Friday, April 19, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Argo
This movie is the best kind of conventional entertainment. It has a good story, good characters, a story that a lot of us know about, and it is executed very well. So, how did it get to be Best Picture? Don't get me wrong, this is an extraordinarily crafted piece of work, much like "Lincoln". If anything, "Lincon" and "Argo" show two directors from different generations who are doing very well crafted entertainment. Personally, I would say that the last movie Ben Affleck made (2010's "The Town") was a better movie, because I felt that it had a more interesting plot and had more to say about the plight of humanity. "Argo" is a typical "against all odds" story with a wonderful cast of character actors, and a plot constructed so well that it keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat.
The movie involves a CIA agent named Tony Mendez who comes up with a way to get 6 American hostages out of Iran during the famous Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 and 1980. The only alternative he can come up with is to crate a story whereby he and the 6 Americans pose as a film crew shooting on location in Tehran. Once their identities have been given and fake passports have been given, they can attempt to got to the airport and get through the checkpoints so they can get back to America. In order to make the plot work, Mendez (played with skill by Ben Affleck himself) enlists the help of two Hollywood pros (Alan Arkin and John Goodman). They give the plot credibility and are able to support Mendez's mission from Hollywood. Once all the pieces of the plot are in place, the story is ready to unfold, and it is very engaging.
Maybe part of the reason this film won Best Picture was that Ben Affleck was snubbed in the Best Director category by not even being nominated. There are always reasons besides aesthetics that people vote for Oscars, and it seems like that happened this year. This is a very good movie, but when it is boiled down to its essence, it is pretty standard stuff. It actually reminded me a little bit of another action type movie that was nominated for Best Picture back in 1993. That movie was called "The Fugitive", and while it was a well crafted action/adventure movie, it didn't stand a chance against another movie that year called "Schindler's List". "Schindler's List" not only had quality going for it. It also had an outstanding cause as well as a director who had gotten snubbed at the Oscars in the past. For the 2012 Oscars, I have now seen 4 of the 9 movies that were nominated ("Les Miserables", "Zero Dark Thirty", "Lincoln", and this movie), and I would vote for all three of the other films before this one for Best Picture. My wife put it very well...this movie is the "Bourne" films combined with "Apollo 13". All of those movies are of a high quality, but the "Bourne" films were never even considered Oscar worthy. Any great film should be considered, but since the Oscars usually don't consider them, it is a mystery to me why "Argo" got such a following. Perhaps the sensibilities of the Academy are changing, and we will see more action oriented movies considered for these types of honors. Other movies of this genre are even better, and while this one is very good, it doesn't exactly stand out as the unique achievement in film making that a Best Picture winner is supposed to be. To compare apples to apples a bit more, "Lincoln" was able to take better advantage of its marvelous character actor ensemble. That was due to its amazing script. Meanwhile, in "Argo", there are several great actors who are not given as much upon which to chew.
For the third or fourth time, this was a great movie. This essay is not meant to criticize Affleck or anyone on the movie, who all did an outstanding job on it. More than anything, the philosophical question as to what makes a good film, and why do certain people vote the way they do is always interesting. In the case of "Argo", similar films to it have not been considered as much in the past. Maybe some day I will attempt to wrestle with the question of aesthetics (the judgment of the quality of art), but I don't know a whole lot about it. For now, I will simply comment that while this movie is praiseworthy, I would not have gotten my vote for "Best Picture." I am still a big "Les Miserables" advocate, and until I see the other five movies that were nominated, I may stay that way
The movie involves a CIA agent named Tony Mendez who comes up with a way to get 6 American hostages out of Iran during the famous Iranian hostage crisis in 1979 and 1980. The only alternative he can come up with is to crate a story whereby he and the 6 Americans pose as a film crew shooting on location in Tehran. Once their identities have been given and fake passports have been given, they can attempt to got to the airport and get through the checkpoints so they can get back to America. In order to make the plot work, Mendez (played with skill by Ben Affleck himself) enlists the help of two Hollywood pros (Alan Arkin and John Goodman). They give the plot credibility and are able to support Mendez's mission from Hollywood. Once all the pieces of the plot are in place, the story is ready to unfold, and it is very engaging.
Maybe part of the reason this film won Best Picture was that Ben Affleck was snubbed in the Best Director category by not even being nominated. There are always reasons besides aesthetics that people vote for Oscars, and it seems like that happened this year. This is a very good movie, but when it is boiled down to its essence, it is pretty standard stuff. It actually reminded me a little bit of another action type movie that was nominated for Best Picture back in 1993. That movie was called "The Fugitive", and while it was a well crafted action/adventure movie, it didn't stand a chance against another movie that year called "Schindler's List". "Schindler's List" not only had quality going for it. It also had an outstanding cause as well as a director who had gotten snubbed at the Oscars in the past. For the 2012 Oscars, I have now seen 4 of the 9 movies that were nominated ("Les Miserables", "Zero Dark Thirty", "Lincoln", and this movie), and I would vote for all three of the other films before this one for Best Picture. My wife put it very well...this movie is the "Bourne" films combined with "Apollo 13". All of those movies are of a high quality, but the "Bourne" films were never even considered Oscar worthy. Any great film should be considered, but since the Oscars usually don't consider them, it is a mystery to me why "Argo" got such a following. Perhaps the sensibilities of the Academy are changing, and we will see more action oriented movies considered for these types of honors. Other movies of this genre are even better, and while this one is very good, it doesn't exactly stand out as the unique achievement in film making that a Best Picture winner is supposed to be. To compare apples to apples a bit more, "Lincoln" was able to take better advantage of its marvelous character actor ensemble. That was due to its amazing script. Meanwhile, in "Argo", there are several great actors who are not given as much upon which to chew.
For the third or fourth time, this was a great movie. This essay is not meant to criticize Affleck or anyone on the movie, who all did an outstanding job on it. More than anything, the philosophical question as to what makes a good film, and why do certain people vote the way they do is always interesting. In the case of "Argo", similar films to it have not been considered as much in the past. Maybe some day I will attempt to wrestle with the question of aesthetics (the judgment of the quality of art), but I don't know a whole lot about it. For now, I will simply comment that while this movie is praiseworthy, I would not have gotten my vote for "Best Picture." I am still a big "Les Miserables" advocate, and until I see the other five movies that were nominated, I may stay that way
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)