Talk:Argo (2012 film)

Not Mexican

Mendez has Mexican ancestry; he isn't Mexican (or 'part' Mexican) -- corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.108.85 (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrapping up Filming

I work for the State Dept and was in charge of logistics for the shoot. They filmed at the CIA on 11/19 and State on 11/20, and the crew said that was their last day filming on this movie. Gumboz1953 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Not hostages?

The "Premise" section refers to the individuals who were rescued as "hostages" - I thought the whole point was that they were getting out of the country to avoid becoming hostages. 174.88.78.22 (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Film US rating

Should the US rating of the film appear in the opening paragraph? It is very country-specific and doesn't really help to describe the film. To have the information somewhere on the page may be good but I don't think it deserves such a high billing. Lcohalan (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Involvement of Canadian government

I can understand how "Involvement of Canadian government" can be a mouthful, but I think "Critical reception" tends to mean film reviews rather than critical statements about the film and the response to that statement. Are there any other section headings we can consider? Erik (talk | contribs) 12:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

One similar example I can recall is The Dilemma#Language in advertising. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Word of caution

I recently changed the "Premise" section into a "Synopsis" section based on the film's official synopsis. The previous draft referenced this website, which engaged in POV pushing. For example, it says, "I revised the Wikipedia article on Argo to reflect Mendez's admissions as a result -- only to discover that my minor revisions and links to this page were taken down by Argo publicists two days ago! Incredible - this is actually happening Right Now!!!" This is not a reliable source, and it does not belong in the plot summary for the film. Perhaps a reliable source like this could be used instead in a different section. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source that covers the slight I discussed above. We can implement it to resolve the matter. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've rewritten this section as a synopsis based on just seeing the movie. No source is needed as the implicit source is the film itself. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Historical Controversies

The end of the Historical Criticism section of the article gives an account of the electoral status of Iran's Prime Minister. It says "He was elected by the Iranian Parliament and his position was confirmed by the Shah. Iran has never had free elections specifically for a prime minister in its entire history." While this is technically true, I think we can all agree that the tone demonizes the position of Iranian Prime Minister for not being popularly elected. In fact, the Iranian Parliament, while having it's power hemmed by the "supreme authority" of the Shah, is popularly elected, and they select the Prime Minister. This is how Prime Ministers are selected in most countries that have the position (the U.K. for example, selects their Prime Minister in just this fashion). For the article to say "Iran has never had free elections specifically for a prime minister in its entire existence," disingenuously demonizes the Iranian electoral process by comparing the position of Prime Minister to a popularly elected position like a Governor in the United States. While the Iranian government is of course a single party state that tolerates very little dissent, the actual framework of their government does have mechanisms of accountability that theoretically (but not in practice) can control abuses of power. The worst part about the comment is that it cites sources to lend an air of credibility to the claim. What it leaves out is context, like the fact that Prime Ministers are almost never elected by popular vote, and that the absence of a popularly elected Prime Minister is by no means evidence that a country lacks civil liberties or respect for human rights. It indicts the governmental system used by most of the free world by equating the way Prime Ministers are selected with evidence that Iran has a sham democracy. Iran may have a sham democracy, but it is not because of the way it selects a Prime Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.89.205 (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you mention the UK, that's not at all how the Prime Minister is appointed over here. The Prime Minister is appointed by the Monarch, who selects the 100% democratically elected Member of Parliament that is the leader of the party that can command the confidence of the House (ie. has the most seats). No matter what, the British Prime Minister will have a direct democratic mandate. This is the case in all countries that use the Westminster political system. --Allthestrongbowintheworld (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This section is in serious need of an English speaker's re-write, especially with all the hits it's likely to get after the Oscar win (I'm personally not an authority on the matter, just a reader). Some parts of it are very difficult to decipher. For example: "The then reigning Under Secretary of State of the U.S. State Department David D. Newsom had warned Rockefeller and Kissinger most forceful before this step. According to Iranian intelligence reports would the U.S. embassy and the lives of U.S. Embassy staff be the target of Iranian countermeasures if the U.S. grants the Shahs care." Nehebert (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Controversies

