I watched Argo last night. Within 3 minutes it was easy to see why the press and Hollywood loved this movie. Hollywood has never been too fond of facts or the truth, especially if it gets in the way of a good story (or their political agenda). In Argo, the entire backdrop of the Iranian hostage situation was framed as the typical left-wing "we deserved it" propaganda. The movie starts off with a completely distorted "history" of Iranian politics in which the reign of Persian kings (shahs) ends in 1950 when a prime minister (Mohammad Mosaddegh) is "democratically elected" only to be overthrown in a CIA/MI6 backed coup in 1953. According to the movie, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was then installed as Shah, a puppet ruler with the U.S. pulling his strings. There is only one problem with this "history." The Iranian parliament had been in existence since 1906. And Mohammad Reza Pahlavi reigned alongside of parliament from 1941 until his exile in 1979. He was the Shah of Iran throughout the tenure of Mohammad Mosaddegh as prime minister. The whole premise of the movie is utterly false. The U.S. and U.K. wanted Mohammad Mosaddegh out of power because he was backed by the communist, was seizing privately owned companies (like Hugo Chavez later did in Venezuela) and there was fear he would turn Iran into a full-blown Soviet-style communist country, or worse, a puppet nation of the USSR. Given the strategic importance of the Middle East, it's easy to see the concern of the U.S. and British leaders at the time.
Argo
- Thread starter G-MAN
- Start date
- Status
People who rely on "Liarwood" for their history deserve what they get. Liarwood will never stop making shoot 'em ups.
It's a movie, not a history class. You would have the same beef with any non-documentary movie. I think you have to temper your expectations given the financial success of "based on a true story" movies. Even something thoroughly researched like Lincoln or Saving Private Ryan has historical inaccuracies. To finance such large films they need to have a broad appeal, and creating a fake but more dynamic storyline is part of this.
Yes, Yet another Hollywood movie which butchers the facts and changes historical facts for good drama.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2013/02/argo-the-jimmy-carter-experience.html
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2013/02/argo-the-jimmy-carter-experience.html
Originally Posted By: bepperb
It's a movie, not a history class. You would have the same beef with any non-documentary movie. I think you have to temper your expectations given the financial success of "based on a true story" movies. Even something thoroughly researched like Lincoln or Saving Private Ryan has historical inaccuracies. To finance such large films they need to have a broad appeal, and creating a fake but more dynamic storyline is part of this.
The political BIAS in movies is beyond belief. The pablum fed to kids in school leaves them unable to distinguish truth from fiction.
It's a movie, not a history class. You would have the same beef with any non-documentary movie. I think you have to temper your expectations given the financial success of "based on a true story" movies. Even something thoroughly researched like Lincoln or Saving Private Ryan has historical inaccuracies. To finance such large films they need to have a broad appeal, and creating a fake but more dynamic storyline is part of this.
The political BIAS in movies is beyond belief. The pablum fed to kids in school leaves them unable to distinguish truth from fiction.
I agree. Still entertaining. Anyone see Django Unchained? Entertaining but historically preposterous.
Originally Posted By: Autobahn88
Yes, Yet another Hollywood movie which butchers the facts and changes historical facts for good drama.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2013/02/argo-the-jimmy-carter-experience.html
Pres. Carter's revisionist history is almost as bad as Ben Affleck's. Nothing about the Argo mission was conceived, planned, or executed by the Canadians. The only thing the Canadians did was provide shelter for the 6 Americans in the home of the ambassador until a way could be devised to get them out. To their credit, the Canadians cooperated by allowing the CIA to take the Americans out as Canadian citizens traveling under Canadian passports. And the only reason the Carter administration did not take credit for this rescue, and actually asked the Canadians to do so, was because he knew the remaining hostages in the U.S. embassy would have been killed when the revolutionaries found out the CIA had successfully extracted 6 Americans.
Yes, Yet another Hollywood movie which butchers the facts and changes historical facts for good drama.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2013/02/argo-the-jimmy-carter-experience.html
Pres. Carter's revisionist history is almost as bad as Ben Affleck's. Nothing about the Argo mission was conceived, planned, or executed by the Canadians. The only thing the Canadians did was provide shelter for the 6 Americans in the home of the ambassador until a way could be devised to get them out. To their credit, the Canadians cooperated by allowing the CIA to take the Americans out as Canadian citizens traveling under Canadian passports. And the only reason the Carter administration did not take credit for this rescue, and actually asked the Canadians to do so, was because he knew the remaining hostages in the U.S. embassy would have been killed when the revolutionaries found out the CIA had successfully extracted 6 Americans.
Kestas
Staff member
You know it's "hollywood" when they throw in all the 'just in the nick of time' scenes.
Even one of the former hostages said there was no drama at the airport before departure from the country. He said they sat around in the terminal, boarded the plane, then flew out of the country. That was it!
