So Argo wins the Oscar for Best Film. I’m not denying it’s a well-crafted movie with good attention to periodic detail and an interesting, gripping story but there seems a slight misconception at hand. Part of the fascination with Argo (and the plaudits that went with it) revolves around the retelling of a tense and inventive escape from a revolutionary Iran finally throwing the shackles of Western interference and a despotic monarch.
Yet Argo is so loose with the truth it should be classified as fiction. Almost all the moments of tension and fear (the trip to the market, the woman at the gate, the inability to go outside, the conversations in the embassy and the chase at the end) are completely made up. The directorial ability to recreate events here is total bullshit and I’d question the accolades it gets. He should get a Michael Mann award!
Seriously though its a very well-made film and it only has to be better than its competitors and generally I’d say it is only a film. But a film that plays so loosely with the term ‘based on a true story’ is ingeniousness. The praise concerns its recreation of past events. That is conceptually true but factually redundant.