Really this section, whoever wrote it sounds like an ass and really doesn't service the page in a helpful way. Especially with all the arrogant "I know more" line inserted into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.100.210 (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Passports

I removed the word "fake" from the phrase "... fake Canadian passports ...", since as I interpreted the film, the passports used were in fact real passports, provided by either the relevant US or Canadian agencies, i.e., whoever actually prints "real passports". So the passports, by definiation wouldn't have been "fake", just made up for the relevant ostensible identities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.138.130.242 (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Good call. Although it should be pointed out that the relevant visa WAS fake and it is shown that Ben Affleck's character faking a visa on one of the passports. (Although how he managed to do 6 in less than a day I dont know. MisterShiney (✉) 14:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Recursive use of word "Argo"

The movie Argo is about a "movie" Argo. Sure it was an rescue plan, but to everyone else it was a movie production. Just sayin'.  ;-) Flightsoffancy (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Another possible error

I have seen the film only once (and in french, which is not my language...), but I am quite sure that there is another error. While in Instambul, the main character enters the Blue Mosque (it courtyard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Mosque_Courtyard_Dusk_Wikimedia_Commons.jpg is very famous and already used in many films), but the internal scener were taken inside Hagia Sophia Mosque (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/HagiaSophia_DomeVerticalPano_%28pixinn.net%29.jpg/200px-HagiaSophia_DomeVerticalPano_%28pixinn.net%29.jpg, please note the suspended green medaillons with arabic words on it, cleary seen in the movie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 33andrea33 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that unless it could be cited, then it cannot be included in the article, as unfortunately that counts as original research. If however you can find a reliable citable source then it can be included. It should also be noted that many films use different internal/external shots depending on what they want from the scene and if they were included in every movie the articles would be huge! MisterShiney ✉ 08:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed two lines that were written in poor English and based on a bogus source. 80.33.158.121 (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed that the exterior is Sultan Ahmet and the interior is Hagia Sophia. However I don't remember the characters naming the place. --Error (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Persian community and Iranian reactions

The OldJacobite should be reminded that Wiki regulations state that properly sourced and cited material cannot be removed. Therefore the article from the LA Times which is a direct reference to reactions in Tehran needs to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.158.113.76 (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC) This paragraph is necessary to ensure the partiality of this article.The story relates strongly to Iran and Iranians so we need information on how they have reacted and what they think about it. If The old Jacobite believes it should rewritten then make the changes and restore the modified paragraph. The deletion conveys the sense that some one is trying to prevent an objective approach on the film and its subject. ---- Who determines consensus? I see only 3-4 people here making the changes they personally deem appropriate this does not comply with Wikipedia policy, deleting the whole paragraph indicates other intentions are involved. If the paragraph need corrections or proper citation that is acceptable.----

I removed the following from the article and brought it here so that we can discuss its appropriateness. There is some good information here, but much much of it is uncited or poorly cited. This would need to be rewritten before it can be put back in the article. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There are some Persian-language dialogues in the film which have no English subtitles. Also some Persian speakers have American accents which shows the filmmaker has used Persians who grew up in the United States. According to iranian.com, after the film screening of Argo, "some Persians have felt ashamed about what their fellow countrymen did back in 1979 at the US Embassy in Tehran, some believe the movie gives a negative impression of Iranians to the world and some just found it an entertaining film." The Los Angeles Times did an article claiming that Argo did not get any buzz in Tehran. The article referred to a review done by Massoumeh Ebtekar, since she has appeared in the film and her memoirs are yet the only Iranian narrative of the event.