I remember when this happened, when the students realized they were duped by falsified passports courtesy of the Canadian government, they were screaming "It's illegal, it's illegal!!" not realizing the irony of that statement.
Even one of the former hostages said there was no drama at the airport before departure from the country. He said they sat around in the terminal, boarded the plane, then flew out of the country. That was it!
I remember when this happened, when the students realized they were duped by falsified passports courtesy of the Canadian government, they were screaming "It's illegal, it's illegal!!" not realizing the irony of that statement.
Movies are, movies, that's it.
Any truth to them then they should be re-classified as history documentaries, not "movies".
Any truth to them then they should be re-classified as history documentaries, not "movies".
It won best picture and going to the movies an expecting exact fact is not real. Donald Duck is fake I figured that out early in life. Using politics in your explantion is getting very old. Kinda make you wanna say I saw that movie. Lighten up and see Identity Thief
..
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
I watched Argo last night. Within 3 minutes it was easy to see why the press and Hollywood loved this movie. Hollywood has never been too fond of facts or the truth, especially if it gets in the way of a good story (or their political agenda). In Argo, the entire backdrop of the Iranian hostage situation was framed as the typical left-wing "we deserved it" propaganda. The movie starts off with a completely distorted "history" of Iranian politics in which the reign of Persian kings (shahs) ends in 1950 when a prime minister (Mohammad Mosaddegh) is "democratically elected" only to be overthrown in a CIA/MI6 backed coup in 1953. According to the movie, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was then installed as Shah, a puppet ruler with the U.S. pulling his strings. There is only one problem with this "history." The Iranian parliament had been in existence since 1906. And Mohammad Reza Pahlavi reigned alongside of parliament from 1941 until his exile in 1979. He was the Shah of Iran throughout the tenure of Mohammad Mosaddegh as prime minister. The whole premise of the movie is utterly false. The U.S. and U.K. wanted Mohammad Mosaddegh out of power because he was backed by the communist, was seizing privately owned companies (like Hugo Chavez later did in Venezuela) and there was fear he would turn Iran into a full-blown Soviet-style communist country, or worse, a puppet nation of the USSR. Given the strategic importance of the Middle East, it's easy to see the concern of the U.S. and British leaders at the time.
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
I watched Argo last night. Within 3 minutes it was easy to see why the press and Hollywood loved this movie. Hollywood has never been too fond of facts or the truth, especially if it gets in the way of a good story (or their political agenda). In Argo, the entire backdrop of the Iranian hostage situation was framed as the typical left-wing "we deserved it" propaganda. The movie starts off with a completely distorted "history" of Iranian politics in which the reign of Persian kings (shahs) ends in 1950 when a prime minister (Mohammad Mosaddegh) is "democratically elected" only to be overthrown in a CIA/MI6 backed coup in 1953. According to the movie, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was then installed as Shah, a puppet ruler with the U.S. pulling his strings. There is only one problem with this "history." The Iranian parliament had been in existence since 1906. And Mohammad Reza Pahlavi reigned alongside of parliament from 1941 until his exile in 1979. He was the Shah of Iran throughout the tenure of Mohammad Mosaddegh as prime minister. The whole premise of the movie is utterly false. The U.S. and U.K. wanted Mohammad Mosaddegh out of power because he was backed by the communist, was seizing privately owned companies (like Hugo Chavez later did in Venezuela) and there was fear he would turn Iran into a full-blown Soviet-style communist country, or worse, a puppet nation of the USSR. Given the strategic importance of the Middle East, it's easy to see the concern of the U.S. and British leaders at the time.
Last edited:
One can just enjoy it knowing its not a documentary so a mix of fact and fiction.
Originally Posted By: ottotheclown
It won best picture and going to the movies an expecting exact fact is not real. Donald Duck is fake I figured that out early in life. Using politics in your explantion is getting very old. Kinda make you wanna say I saw that movie. Lighten up and see Identity Thief
..
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
I watched Argo last night. Within 3 minutes it was easy to see why the press and Hollywood loved this movie. Hollywood has never been too fond of facts or the truth, especially if it gets in the way of a good story (or their political agenda). In Argo, the entire backdrop of the Iranian hostage situation was framed as the typical left-wing "we deserved it" propaganda. The movie starts off with a completely distorted "history" of Iranian politics in which the reign of Persian kings (shahs) ends in 1950 when a prime minister (Mohammad Mosaddegh) is "democratically elected" only to be overthrown in a CIA/MI6 backed coup in 1953. According to the movie, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was then installed as Shah, a puppet ruler with the U.S. pulling his strings. There is only one problem with this "history." The Iranian parliament had been in existence since 1906. And Mohammad Reza Pahlavi reigned alongside of parliament from 1941 until his exile in 1979. He was the Shah of Iran throughout the tenure of Mohammad Mosaddegh as prime minister. The whole premise of the movie is utterly false. The U.S. and U.K. wanted Mohammad Mosaddegh out of power because he was backed by the communist, was seizing privately owned companies (like Hugo Chavez later did in Venezuela) and there was fear he would turn Iran into a full-blown Soviet-style communist country, or worse, a puppet nation of the USSR. Given the strategic importance of the Middle East, it's easy to see the concern of the U.S. and British leaders at the time.
