Argo (3/5 Stars)

“You’re an associate producer at best,” says Alan Arkin to Ben Affleck during a telling moment. Ben Affleck is playing a CIA exfiltration expert in what is also his latest directorial effort, the historical action thriller "Argo." Affleck is speaking to a Hollywood producer played by Alan Arkin who has agreed to put up a front for a phony movie to help the CIA smuggle several Americans out of Iran during the 1979 revolution. The fake movie is a sci-fi epic titled Argo. Affleck will fly into the Iranian capital, Tehran, under the pretense of scouting locations for the fake movie shoot, find the six Americans who are hiding out in the Canadian embassy, disguise them as part of his film crew, and then fly them out of the country via the Tehran International Airport. This is a true story. At this point in the movie Arkin and Affleck are doing a bit of casting. Which American will be the screenwriter? Which will be the cameraman? Which will be the director? Affleck puts out the idea for himself as the director. Arkin shoots it down. “You’re an associate producer at best,” he says.

Two things are happening here: First and more obvious is the clever self-referential self-deprecating joke Affleck is playing on himself. His character is being told nobody would believe him as a director in the very movie he is directing ha ha. Second and less obvious is a demonstration of an actual critical element of movie casting. Specifically, the utility of casting a movie star. It has been said that casting a well-known star saves fifteen minutes of exposition. For example: when Bruce Willis shows up in a movie the audience subconsciously should expect a no-nonsense action-oriented character because they have seen that actor play that character effectively many times before.  So the movie can skip that one scene where the character establishes his badassness (if it would for some weird reason want to). We already know Bruce Willis is badass.  

Now what do you think of Ben Affleck? If you are like me, you do not automatically think “Director” either and I say this with the knowledge that he has competently directed two movies already. When I think of Ben Affleck, I think of a lightweight actor that tried a bunch of times to be tough in the vein of Alec Baldwin and never really pulled it off. I think of all those years he was fodder for dumb romantic leads in bad movies. I think “Bennifer.” And I think of that time he stood next to Matt Damon clutching an Oscar for “Good Will Hunting” and was pretty sure that was a Roger Avary type of Oscar. This history is what my subconscious delivers when I see Ben Affleck in a movie.

Now this does not mean that I think he is a bad actor. A movie that is well cast will simply recognize and capitalize on audience expectations. You can see this marvelously done in what is perhaps Affleck’s best movie, “Changing Lanes,” in which he plays a naïve pretty boy junior associate at a corrupt law firm. Nor does this mean that Ben Affleck is miscast in this movie! He just needs to be less of a major character and more of a supporting one. Much less of a major character.

There is a gross flaw in “Argo,” and it is a result of an imperfect understanding of what the central and most interesting conflict is in this story. The movie starts with a riveting scene in which the American embassy in Tehran is overtaken by a riot of Iranian protestors. We see how the six Americans from the visa office escaped while everyone else was taken hostage. We see them go into hiding at the Canadian embassy. And then these six people are bizarrely ignored for most of the movie as the story focuses on the CIA coming up with a plan to exfiltrate them by going to Hollywood and teaming up with a Hollywood makeup designer and producer to create a fake movie as a front for the operation. There are scenes in which the CIA and Hollywood argue over the screenplay, negotiate its purchase, and throw a party in which it is read and advertised by the press. I ask you, is this more interesting than what six Americans hiding for fear of losing their lives are going through for three months? I submit that it is not.

The worst effect of all this attention being paid to the plan being developed in the USA is that it is already vetted and explained by the time the Americans in Iran hear about it. All the good objections are stated, all the other plans are explained away, and all the work is done. When it finally gets to the people that matter we are already two thirds of the way through the movie. The six have not been given any depth as characters and when the movie finally focuses on them, only one is given a substantial role, and that is merely as a contrarian voicing all the objections we have heard before. At the end of the movie we have learned almost nothing about the people being rescued.

Imagine what this movie could have been if it were less enamored with CIA spies and Hollywood producers and more with the ordinary people being thrust into an extraordinary situation. It could have stayed with the Americans after they arrive at the embassy, we could have learned a little about their personalities and histories, we could have learned about their daily routine of hiding, we could have seen the scary developments happening in Iran through their eyes. For example there is a scene where Ben Affleck arrives in Tehran and sees from his cab window a dead man being hung from a construction crane. Why couldn’t the six be the ones to witness that? Would not that have a greater effect on them. And then two-thirds of the way through the movie, Ben Affleck, can show up on the doorstep with some cockamamie scheme to smuggle them out of the country in full view of everyone by disguising them as a film crew for a sci-fi epic named “Argo.” What a great way to use Ben Affleck's lack of credibility to enhance the suspense of the storyline. Would you trust Ben Affleck with a plan like that after watching the world disintegrate into chaos before your eyes? No of course not. That would be ludicrous. Therein lies the natural center of suspense and conflict for this movie. 

How does this movie build up tension? Well, by lying about what really happened. This movie will have you believe that the six Americans got away with merely seconds to spare. Seconds. I didn’t say minutes or even hours. I said seconds. When the final plane is taking off (I really don’t think I’m spoiling anything. We all know they successfully escape) a jeep full of angry Iranian soldiers is racing practically parallel to the plane trying to get the pilot's attention. I don’t need to check Wikipedia to know that did not happen. If the story were told correctly, it would not be necessary to enliven it with trumped up bullshit.

I make a big deal out of this because no doubt much of the thrill of watching a "True Story" is in knowing you are watching something that is actually “True.” Well, if it isn't, and I assert that some really important parts aren't, then what? Let's pretend for a moment that we are not watching a "true story" and simply judge this movie on the merits as if it were any other movie. If it we’re fictional, would this be a superior movie? The answer must be no. It is repetitive, misplaces its suspense, does not use its characters wisely, and offers plenty of red herrings where a superior movie would contain actual twists and turns in the plot. Bad events always seem about to happen in “Argo” but never actually come to fruition in any sort of way that would cast doubt on the most predictable of outcomes.

I’m hearing Oscar buzz for this movie. I don’t need to see any more movies this year to be able to say I’ve already seen at least five better ones in every category. “Argo” should not be nominated for anything. If it does get nominated and especially if it wins anything I will take that simply as more proof that Hollywood likes kissing its own ass. Sure they would nominate the movie about how Hollywood saved six Americans in Iran through the Power Of Movies! Just take a look at last year’s best picture, “The Artist,” if you haven’t already forgotten it. To the Academy there are movies about them and there are movies about us. All movies are treated equally I’m sure, but some movies are more equal than others.