Reactions to the film coming out of Iran? Unless somebody can refute otherwise, I don't think this is any different from the stink the Iranians raised over 300 years ago.--Eaglestorm (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Iranians always kick up a stink. You are right though, this section does need to be re written if it is to stay in the article. It is poorly cited MisterShiney ✉ 15:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The first two sentences are simply opinion, and should go. The rest could be salvaged, if properly referenced. This begs the question of whether iranian.com is a reliable source. The L.A. Times article should be a good source. The amazon.com link for Massoumeh Ebtekar's memoirs is of no use, and should be removed. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

The historical accuracy section is an absurd 1,551 words in length. This film is a fictionalization of real events, which means there are going to be numerous inaccuracies for the sake of storytelling and drama. We need not point out every single instance in which the historical facts are altered. This is really ridiculous. Much of it has to do with the prologue, which accounts for less than five minutes of the film. I suggest that this section be pruned to half its current length. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, and since the lead clearly states the film is a "dramatization" I wonder if there is any need for any of the "historical inaccuracies" pointed out- such as the Hollywood sign being repaired, and the whole section on whether or not the diplomats were in imminent danger. It's as if some editors don't understand what the word dramatization means. It's not a documentary!Batvette (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

My feelings exactly. What's worse is that this section has only gotten longer and more detailed since I posted the message above. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm of totally the opposite opinion. Movies such as Argo, form a large part of the general public's understanding of history. These films are historical propaganda as well as entertainment for the simple reason that such propaganda sells very well in the U.S. When a movie deliberately slanders, misrepresents, or attributes achievements to the wrong country or group, it is precisely these inaccuracies that become part of the public awareness of the event, in large part because they are "dramatic". If we were to survey the American public in a few years about this crisis, the CA will be remembered as the heroes, the Canadians barely recalled, and the British will be known as having abandoned America in its hour of need. Those distortions should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.70.150.122 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw the movie and as an Iranian.even ordinary people(''''not pasdars)i mean people in the streets and even Sahar the woman who helped them have weired reactions and behavior!!! i lived 40 years in Iran and i have never seen people like that.all women wear extreme hijab and are like savages!!! i have never seen any one in Iran who treats foreigners like that.the old man in the bazaar behaves really strangely and unbelievable.Iranian people don't hate anyone but it seems that this movie is made to make us hate USA!! we are not savages we are not weired and our generation doesn't defend what happened at that time.the movie is biased and the people who attacked embassy are not representative of most of the Iranians.they attackers were just a few university students who were extremists.even at that time the majority of people didn't support what they did.i hate this movie and sure most of the Iranians do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.146.5.92 (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of the major criticism this film received too is because of the factual inaccuracies. Audiences are leaving thinking this is true, true true. The film was even changed after it's first screening at the Toronto International Film Festival, because the original cut barely gave Canada any credit and suggested that the CIA did all the work. LenaLeonard (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention of Roger Zelazny's classic novel, Lord of Light? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.88.51 (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The reference to Mossadegh was even more inaccurate than currently described. He had been elected, but then rigged re-election, and was actually neither the legal nor the elected PM when he was removed by a popular revolt. The CIA may have assisted with this coup, but the extent of their responsibility was greatly exaggerated.203.184.41.226 (talk) 03:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Historical accuracy? The problem is that the film is basically "yet another american propaganda movie", with almost ZERO historical/factual value. As far as I know does not put propaganda in an encyclopedia, we try to put facts as best as possible. That's why in propaganda movies like this is essential to make clear that it is a propaganda, through a section of "historical accuracy." 200.189.118.162 (talk)

Role of Phillip Baker Hall (uncredited)

