Argo opens a little unexpectedly: a torrent of images and footage tells the story of Iran in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Ben Affleck is trying to educate us! I gleefully thought. The narrative begins with the 1953 CIA-led coup of Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister, and clips along to the 1979 Revolution. Finally, we're talking about how the United States' intervention in the Middle East led to feelings of distrust! Finally, we're talking about mistakes and shortfalls on both sides! Finally, we're talking... Oh, wait. That was it. After that brief-- admittedly reductive-- history lesson, the movie gets going: the US Embassy in Tehran is under siege, and we forget everything that we just learned. The opening sequence, though important in its attempt to create context, is misleading: the film isn't about creating an understanding about America and Iran; it's really about how America outfoxed those crazy, dangerous Iranians. And that's a problem.
Quickly, Ben Affleck divides a line: there are the good guys-- the rational Americans, huddling in their offices, clutching their phones, glancing nervously out the window-- and there are the bad guys-- the unforgiving, animalistic, irrational mob of Iranians breaking down the doors. At this point, my heart sank. No, this was not going to be an honest portrayal of the Iranian people; this was going to be a typical, sensationalized, and highly one-dimensional soap opera about the evils of Iran. Affleck certainly plays at history; but he only plays at it. I can forgive Argo for its weak writing and its flat characters. I can even forgive its uninspired acting and serviceable (though competent) directing. But I cannot ethically, intellectually, or artistically forgive its overly simple, tragically narrow portrayal of the Iranian people.
In a recent interview with NPR, Ben Affleck remarked that he had been a Middle Eastern Studies major in college (though he never graduated) and that he wanted to infuse Argo with a sense of historical authenticity. Concerned that his audience would see Iranians as "bearded meanies who didn't like the United States," he wanted to combat such an impression since it "neglected the decades, even centuries, of interplay between our nations [...] that led to this moment." Context, he claimed, was crucial. As evidenced by his refusal to complicate the narrative and accurately portray the Iranian people, Ben Affleck's didacticism, no matter how good intentioned it might have been, ultimately miscarried-- and that's the problem.
The only Iranians we meet (with the insignificant exception of the housemaid, who, absurdly, is supposed to stand in for the millions of "normal" Iranians that Affleck otherwise ignores) are angry, grow beards, spit words of hate, and burn American flags. Hate towards America, it seems, comes naturally to these thugs. This representation of Iranian revolutionaries is a serious problem. Not only did liberals, feminists, and intellectuals initially fuel the revolution alongside the fanatics (who, like radicals in many revolutions, hijacked the revolution to the surprise of rational thinkers everywhere), but **shocker** not all Iranians hated America. In fact, most probably didn't care one way or the other about America. Is America defined by the Tea Party movement today? Should we judge all Iranians in 1979 by the fanatics? Unfortunately, Ben Affleck seemingly does not follow this logic.
And let's not forget the chest-thumping. Granted, a little chest-thumping is good every now and then-- Spielberg does it majestically in the far superior Lincoln. But Affleck's chest-thumping is done in spite of Iran, in a Cold War-esque "we've beaten you and didn't let you win" kind of way. It's inappropriate and disturbing.
The problem isn't just an issue of nit-picky historical inaccuracy; on the contrary, it has serious global-political implications. In case you haven't heard, Iran and America are kind of annoyed with each other right now. Relations between the two haven't been good since 1979, but times have been especially rough over the last few years. By making a movie that transforms Iran into a nation of villains, a movie that advocates an "us versus them" mentality, a movie that constructs a world as black and white as the early talkies, and a movie that creates a worldview as narrow as the camera lens that filmed it, Ben Affleck has committed a serious injustice to the global community. He has antagonized Iranians everywhere and blatantly turned them into the enemies of Americans everywhere. The more Americans see Iranians as enemies in films, the more we will believe them to be our enemies; and the more desensitized to their humanity we become, the more willing we will be to see Iranians as belligerents. Affleck's act of political insensitivity and contextual shortsightedness is not only troubling; it's downright dangerous.
What's equally troubling is the fact that the mainstream media seems to be ignoring these blatant misrepresentations and historical misfires. The fact that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association awarded this movie its highest honor speaks to how self-centered and insular Hollywood is, even though it touts itself as being progressive and forward thinking. How can the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, only a year after it proudly (a little too proudly, I might add) gave an Oscar to a powerful, complex, and humanistic film about Iranian society, nominate a relatively forgettable film that dismantles everything A Separation accomplished?
The only thing powerful about Argo is the level of disgust I felt by the end credits. Shame on you, Hollywood, for rewarding a mediocre film that does more harm than good.
- Yankee Belle
No comments:
Post a Comment