Argo

[Mugsy]

I love movies based on true stories.

I guess it depends on one's definition of "true story".

The film ended with a postscript that implied Canadians took credit for the rescue before the CIA's role was revealed.

As posted in the link above and covered on Canadian TV. Apparently, Affleck changed the postscript after it premiered at TIFF and viewers were, not surprisingly, miffed at that.

I remember this event very well; it was huge news and Ken Taylor was a big hero, doing all the talk shows at the time. So to have a "true story" movie made that essentially says the Canadian part was not only trivial, but fictional? Nice work, Affleck. Especially when you're premiering in Canada.

[Deleted]

I do want to ask a question though. John Goodman plays a makeup man, although he's the guy who puts the whole "film" together (kind of like a producer). He never does any makeup for the 6 American's stuck in Iran... and never even goes to Iran.... so the blonde in me is kind of confused as to why he was brought onto the project in the first place. Can a kind Greecie explain that to me?

Chambers had worked with the CIA before, teaching them make-up techniques for making disguises and working on other missions. So he'd already been vetted and they knew him to be trustworthy. Also, he had a very long career (he started in the 50s) so he was pretty well-connected, and knew the right people to get to work on it.

[twodollars]

Oct 13, 2012 9:16:44 GMT -4 @barrie said:

I was going to see this but I had read about the downplaying of the Canadian involvement in helping get these hostages out which in a way didn't surprise me. I wouldn't want to watch it if it seems like Canada did nothing at all.

I don't get that criticism at all. The movie states that the Canadian Ambassador took them in when no one else would. They also showed the Canadian passports that the Canada government put together for the Americans. The movie clearly shows what danger the Canadian Ambassador and his wife were in due to the decision. And that they even took care to make sure their Iranian housekeeper got out of the country safely. The movie is about the CIA's goofy but successful plan to get the Americans out alive. And it does that without downplaying the Canadian involvement at all.

I thought this was one of the best films I've seen in ages. I particularly loved the beginning where it discussed the U.S. and British's meddling in Iran and let the audience figure out the implication of that meddling in the 1970s and today.

[GoldenFleece]

But the "real" story is that the Canadians were a lot more involved with the planning and execution of the operation than what is presented in the movie. The former Canadian ambassador refers to the CIA as a "junior partner" in the whole thing.

[Baby Fish Mouth]

I thought it was a very good movie. It was well-directed and quite suspenseful despite knowing how things would end. I can't see how anyone could not like this movie. But for me it was just that - a solid film, but nothing mind-blowing.

[Deleted]

Oct 14, 2012 21:13:00 GMT -4 twodollars said:

Oct 13, 2012 9:16:44 GMT -4 @barrie said:

I was going to see this but I had read about the downplaying of the Canadian involvement in helping get these hostages out which in a way didn't surprise me. I wouldn't want to watch it if it seems like Canada did nothing at all.

I don't get that criticism at all. The movie states that the Canadian Ambassador took them in when no one else would. They also showed the Canadian passports that the Canada government put together for the Americans. The movie clearly shows what danger the Canadian Ambassador and his wife were in due to the decision. And that they even took care to make sure their Iranian housekeeper got out of the country safely. The movie is about the CIA's goofy but successful plan to get the Americans out alive. And it does that without downplaying the Canadian involvement at all.

I thought this was one of the best films I've seen in ages. I particularly loved the beginning where it discussed the U.S. and British's meddling in Iran and let the audience figure out the implication of that meddling in the 1970s and today.

I totally agree with this. I am Canadian and when I watched this in a theatre in Toronto yesterday, people in the crowd yelled out "GO CANADA!!" at the end because they were so proud of the Canadian involvement shown in the movie. I'm sure they didn't get into the complete story about everything as the movie did focus on the CIA aspect and is fictionalized as it isn't a documentary, but I certainly came out feeling that Ken Taylor and his wife and in turn Canada really risked a lot to help and were fully involved in the situation.

[twodollars]

Oct 14, 2012 21:53:15 GMT -4 GoldenFleece said:

But the "real" story is that the Canadians were a lot more involved with the planning and execution of the operation than what is presented in the movie. The former Canadian ambassador refers to the CIA as a "junior partner" in the whole thing.

After reading the article, I don't understand how the movie downplayed the Canadian involvement at all. The movie gave the Canadians credit for taking in and hiding the Americans at great risk and showed that the Canadian government put together the false documents to get the Americans home. But, the movie plan was the CIA's and that is what Argo focused on.

[forever1267]

Thoroughly enjoyed it. Intense, scary, funny(!) and nail-biting. I don't remember this particular part of the Hostage Situation, but I do remember the yellow ribbon tied around the tree in the front of the house.

John Chambers' IMDB page includes the original Star Trek series, plus Planet of the Apes, Blade Runner, Halloween 2 and the icky icky icky Mad Scientist-Turns-Man-Into-Snake movie Ssssssss!!!.

[Deleted]

Oct 15, 2012 18:15:55 GMT -4 twodollars said:

Oct 14, 2012 21:53:15 GMT -4 GoldenFleece said:

But the "real" story is that the Canadians were a lot more involved with the planning and execution of the operation than what is presented in the movie. The former Canadian ambassador refers to the CIA as a "junior partner" in the whole thing.

After reading the article, I don't understand how the movie downplayed the Canadian involvement at all. The movie gave the Canadians credit for taking in and hiding the Americans at great risk and showed that the Canadian government put together the false documents to get the Americans home. But, the movie plan was the CIA's and that is what Argo focused on.

This is another good article here about the accuracy of the movie. One of the other Canadian details skipped in the movie is that the Canadians made flights in and out of the country leading up to the escape so as to establish random travel patterns.

I absolutely loved the movie and found it very suspenseful but after reading more about the details, I would have liked to see a few more of them included.

[Atreides]

I know that Hollywood movies always distort the truth but I admit it does feel weird when it's my own country this time that's getting the shaft. Now I know how the Brits felt when U-571 came out!