Ben Affleck's Argo is all garnish and no meat

Argo - review.

Ben Affleck (left) as Tony Mendez in Argo.
Ben Affleck (left) as Tony Mendez in Argo.

Argo (15)
dir: Ben Affleck

Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. And sometimes it isn’t, and it must be bent and twisted out of shape until any authenticity becomes purely theoretical. Ben Affleck’s film Argo is set during the Iranian hostage crisis, which began in November 1979 when the US embassy in Tehran was stormed by protesters. Six employees stole away unnoticed in the chaos, finding a safe haven at the residence of the Canadian ambassador. The US and Canadian authorities were then faced with the daunting task of springing them from Iran. That mission provides the meat of Argo, though “meat” is the wrong noun for a film that is approximately 75 per cent garnish.

In his third outing as director, Affleck sticks to the thriller genre after the morally complex Gone Baby Gone and its more conventional follow-up, The Town. He also takes the lead role, donning regulation 1970s shag-cut and facial hair to play Tony Mendez, the CIA agent who masterminded the rescue operation. When we first meet him, Tony is sprawled on a bed in his suit, surrounded by beer cans. Along with Tony’s estrangement from his wife and young son, this is Hollywood shorthand for “character ripe for redemption”. If it sounds unsporting to be so flippant about a real person’s woes, fear not: the film-makers dreamed up Mendez’s domestic turmoil, so we can mock all we like.

Mockery within the confines of the film itself would have made Argo a less gauche entertainment. It has at its core an indisputably delicious nugget of truth: Mendez really did decide to smuggle out the Americans under cover of a location-scouting expedition for a sci-fi film. Tony turns to the Hollywood make-up expert John Chambers (John Goodman) and a grizzled producer, Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin), to concoct a project to provide a plausible cover. After sifting through a dubious slush-pile, like Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder searching for a flop in The Producers, they settle on a story about an uprising on a distant planet named Argo. Ads announcing the film’s production are placed in the trade papers, a bogus office established, a table reading convened. All that remains is for Tony to fly out to Iran and whisk the escapees home to safety. Simple, right?

Yes, actually. Once the groundwork had been laid, the operation turned out to be, in the words of the real Mendez, “smooth as silk”. The perceived lunacy and arrogance of the movie industry worked in the ruse’s favour: only a Hollywood outfit would have the insensitivity to swoop into Iran for a recce during this moment of international tension.

It would be deluded to object to reality being pumped full of steroids during the adaptation process. Steven Soderbergh’s two-part Che has very particular strengths but its dust-dry, justthe- facts approach doesn’t suit everything. The structure of Warren Beatty’s Reds, where dramatised reconstructions are punctuated by documentary interviews, is a bold one rarely repeated. The default model for historical filmmaking tends to be Oliver Stone’s JFK, which uses factual details as a battering ram: once the door of our scepticism has been broken down, all manner of fantasises run riot on screen.

Where Argo comes a cropper is in the nature of its fabrications. There’s no nice way of putting this: each element that makes the film an enjoyable distraction undermines the veracity of which it boasts. Ending with a compare-and contrast montage showing how closely the actors resemble the figures they are playing is no compensation for having hoodwinked the audience for the preceding 100 minutes. A cleverer film would have incorporated an admission of its own trickery, a reference to the need to import superficially thrilling ingredients. Unfortunately, that film has already been made – it’s called Adaptation, and it details the mounting compromises that can creep into a project with good intentions (like Argo).

The final half-hour is suspenseful, damppalm stuff. But if you have to manufacture that much material to make a story fly, perhaps it’s time to stop piggybacking on a real-life crisis and to ask whether there was enough here for a Hollywood movie in the first place.

8 comments

Malik's picture

Ryan Gilbey doesn't know what he is talking about. First of all, in a film review column, you must judge it on whether it works.... aa a film.. I think that it is universally agreed, that on this, it does. It claims to be based on a true story. Again, this is true. It dramatises some parts and adds a few others to make it work......as a film. Clearly, the real life people, in giving permission for their pictures to be used at the end, were all content with this ruse . Gilbeys criticisms of the film makers not writing in bold capital at the beginning that some of the parts of what you are about to see is not true is piffle.

Michael Dixon's picture

I agree with the person who suggests you have seen a different film to him/her.

Me too. I enjoyed this fim and know a reasonable amount about the period, having met some people who were part of the overall Iranian story,(not this one), from 1979.

So there were some imperfections, but the Tehran/airport scenes were excellent.
The backslapping at the American end irritated a bit, but the hostages scenes were good.

It is lucky that the story is basically true because no-one would have believed it otherwise.

My main gripe was the simplistic statement from President Carter after the film ends. Now what he said was being definitely economical with the truth and only told half the story.

Otherwise 8/10

Bernard Fletcher's picture

Spoilers...actual history involved) I agree with the last poster that it was an entertaining movie, but "mostly factual"?? There is not one scene after the first 20 minutes which actually happened. British and Kiwi diplomats did not turn away the six, they helped them. Canadians did most of the heavy lifting, including the fake interrogation. Four Americans stayed at the home of John Sheardown, two at Ken Taylor's. A short, happily married Latino Mendez with 3 adult children goes to Tehran for a weekend (driven to the airport by his wife). He doesn't take anyone to a bazaar or drive them to the airport where there are no problems. The Arkin and Cranston and maid characters are fictional. There was no lavish Hollywood party. Sorry to burst any bubbles.

Anonnnnnn's picture

Reread your review, bro. You're 80% garnish, minimum, and I didn't even like Argo that much.

So, what, you didn't like the movie because the dramatic plot twist that almost ruined everything at the end (which wasn't particularly suspenseful) never really happened? How about not liking the movie because there were no characters in it with any emotion or depth?

Mike Mckenzie's picture

Perhaps one example of the 'manufactured material' would have been nice since that's the entire focus of the article.

JPLex's picture

I cannot believe it.

A film from Hollywood and the bad guys are muslims and good guys americans.

Usually benafflecks always produce critical films about Israeli occupation of Gaza. Well, one lives and one learns...

Hugh C Markey's picture

Have yet to see film but Affleck, whose acknowledged skills include directing and scriptwriting, is better off, as an actor at any rate, clean-cut.
Reagan won his first election by finagling and appears to have held the presidency whilst doing 'business. with a dedicated enemy of the United States of America.
Sure Reagan had memory lapses and was robbing Peter ( the U S taxpayer ) to pay Paul but this kind of creative accountancy is more akin to the methods of gangland than federal government.
There's nothing mickey mouse about US tax dollars!

Ricco

PKing's picture

Dear Ryan Gilbey,

I just got back from seeing Argo. In reading your review, I was beginning to wonder whether you & I both saw the same movie. I believe that your critiques are unfair & I certainly don't agree with them. It was a wonderful, entertaining & mostly factual movie!

Latest tweets