You seem to be missing the point. What I'm talking about was the 3 minute monologue at the beginning of the movie, the voice of a female narrator giving the "backstory" to the 1979 Iranian student uprising. This little history lesson was totally false. It's one thing to take artistic license with the facts in the body of the movie (which this movies does), but to deliberately distort the historical backdrop for a political agenda goes beyond "artistic license" in my book.
It won best picture and going to the movies an expecting exact fact is not real. Donald Duck is fake I figured that out early in life. Using politics in your explantion is getting very old. Kinda make you wanna say I saw that movie. Lighten up and see Identity Thief
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
I watched Argo last night. Within 3 minutes it was easy to see why the press and Hollywood loved this movie. Hollywood has never been too fond of facts or the truth, especially if it gets in the way of a good story (or their political agenda). In Argo, the entire backdrop of the Iranian hostage situation was framed as the typical left-wing "we deserved it" propaganda. The movie starts off with a completely distorted "history" of Iranian politics in which the reign of Persian kings (shahs) ends in 1950 when a prime minister (Mohammad Mosaddegh) is "democratically elected" only to be overthrown in a CIA/MI6 backed coup in 1953. According to the movie, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was then installed as Shah, a puppet ruler with the U.S. pulling his strings. There is only one problem with this "history." The Iranian parliament had been in existence since 1906. And Mohammad Reza Pahlavi reigned alongside of parliament from 1941 until his exile in 1979. He was the Shah of Iran throughout the tenure of Mohammad Mosaddegh as prime minister. The whole premise of the movie is utterly false. The U.S. and U.K. wanted Mohammad Mosaddegh out of power because he was backed by the communist, was seizing privately owned companies (like Hugo Chavez later did in Venezuela) and there was fear he would turn Iran into a full-blown Soviet-style communist country, or worse, a puppet nation of the USSR. Given the strategic importance of the Middle East, it's easy to see the concern of the U.S. and British leaders at the time.
You seem to be missing the point. What I'm talking about was the 3 minute monologue at the beginning of the movie, the voice of a female narrator giving the "backstory" to the 1979 Iranian student uprising. This little history lesson was totally false. It's one thing to take artistic license with the facts in the body of the movie (which this movies does), but to deliberately distort the historical backdrop for a political agenda goes beyond "artistic license" in my book.
Originally Posted By: Quest
Movies are, movies, that's it.
Any truth to them then they should be re-classified as history documentaries, not "movies".
Yup, I don't see why people are so upset about it other than they wasted time and money for it.
Movies are, movies, that's it.
Any truth to them then they should be re-classified as history documentaries, not "movies".
Yup, I don't see why people are so upset about it other than they wasted time and money for it.
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
You seem to be missing the point. What I'm talking about was the 3 minute monologue at the beginning of the movie, the voice of a female narrator giving the "backstory" to the 1979 Iranian student uprising. This little history lesson was totally false. It's one thing to take artistic license with the facts in the body of the movie (which this movies does), but to deliberately distort the historical backdrop for a political agenda goes beyond "artistic license" in my book.
How does anyone know if their "fact base" is true? I know the word "FACT" is overused. Years ago, a Local paper did a simple story about my family and they got most of the "facts" wrong. The story is in print and on microfiche at the state capital library and supposedly unbiased - but wrong (though harmless). If you lived through a stressful ordeal your memory will surely be fooled. Can we say there exist any true facts beyoud science physical law?
You seem to be missing the point. What I'm talking about was the 3 minute monologue at the beginning of the movie, the voice of a female narrator giving the "backstory" to the 1979 Iranian student uprising. This little history lesson was totally false. It's one thing to take artistic license with the facts in the body of the movie (which this movies does), but to deliberately distort the historical backdrop for a political agenda goes beyond "artistic license" in my book.
How does anyone know if their "fact base" is true? I know the word "FACT" is overused. Years ago, a Local paper did a simple story about my family and they got most of the "facts" wrong. The story is in print and on microfiche at the state capital library and supposedly unbiased - but wrong (though harmless). If you lived through a stressful ordeal your memory will surely be fooled. Can we say there exist any true facts beyoud science physical law?
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: G-MAN
You seem to be missing the point. What I'm talking about was the 3 minute monologue at the beginning of the movie, the voice of a female narrator giving the "backstory" to the 1979 Iranian student uprising. This little history lesson was totally false. It's one thing to take artistic license with the facts in the body of the movie (which this movies does), but to deliberately distort the historical backdrop for a political agenda goes beyond "artistic license" in my book.
