October 27, 2012 - 3:47 pm
On this week’s Poliwood, Lionel and I take a look at Ben Affleck’s Argo and…sing its praises. Is there a lesson conservative filmmakers can learn from this geopolitical thriller? And is Argo historically accurate? Poliwood’s resident former Canadian Lionel Chetwynd interviewed many of the original hostages and heard first-hand what that experience was like.
PJTV subscribers click here; an embeddable version of this week’s show is available at YouTube.
There is one reason I didn’t see the movie, thus endorsing it with my hard-earned money:
1. Affleck.
You’re missing a fabulous show. It’s pacing is exciting, it’s message is pretty clear (at least to me it was), and Affleck kept his politics out of the story and let Tony Mendez’s heroics speak for itself. The film is really a tribute to Mendez. Affleck even shows the role the CIA’s assassination of Iran’s democratically elected socialist president Mossaddegh played in the animus Iranians felt for the Shah and America. John Podhoretz pooh-poohed the reference but it was an important factor. I heard about it often on John Batchelor’s show.
And then (after reading the reviews) I found out they give little to zero credit to Canada *and* it is an Affleck-Clooney project.
Reason 2,3,4,… infinity.
Are you referring to the movie giving credit to the Canadians, or to the reviewers characterization of the film as not giving credit to the Canadians?
The involvement of the Canadians was sort of hard to miss, but then I followed the story when it became public, so I came to the movie with some knowledge of the events. I knew who did what to whom, plus I’d seen Mendez’ appearance on Book TV a couple of weeks ago.
So don’t see the movie if your mind is made up without having seen it. Yours is not an informed position, but it will save you a couple hours and a couple of bucks.
Far be it from me – hardly a drama critic – to disagree with those who are experienced in this arena, but my take is slightly different. Not only does it differ, but it hones on subtle, yet very intrinsic historical inaccuracies – this is where the crux lies – gleaned from those who surrounded its making. And this is hardly a distinction without a difference. Affleck knows his movie making, but can barely fill a thimble, regarding history and geo-politics. As to Islamic nuances, he hasn’t a clue.This is where my take comes in.
http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/10/14/hollywood-liberals-their-cozy-left-wing-political-relationships-protecting-islamic-interests-huma-abedin-plays-ben-affleck-like-a-fiddle-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
While the above is not meant to be a movie review per se-will leave that to others-but it is meant to be a review of another side of the movie, which is a whole lot more insidious than meets the eye.
Saw it last night; damned good (not great) movie. The audience applauded at the end. Righties will be conflicted having to give any credit to Affleck for a good flick and parsing what it meant to be an American serving under Carter. I think that people should see it, not only to be entertained, but to get a sense of how scary life can be under the Imams.
Just think. One day someone will make a factual movie about what actually happened in Benghazi, and the same conclusions will be drawn. “..how feckless [Obama] was; how he was willing to let people die…”.
I wouldn’t spend a penny to see that POS leftist Affleck.