2012 Best Picture
Rating: 16/20 (Jen: 18/20)
Plot: One of those countries with all the oil finds a bunch of white people and decides to attempt the world record for the longest sleepover. Six people aren't invited, presumably because they are "dweebs," and they go whining to some friendly Canadians where they subsist on a diet of elk juice and sugar-free Pop-Tarts. The U.S. sends in a guy who they think might be Mexican because he has a dark beard to play a practical joke on them all.
This is very well done drama, tense and meticulously detailed. The period details and snippets from news footage or speeches helped nail the realism, at times almost to the point where I thought it was a little too much, like they were shoving the fact that all of this might have happened just like this in my face. It's definitely one of those truth-is-stranger-than-fiction type films. The best part about it, I think, is that it maintains high levels of suspense even if you know the outcome and the fate of all these characters. It's edge-of-your-seat stuff as things build to a tense crescendo, a final series of close calls after a whole bunch of other close calls. I'm impressed with Affleck's direction--as well as his depiction of a Mexican man--because he pulls this all off without any trickery. This is all fairly straightforward, pretty much exactly what a movie version of this story would have looked like in the 1970s if that were possible. I also liked that there was a little humor mixed in with the drama, a lot of it from the characters played by Alan Arkin and John Goodman. Argo's got good performances, an authentic look and feel (I have no idea about the historical accuracy or inaccuracy of what's going on), a consistent tone, and a ton of thrills. I'd watch it again and probably enjoy it just as much. But is it really a Best Picture?
I heard, by the way, that they're working on a sequel featuring Boba Fett. That is definitely something to look forward to.
I have a difficult time with where to draw the line on fact-based movies. On the one hand, "Argo" is a very adult, serious film that works hard to seem important. The things that make it really work are how well it is made, and the balance of terror and humor (Arkin and Goodman are terrific). The problem it that a lot of this is made-up Hollywoody crap that stiffs the Canadians who did almost everything, while most of the tense drama stuff, including the exciting climax at the airport never remotely happened that way. I'm OK with a lot of license where no witnesses exist, but this movie that targets U.S. audiences is a thrilling lie. As a partially true film, "Argo" is a great piece of craftsmanship. On the other hand, if you are going to call an event important, then the truth of it is important. "Argo" might be the best movie of last year, but I can only give it a 16, and even that is given grudgingly. I keep thinking of a steroid-era baseball analogy, but am too tired to expand upon it.
ReplyDeleteI actually struggled with the same thing, Cory. Ultimately, I decided that I didn't care that much. Now that you've forced me to think about it again, it does bother me though. So who knows? It did make me do a little research and get some of the finer details of the story.
ReplyDeleteI do understand your steroid analogy, by the way.