Andrew O'Hehir has deemed Lincoln and Zero Dark Thirty as more deserving an Oscar than Argo.
A US famous film critic, Andrew O’Hehir has written profusely in Salon magazine, first and foremost film criticism magazine in the US. In an interview to MNA English service, O’Hehir has assessed Argo as a historical myth, and essentially a commercial film, that far from reflecting historical realities, has had box office in mind.
In your recent interview, you’ve labeled Argo a propagandist film. What did you mean when you said it was a ‘cheerful’ propagandist film?
What I meant in describing "Argo" as a cheerful propaganda film is that it's designed to leave American or Western viewers feeling upbeat about a tragic and painful time in history. Rather than dealing honestly with a very complicated situation, it presents the story of the Canadian "house guests" as an exciting and uplifting adventure, essentially a fun thrill ride of a sort very familiar to consumers of Hollywood movies.
You believed that in this year’s Oscars, other history films were present more deserved than Argo. Why would not you deem Argo an outstanding achievement in history genre? What do you mean by ‘historical myth?’
I thought "Argo" was fundamentally dishonest in ways that "Lincoln" and "Zero Dark Thirty" (that's the English-language title) are not. It wants to appear historically accurate at certain times, staging the student takeover of the US Embassy so it looks exactly like the familiar images from 1979, and then fictionalizing the latter third of the story so much that it no longer resembles real events whatsoever. What I mean by "historical myth" is that it's a story that has a factual basis, but has been turned into a mythology about American heroism.
What was the difference between Argo and films such as Lincoln and Thirty Minutes after Midnight in terms of cinematographic techniques?
In cinematic terms, "Argo" is a competently made but conventional or familiar thriller, balancing scenes of tension with scenes of humor on the way toward a supposedly exciting conclusion. I found both "Lincoln" and "Zero Dark Thirty" far more ambitious in terms of storytelling, and also in terms of the images seen on the screen.
You have termed the events in second half of Argo as unrealistic. Would you please elaborate more on Argo’s parts you think is fabrications, such as Iranian marches toward American embassy employees?
Well, as I wrote in my review, very little of the second half of "Argo" is accurate. The six Americans in the Canadian embassy never visited the Grand Bazaar and were not pursued through the streets by angry Iranians. While it's true that they flew out of Iran using forged Canadian passports, they had no difficulty in doing so. They were not interrogated at the airport by Revolutionary Guards or anyone else, and no one ever questioned the "cover story" that they were making a film.
There was no high-speed chase down the runway and no drama involved with their departure. They got on the plane and left like all other passengers. Also, the film makes it appear as if the CIA designed the whole operation, when according to former President Jimmy Carter, 90 percent of the planning was done by the Canadians.
What do you think it signify when an Oscars winner , which is an anti-Iranian film, is announced quite unprecedentedly by US First Lady from the White House?
Honestly, it doesn't signify anything. Mrs. Obama didn't know what was in the envelope until she opened it. Also, while I can understand why you might characterize "Argo" as an "anti-Iranian film," please bear in mind that the film's real intentions are primarily commercial. To the extent it can be viewed as an ideological film, it is more about reassuring Americans and Westerners than about inflaming tensions with Iran.
SH/MH/MR
MNA
END
Your Comment