Great thriller, enough said

Rating: 8/10 (5 May 2015)

Argo is about the too good to be true, but nevertheless true, story about a CIA "extractor" who got six Americans out of revolutionary Iran by pretending to shoot a movie there. Yes, you read that right. An American (with the help of Hollywood) got six other Americans out of Iran during the Iran Hostage Crisis while pretending to make a movie. So naturally, it was only a matter of time before Hollywood made a film out of it.
This daring rescue, dubbed the "Canadian Caper", was carried out by CIA extractor Tony Mendez (played here by Ben Affleck). After being informed of the six Americans who evaded capture by seeking refuge in the Canadian Ambassador's home, he devices an idea (whether he devised it alone or not, I don't know). He will, with the help of a famous Hollywood producer (Alan Arkin) and Planet of the Apes's make-up artist John Chambers (John Goodman), create the illusion of a film called Argo being made. This will allow him to enter Iran pretending to scout locations for this film without causing too much fuss, find the six Americans, provide them with fake identities and cover stories and fly them out of Iran.
This, combined with credible performances, cinematography and editing, results in a very tense film which doesn't rely as much on typical action scenes filled with ten thousand round per second guns and bursting arteries as it does on the constant fear that the slightest mistake will inevitably result in death. This is seen when Mendez, in the Canadian Ambassador's home, bombards the Americans with questions regarding their cover stories: "What's your middle name? What's your middle name? What's your middle name? Shoot him, he's an American spy." The slightest doubt or mistake when answering Iranian authorities could very well cost them their lives and it is this realization that creates the tension within the viewer. In a time filled with cookie-cutter action scenes, it's pleasing to see Argo raising the tension of the story through merely the power of the story alone.
Because of the fact that Argo is based on real life events, it automatically raises the question: Hmm, yes, but is it historically accurate? These questions (for better or worse) have haunted movies based on historical events since forever. Though Argo stays true to the spirit of the actual 'caper' itself, there are many inaccuracies. Many of these revolve around the action sequences. Two major sources of tension are when Mendez and the six are pulled aside at the airport for questioning and an eventual runway chase where Iranian guards try to catch up and stop the moving plane with Mendez and the six on board. These are both fictitious and were added to, according to the producers, "set up conflict". In the end, the aforementioned questions are a bit irrelevant in the case of Argo. It's not a documentary, but a movie which by definition has different requirements to be successful. In the end, these changes don't matter much, because they don't change the nature of the story.
Two aspects of the film I personally find irksome: one, the attention given to Iran itself and two, the subplot regarding Mendez's home situation. With regards to Iran, there's a prologue providing the viewer with background information regarding the Iranian Revolution. This is good, but there's one problem: it doesn't matter for the rest of the movie. The movie is about Mendez getting the six Americans out of Iran and this automatically makes Iran and its many revolutionary citizens the antagonists of the story. When scouring a bazaar for locations for the fake movie, Mendez and the six are given countless, suspicious glances by Iranians and towards the end, they are detained at the airport and furiously questioned by angry Iranian guards. I couldn't help but think of old action movies like True Lies (1994) which are filled with stereotypes regarding the Middle East (although I'm not saying Argo's ethnic sensitivities are as underdeveloped as those of True Lies). One could make a counterclaim by saying that not all Iranians are portrayed as bad. For example, the Canadian ambassador's housekeeper, Sahar, discovers that the ambassador's 'guests' are actually Americans, but when pressured by Iranian authorities, she protects them.
Then there's the subplot of Mendez and his wife and son whom Mendez realizes might never see again, but (of course) eventually does. This obviously has the intention of making the viewer sympathize with Mendez, with Affleck's portrayal probably too restrained to generate a lot of sympathy. But since the bulk of the movie is about the six Americans escaping Iran, this part felt too underdeveloped to tug at my rusty heartstrings.
In the end, Argo does many more things right than wrong. When you get right down to it, the film is a thriller which by its very definition has to thrill audiences and Argo does this and then some. After watching this film, I realized that I had been completely engrossed and immersed in the film, pretty much unaware that I was watching a movie. Usually, I 'pull myself away from the film' whilst watching it to analyze certain aspects of what I'm seeing (cinematography, music, etc.)Not so much with Argo during which I was pretty much glued to the screen from beginning to end. True, one might complain about the many historical inaccuracies; apparently, Iran's movie industry is working on their own version of Argo, most likely to correct mistakes and present their own version of 'what really happened'. In the end, these inaccuracies don't stop Argo from being one of the best thrillers of the year.