Argo Controversy

NB:  I'm amending this piece a few weeks after I wrote it, primarily after reading Maureen Dowd on Lincoln and its huge falsehood.  I had no idea the writer and director of Lincoln changed the truth in a meaningful way versus what I say at the end of this blog.  The film suggests that the representatives from Connecticut voted against the 13th Amendment, the most important amendment to our Constitution.  This  change was not a minor adjustment for artistic purposes, it's blatantly false and Lincoln does not deserve an award for best film.  Lincoln should be to show that the representatives from Connecticut voted yes.  I'm watching the awards right now and hoping, against hope, that Amour will win.  Amour is perhaps the most honest film I've seen in my lifetime, which has not been short!

Perhaps because three of the best pictures nominated this year for the Oscar are based on true stories, a number of controversies have arisen.  Argo, nominated for best picture, did not get a nod for best director; neither did Zero Dark Thirty. The only true story that did get a nod is Lincoln, for best picture and best director.

I've written before about my feelings for Zero Dark Thirty but I'd like to repeat myself here, but in a different fashion.  At the beginning of the film, there's a statement on screen that the film is based on true events (not an exact quote but close enough).  The problem is that the film indicates that the use of torture, along with other methods, was responsible for the capture of Bin Laden.  Torture did not work, as stated by almost every objective commentator with inside information (other than those who condoned torture and now need to find some justification for its use), yet Bigelow elects to show that it did work, although she's now in denial as the controversy heats up. Argo, based on the escape of Americans with the help of the Canadians during the Iran hostage crisis, also states that it's a true story, although much of the ending is fictional.  (The liberties taken by Argo are far less serious than those taken in Zero Dark Thirty, since the latter shows torture as useful, or if you're a Bigelow defender, as neutral--neither of which is acceptable on a moral level.)

Many are now objecting that Ben Affleck, director of Argo, did not get a best director nod. I saw Argo and enjoyed it very much but frankly never saw it as anything but a fictional thriller since so much of the film is pulled together with the same old heart-pounding episodes we see in most action American films--car chases for one, although in this case it's a plane chase, which didn't happen.  Most of the heart-pounding episodes at the end of the film are false, used to keep the audience on edge, so it's not really a true story.  That would be fine so long as we weren't led to believe we were watching truth, not fiction.  Once a director says he's telling truth, he's obligated to tell truth.  Thus, I don't believe Affleck should have been nominated.

In some ways Lincoln is in the same league.  As very few people know, Lincoln, a man of his times, had many of the same prejudices against African Americans as his contemporaries.  But in the case of Lincoln the film there are omissions but no real liberties taken with the truth.  It's also a good film, one of the best political films I've seen in my lifetime.  It also has a number of lessons that President Obama could learn from, including Lincoln's affability in getting his enemies on his side.  I hope it wins both awards and makes the appropriate impression on Obama.  He needs to socialize more.