agenda.

Despite the origin of the story, Argo is just that - a movie. A fictional piece of entertainment. I don't think filmmakers should be bound to try to teach people about history just because the audience is too stupid to get the concept of creative license. Those looking for a history lesson should read a book or watch a documentary, not a Hollywood movie.

__________________

I always do some research after I watch a movie based on real life. Even if I am familiar with the story there will be details I want to verify. I have to say there are not many where they keep things 100% on the straight and narrow. Depending on how much they change things and what they change determines whether it bothers me or not. Argo bothered me, and I do think the movie was pretty over rated. It was the finale that bothered me the most though. Maybe the other stuff should have more but it is not like I left the movie thinking the Canadians were awful and God bless the CIA or anything like that.

__________________
Letterboxd

Also, the fact that we could be having this conversation about different news networks or even different history books should tell you something.

I'm looking into writing a screenplay about my life, but I was planning on being killed at the end of the story. So if I follow this through, I guess I'll be guilty of distorting facts. At least I hope it won't be completely accurate.

You could be killed by Sexy, he would love that.

Cool. I hope it gets picked up. I'd like to see David Fincher direct and Joaquin Phoenix star. He looks nothing like you, but that's okay.