Argo: Propaganda?

After viewing Argo, I took my regular lap around the usual film websites, seeing what critics and fans thought of the film to see differing opinions and if I had missed anything.  From rotten tomatoes and metacritic I saw positive reviews, which I tended to agree with if, although as enthusiastically as some critics.   However, when I headed to the message boards on IMDB I was pleasantly surprised to see plenty of hate.

Some of the hate came from the film’s recent best picture win.  I would agree with most of these posters who were surprised at the win.  I enjoyed the film and thought it was very well done, but I didn’t see it as anything groundbreaking or remarkable, which is what usually comes to mind when I think Best Picture (although that is certainly not always the case).  I didn’t share as much hate as many irate posters, but I could understand the arguments of the more descriptive contributors who managed to include more than one sentence filled with swears and poor spelling.

The hate I could not understand, however, came from people who claimed Argo was a piece of pure propaganda.  Terms like “one-sided” and “conspiracy” were being thrown about quite freely, with arguments ranging from fairly coherent to paranoid.  The User Review on the front page was entitled “Vomit enducing propaganda”, and predictably did not come with a very good rating but instead with some cleverly worded hatred and a shallow review.

I understand people believing that Hollywood makes films that are borderline propaganda.  It is true that they come out with films where the Americans are the heroes and the best, while other countries/aliens/monsters aren’t as badass and don’t have as much freedom.  I sometimes find it frustrating when in films like Rambo they feature villains that completely lack any personality and instead are simply made to be unlikable psychopaths who love them some torture and killing of the innocent.  That also happens in Iron Man, but people tend to complain a bit less since Iron Man is so cool and totally not overrated.  I also am annoyed when films take the approach that the American way is the only right way, because we are the best.  Look at pretty much any WWII film, The Patriot, most of 24, Fox News, and MSNBC.  Quite simply, sometimes people won’t understand or agree with a concept unless it is boiled down into its simplest form, which is that America is awesome and has hot babes and cold beer, while other countries are bad and don’t love freedom as much as we do.

However, I really don’t believe Argo is guilty of being a shallow propaganda film.  I will admit that almost all of the Iranians were angry and extreme, and I think it is clear they added that element to inspire a sense of danger.  But these were people in a country that was going through a major political transition, so I’m sure they were a little on edge in reality.  People were protesting, yes, but they had an actual reason to protest, they weren’t just out in the streets being angry for no reason.  The guy in the market who yelled about having his picture taken?  Yes, he was angry, but the point of the scene was to point out how something as simple as a misunderstanding over a picture could cause such tension and nervousness in the situation they were in.

In addition to this, were the Americans really portrayed any better?  There were news stories featuring a young American saying that the Iranians should have been shot, showing mass protests, and showing the beating of an Iranian.  Both countries were shown to have bloodthirsty citizens, which not only added some tension and background to the film but also made the Iranian citizens look as rational as Americans.  Both countries were angry and guilty of demonizing the citizens of the other nation.

To top things off, the beginning of the film explains with great detail why the Iranians were protesting at the American embassy.  The film didn’t start with a bunch of angry middle easterners breaking into an embassy unprovoked just so they could rape, murder, and steal.  The story explained how America got rid of Iran’s leader who wasn’t sharing the oil, installed their own leader who tortured and starved his own people while living in decadence, and then got what was coming to them.  Maybe the conspiracy theorists missed this part of the film or they didn’t understand how the film was giving a clear and logical reason as to the anger of the Iranians, but the fact is that the film immediately makes the audience feel the same outrage as the Iranians protesting

There are also other moments in the film that make it fairly clear that not only is America not completely in the right on this one.  The former Shah is referred to as a bad guy and a comment is made about other rulers the U.S. had in their pocket, pointing to the less than ethical behavior of the CIA.  And the kidnappers do hold a calm and rational press conference where they state their fairly reasonable demand that the Shah be returned so he can face justice (this appears to be factual as well).  The protesters were said to be students, and are not shown as just crazy, yelling jihadists whose demands include death to America and no more women wearing skirts.

This is all combined with the fact that the movie really isn’t about how Iranians are evil or how America is awesome.  It is about the implementation of the mission, which is a thoroughly entertaining and ridiculous story.  The Iranians aren’t portrayed as the enemies in the film, but instead are portrayed as an obstacle that must be overcome.  The people that must be rescued are victims of a volatile time in history, not the victims of a group of savage people.

So if you were offended that Iran wasn’t painted as unthreatening or happy as Canada is, too bad.  It took place in a time where an American Embassy was stormed, and it is impossible to make a film about such an event without including any angry or violent Iranians.  The story did take some creative liberties, and surely made certain parts of the story more dramatic or important than they were in real life, but Argo is a film meant to entertain, and it could have either take those liberties a lot further or not included many parts that explained why the Iranians were justifiably angry.  I left this film feeling no ill will towards Iran, to which I thank the filmmakers.  If people want to claim something is a conspiracy because it involves the CIA, or if Iran wants to sue Hollywood over a particularly non-offensive film, they are certainly allowed to.  But I see absolutely no reason why that is necessary, and instead choose to enjoy a film featuring phenomenal acting, solid directing, and an entertaining story that takes care to avoid being simplistic.