Guest commentary by Patrice Greanville reprinted with permission.
ARGO: Ben Affleck’s latest film may whitewash CIA history
By Patrice Greanville
FILM BLITZ REVIEWS: ARGO [2012]
Ben Affleck’s latest actioner using the Iran hostage crisis as a backdrop may hit the mark as a thriller but misses the target big time by serving as a propaganda vehicle for US war in that region.
Synopsis
Already hailed as one of the year’s best, Argo is a 2012 American political thriller film directed by Ben Affleck (and co-produced by George Clooney,
whose fascination with shady intel ops and Middle East intrigue is
rather notable). The film is loosely based on a true story, CIA
“exfiltration expert” Tony Mendez’s account of the rescue of six U.S.
diplomats from Tehran, Iran at the height of the 1979 “Iran hostage
crisis”. The film stars Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin and John
Goodman. The film is scheduled for release in the United States on
October 12, 2012.
What’s so bloody wrong with this film
TIMING
Appearing in late 2012, prior to the US
presidential election, and in the midst of an all-out propaganda
campaign to demonize Iran and take America to war against that
long-victimized country (a stealthy dirty war of sabotage and
assassination has been waged against Iran for quite some time now by
NATO assets and the Mossad, with probably ample support from the Gulf
royal mafia), the film can only add fuel–what else–to the flames. This
film, under the guise of a thriller, can only exacerbate anti-Iranian
feeling in America and elsewhere, and, in passing, perhaps as an
unwitting bonus, give the sinister CIA a cuddly wink of approval. Which
is exactly what you’d expect from
nincompoop liberals like Affleck and
Clooney.
MISDIRECTED TALENT
As film-makers Affleck (just check out The Town, a taut, absorbing heist thriller he helmed in 2010) and Clooney (Good Night, and Good Luck, Syriana)
are on solid ground. Their acting, producing and directorial chops
command respect and they are still maturing as artists. Unfortunately
the same can’t be said for their political vision, or shall we call
it…tact? For what kind of self-indulgent blindness causes otherwise
smart individuals like Affleck and Clooney to suddenly become oblivious
to the possibly harmful social and political repercussions of their
work? We’re not talking here about being blind to issues like
widespread hunger or gay rights violations, which, as card-carrying
centrist liberals, both vociferously (and correctly) agitate against.
With vehicles like Argo they’re messing with international
politics, with the laws of the universe…entering the sphere of grand
propaganda, and serving as clueless handmaidens to US foreign policy,
especially when they clamor for intervention for “humanitarian reasons”
in Libya, Syria, Darfur, etc. (the latest Hollywood fad), thereby
providing cover for Washington’s own criminal agenda in precisely those
regions. Clichéd as it sounds, as far as the ruling cliques are
concerned, if Hollywood liberals didn’t exist they’d have to be
invented.
BAD CELLULOID
Argo is bad cinema. Not qua technique,
nor acting, nor any of the many other categories by which a complex work
like a film is normally judged. Argo is bad because it is a toxic
social product. By raising still higher the probability of a horrendous
war in the Gulf, by glorifying what Western intelligence agencies
actually do in our name, Affleck and Clooney are not doing us any
favors, and no amount of entertainment can justify such undertakings. If
they really sat down and thought about it perhaps they might finally
get it, but I doubt it. Insulated, privileged creatures like big
Hollywood celebs are largely immune to the deeper political truths that
define the planet’s current dilemmas. In any case, whatever Argo’s
cinematic value, this is a film to avoid. Political obtuseness, artistic
vanity, or worse—witting complicity with the forces that are bringing
this poor world to a tragic end—are not to be rewarded.
Of course, as usual, I probably am pretty much alone in thinking this way.
Media critic Patrice Greanville is founding editor of Cyrano’s Journal Today and The Greanville Post.
Well, at least the MEK is no longer on the terrorist list.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K97QZOYhwVk
totally agree with you cindy!!! on point.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was a good film that, due to the current neocon agitation towards war on Iran, should have been released in better times. Given that such a film was released nowadays though, Affleck did include a 5 minute graphic cartoon/film segment explaining the evil CIA/SIS overthrow of Mossadeq and installation of the brutal Shah regime. I thought that was a valuable history lesson that most idiot Americans wouldn't have known beforehand. Affleck's character is also critical of those CIA actions in a scene before the character travels to Iran. There is also a sympathetic Iranian maid character who has the chance to give up the embassy folks to the militants but doesn't.
ReplyDeleteIf a movie of this type had to happen now then it is pretty good. But I agree that it's bad timing.