Argo's hidden message?

Could you guy's help me out on this?

Today I went to see Argo, the best picture of the year. I was astonished! First thing what came to my mind was that this was definitely not any Schindler's List!

As an European I can't fully understand the american movie culture and especially the american foreign politics, so maybe someone could explain me what the purpose of this film.

The beginning of the movie - the occupation of the American embassy was really powerful. And actually everything what was dealing with Iranians and their rage felt really authentic. But then, the goofy CIA agents, clumsy comedy in Hollywood, wooden acting of Ben Affleck - I didn't get it.

I almost suspected that this must be a farce of Hollywood movies - there were fallen letters of the Hollywood sign and everything. Then again maybe there were more hidden messages.

Maybe the whole idea of this film was to show us how the US foreign politics works. How crazy CIA is. How again the politics of supporting any dictator on their side fails and causes the hate of the outside world? Maybe support for shah was the cause and the countdown for 9/11? Maybe this was made to show us, how US foreign policy has failed before during democratic Carter-era, and now again fails during democratic Obama-era? Still today USA is supporting any government which will comply western demands. American government is again provoking hatred with many ways as with drone attacks with severe collateral damage. And how come the main enemy is again Iran?

Could it be that in America the freedom of expression is limited in the same way than during the iron curtain in eastern Europe, that you have to hide the message to get it accepted by the main media?

Maybe the academy knows it well - that is my only explanation for the award.

It's based on a true story. That's what it "means." It may try to make a certain point within those boundaries, but when something interesting happens in real life, telling that story doesn't require a moral or a message in the same way a pure work of fiction usually does.

Yes, I get that, but what was so great about the film that it got awarded?

agree,those things bothered me as well!!

Other than it being extremely well shot, acted, directed, and written? I mean, no big deal if you didn't love it, but it'd have to be pretty bad if you think its winning must suggest a conspiracy, or a hidden meaning of some kind. Especially when that meaning is seemingly at odds with Hollywood's politics in general. If I were looking for secret messages that disparaged Jimmy Carter, this is about the last place I'd look.

Argo won all the awards it did exactly because of the reasons you've negatively highlighted in my opinion.

Not only was it a capable drama that worked well in terms of suspense and kept you on the edge of your seat it times, especially with some of Iranian embassy scenes, but it also mixed the more gripping parts with fun, enjoyable, less serious comedy that offered a good balance. Argo is a film about a film, and as a movie watching experience gives you a fine balance of what makes it so enjoyable to watch movies.

__________________

Quite like Argo

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

That, and its not a documentary. Which explains why the role of the CIA is massive while Ken Taylor is in the background.

Anyway, what i really liked about it was Afflecks decision to use old school film stock. or at least thats what it looked like. The movie felt like it was a Lumet flick from the 70's.

Still scratchen my head as to how he didnt warrant a best director nom.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

What I liked about the film is that, even knowing the outcome, I was still held in suspense by the film and it even had my stomach in knots in some places (like the market "scouting" sequence). And for once, I didn't think Affleck's acting was wooden...he was very low-key in a low-key part...at least that's my take on him. I was very impressed by the whole film. Now I need to backtrack and watch The Town (already have seen Gone Baby Gone).

__________________
"Miss Jean Louise, Mr. Arthur Radley."

That's the condition the sign was in back then.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Ah, I was just informed by Mark, a person I believe to be very knowledgeable of these things:

The Carter administration marked the beginning of the road to 9/11. But Argo is a rare example of the CIA solving a problem rarther than creating one.

If you end up liking The Town, be sure to PM a glowing review of it to WSSLover.

__________________

I've not seen Argo, but I'm pretty sure there isn't a hidden message. Certainly not one that only American's would get due to their being American. However, as to why it won?

1. It's the Academy.
2. It's a film which no one didn't not like. Sometimes that's enough
3. How often does a film the 'quality' of Schindler's List win Best Picture?

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

I take it there's no love lost there?

WSSLover's hate for The Town is at a level that's pretty much pathological. She's also completely incapable of making a coherent argument for why she hates it so much and yet she obsessively posts about it:

http://www.movieforums.com/community...archid=2796834

Argo DOES have a hidden message, however, it is in Siberia and won't be discovered until 2026.

Except Argo has been heavily criticized for heavily bending the facts - especially playing down the Canadian embassy's role in the rescue and playing up CIA agent Tony Mendez's role. Apparently Mendez only spent a day in Tehran.

Also, the climactic ending at the airport was a total fabrication.

The OP's question is clearly rhetorical. I happen to agree that Argo didn't deserve the accolades it received, and it probably has more to do with the USA's (and the West's as a whole) still adversarial relationship with Iran than the quality of the film.

Aye, I'm aware of the creative liberties it took. I (sadly) expect nothing less from movies based on historical events. But liberties taken to increase drama are not the same as liberties taken to fabricate a moral or a message, which is the topic at hand. The relative contributions of Mendez and the Canadian embassy don't bear much relation to the OP's speculation that the film may be about painting the government in a bad light. Actually, just the opposite: playing up Mendez's role gives the U.S. government more credit, not less.