So I've seen the film a few times and believe that uncredited Phillip Baker Hall in his very small sort of pivotal role should be credited as portraying US Vice President Walter Mondale, not Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Hall even looks a bit like Mondale at that time of Mondale's life. As Vice President of the US at the time, I believe Mondale was chairing the US Government Iranian Hostage Crisis Steering/Coordinating Committee for the White House as authorized by US President Jimmy Carter. In his one scene in the film, Hall's character is seen in conference with US Secretary of State Cyrus Vance who is portrayed very ably by Bob Gunton (he even looks like Vance a bit). The Vance character played by Gunton is clearly deferring to the status of the unnamed character played by Hall who takes the lead chair of this meeting. They are asking questions of the CIA characters portrayed by Ben Affleck and Bryan Cranston. At the end of this scene it is Hall's character who gives the go ahead for the CIA "Film Making" plan to go ahead to ferry the 6 House Guests out of Iran, without any objection from the Vance character. Last time I checked Presidents or Vice Presidents of The US give the go ahead to major CIA covert plans, especially plans of this magnitude and danger. Also Secretaries of State usually only defer to the POTUS or Vice POTUS. Deputy Secretaries of State do not give the go ahead OKs to these type of plans, especially when the sitting Secretary of State is also in the same conference. On top of this Warren Christopher was charged with the duty of negotiating with the Iranians, for the release of the 52 American Hostages, assisted by the Swiss. In the interests of security compartmentalization Christopher would not have been privy to a plan to ferry out the 6 House Guests with Canadian help. He had to be negotiating in good faith with no knowledge of any type of subterfuge, lest he give himself away and blow it for everyone, getting some people killed in the process. I know what artistic license is, but this is way beyond that. I've tried to update this section twice to make it more accurate. but it keeps getting changed back to Warren Christopher. Anyone out there know why or have some more pertinent/relevant information on this subject? Just Asking!! Thanks F111ECM (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Reagan

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the conspicuous absence of the presidential election context and the fact the real hostages were freed after Reagans inauguration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.66.215.70 (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not at all relevant to this article about a specific movie telling a specific story. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It is very relevant, but could not survive here. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not at all relevant, as neither Reagan nor the elections are ever mentioned in the film. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary

The article has "Reflecting the time period of the film, the opening credits use the "triple slash" W Warner Bros. logo (originally used by Warner Communications), which was used by the company from 1972 to 1984, instead of the contemporary "WB" shield logo. [edit]". The word 'contemporary' *means* of the same time period (as in reflecting the time period of the film) - it does not mean 'current' or 'modern'. Suggest replacing 'contemporary' with 'current' or 'modern'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.186.66 (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

So fix it. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

New information on subject

see video file http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/argo-iran-hostage-crisis-film-fiddles-with-the-facts-1.1167994 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.168.249 (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies

I decided to be bold and remove the bullet point list of tedious historical inaccuracies. Most of that is utterly trivial (i.e., that a seal on a passport was inaccurate), some was not sourced at all, and most was sourced to one article on the BBC website. These tedious lists of trivialities are not encyclopedic. A discussion of inaccuracies in the context of critical reactions to the film is another matter, and that has been addressed in the article, but a bullet point list of every minor detail is simply not necessary or useful. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What's not sourced should go. But, what has a source should be more carefully edited. That part of the article is pretty poorly written, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Best Picture" at Academy Awards, 2013

Just watched the presentation and acceptance speeches for 2013. Congrats! — Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Argo won Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Ahcievement in Film Editing.[1] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are great pictures/info. [2] Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 05:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Another write up and list of winners, including Argo for Best Picture, Best Adopted Screenplay, and Film Editing. [from WSJ] [3] For improving this article on Argo, read also 85th_Academy_Awards (Oscars). — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Such chit-chat is not what this page is for, Carrie ... it's for improving the article. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Would it not improve this Article by discussing how it was Best Picture? — Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Reasons stated for the taking of the hostages

I don't have time to dig into the details, but I believe this article has been changed from claiming that the hostages were taken "because of the U.S. harboring the Shah of Iran when he was ill," to claiming that it was "in response to CIA involvements in Iran." I would like to suggest that it be changed back. It seems reasonable to suggest that the harboring of the Shah is a well-documented cause that led directly to the taking of the hostages, whereas "CIA involvement," while sounding feasible, sounds like it would be difficult to document and is speculative and vague at best. 68.199.204.112 (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Fiction

Why call the film a "fictionalised thriller"? I cannot recall any thriller movie that is fact - they are all works of fiction, to a greater or lesser degree. Argo is not a documentary or a docudrama, but a work of fiction, based very loosely on real events. The Amityville Horror was loosely based on true events as well!203.184.41.226 (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Argo deals with well-known actual events and persons, while fictionalizing them. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Grammar and English

These need some attention. CIA involvement in Iran, for instance, not "involvements". I doubt Mendez was inspired by "watching Battle for the Planet of the Apes on the phone with his son". No one watches movies on a phone, even now!203.184.41.226 (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

So fix it. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)