Totally agreed. There are a lot of moviemakers who take huge liberties with "history". But no one I know expects anything factual in a movie, it's considered fantasy from the start!
Many current movies come to mind with an obvious agenda...
You seem to be missing the point. What I'm talking about was the 3 minute monologue at the beginning of the movie, the voice of a female narrator giving the "backstory" to the 1979 Iranian student uprising. This little history lesson was totally false. It's one thing to take artistic license with the facts in the body of the movie (which this movies does), but to deliberately distort the historical backdrop for a political agenda goes beyond "artistic license" in my book.
Totally agreed. There are a lot of moviemakers who take huge liberties with "history". But no one I know expects anything factual in a movie, it's considered fantasy from the start!
Many current movies come to mind with an obvious agenda...
I haven't seen it yet - you guys are just blowing it for me!!!
Don't tell me the ending of zero-dark-thirty either!
Don't tell me the ending of zero-dark-thirty either!
Quote:
in 1950 when a prime minister (Mohammad Mosaddegh) is "democratically elected" only to be overthrown in a CIA/MI6 backed coup in 1953.
G Man: Are you disputing this part of "history".
This is a historical fact, not even most hawkish zealots argue this incident.
The reason why Iranian people distrust our government is because historically the US has been involved in MANY such incidents.
Salvador Allende was also overthrown in a CIA backed military coup.
Unfortunately our rogue government is constantly interfering in the affairs of other nations, which are NOT a threat to us. That comes with consequences for ALL of us whether we agree with such illegal actions or not.
George Washington gave some great advice which is timeless.
"Avoid foreign entanglements".
But the tyrants that now control our government don't care as long as they get their way, no matter the cost to others.
in 1950 when a prime minister (Mohammad Mosaddegh) is "democratically elected" only to be overthrown in a CIA/MI6 backed coup in 1953.
G Man: Are you disputing this part of "history".
This is a historical fact, not even most hawkish zealots argue this incident.
The reason why Iranian people distrust our government is because historically the US has been involved in MANY such incidents.
Salvador Allende was also overthrown in a CIA backed military coup.
Unfortunately our rogue government is constantly interfering in the affairs of other nations, which are NOT a threat to us. That comes with consequences for ALL of us whether we agree with such illegal actions or not.
George Washington gave some great advice which is timeless.
"Avoid foreign entanglements".
But the tyrants that now control our government don't care as long as they get their way, no matter the cost to others.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Quote:
in 1950 when a prime minister (Mohammad Mosaddegh) is "democratically elected" only to be overthrown in a CIA/MI6 backed coup in 1953.
G Man: Are you disputing this part of "history".
This is a historical fact, not even most hawkish zealots argue this incident.
The reason why Iranian people distrust our government is because historically the US has been involved in MANY such incidents.
Salvador Allende was also overthrown in a CIA backed military coup.
Unfortunately our rogue government is constantly interfering in the affairs of other nations, which are NOT a threat to us. That comes with consequences for ALL of us whether we agree with such illegal actions or not.
George Washington gave some great advice which is timeless.
"Avoid foreign entanglements".
But the tyrants that now control our government don't care as long as they get their way, no matter the cost to others.
Yea there may or may not be a long history of "if you don't do what we want, then you're a dictator and we're coming to free the heck outta your people (of the responsibility of living)" or something to that effect. We euphemistically call it "Foreign Policy". It almost sounds orderly and benevolent.
Quote:
in 1950 when a prime minister (Mohammad Mosaddegh) is "democratically elected" only to be overthrown in a CIA/MI6 backed coup in 1953.
G Man: Are you disputing this part of "history".
This is a historical fact, not even most hawkish zealots argue this incident.
The reason why Iranian people distrust our government is because historically the US has been involved in MANY such incidents.
Salvador Allende was also overthrown in a CIA backed military coup.
Unfortunately our rogue government is constantly interfering in the affairs of other nations, which are NOT a threat to us. That comes with consequences for ALL of us whether we agree with such illegal actions or not.
George Washington gave some great advice which is timeless.
"Avoid foreign entanglements".
But the tyrants that now control our government don't care as long as they get their way, no matter the cost to others.
Yea there may or may not be a long history of "if you don't do what we want, then you're a dictator and we're coming to free the heck outta your people (of the responsibility of living)" or something to that effect. We euphemistically call it "Foreign Policy". It almost sounds orderly and benevolent.
I once thought what I learned in Economics in college was wrong,(a lot of it is and is also theory) so that led me to the Mises Institute. I soon learned that they were wrong, and what I learned was actually the correct approach. Be careful about what you think is the "truth". How many people listen to talk radio think they are getting "the truth"?
- Status
