TERB In Need of a Banner

Argo - Ken Taylor's take on the story

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
What a coincidence that the 444 day hostage crisis ended on January 20 1981.

Inauguration day. New President who made it clear he would use force "if" needed thr first day.

Cue the "Carter cut a deal crowd" Good man. Lousy President.
Your opinion aside, the good news is that most historians disagree with you. He may not have been in the top ten, actually quite middling, but he wasn't lousy.
 

tovisitor98

New member
Aug 25, 2008
41
0
0
Sorry to hear you folks didn't know Hollywood movies were fiction. I've got some bad news for you about "Titanic". Jack and Rose weren't real.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
Sorry to hear you folks didn't know Hollywood movies were fiction. I've got some bad news for you about "Titanic". Jack and Rose weren't real.
Fiction means something different than based on historical events. D-Day wasn't fiction and had lots of scenes based on historical events as was Titanic.
The decision not to make the Canadian ambassador play a less important part in Argo, is a serious one. It would be like making the Jackal a woman in the The Day of the Jackal
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
In other ways the movie makes Canada look better than was in fact the case. For instance it is implied that the U.K. and New Zealand turned away the six, I don't know about the Kiwis, but in the case of the U.K. it was that there was a demonstrating mob in front of the British Embassy that was the difficulty not that the British closed to the door. So in that sense it makes Canada look better then it already was.

From the reviews it seems like it very well may be in play for the Academy Awards.

Anyone seen it yet?
 
Last edited:

GG2

Mr. Debonair
Apr 8, 2011
3,183
0
0
We should make a movie about the War of 1812 where we totally dominate and crush the yanks ( not that it happened that way, but just to take the same liberties they take in film making ), and see how they like the tables turned.
Nobody would watch it, not even Canadians.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,879
242
63
It's too bad that they feel that they need to make a story more american to be successful.
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
11,145
2,491
113
What a coincidence that the 444 day hostage crisis ended on January 20 1981.

Inauguration day. New President who made it clear he would use force "if" needed thr first day.
Utter Republican bullshit. Carter tried to use force and the monumental failure was not only humiliating but Iran then moved the hostages around to multiple secret locations making anything short of a wholesale invasion a non-issue. There is a rumour that fearful of a release of the hostages in October creating an October surprise that could propel Carter into an election win - Reagan's camp made a deal to secretly break the arms embargo and trade weapons through a third party into Iran. The deal was contingent on Iran holding the hostages until after Reagan was president.
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
11,145
2,491
113
Americans would not have gone to see the movie if it showed the truth - Canadians risking their lives to give save harbour to Americans.
They have gone to see war movies that the US weren't the super heroes. I think that as Canadians, we are simple too modest about our accomplishments. I'm amazed that upon entering the embassy Ken Taylor wasn't wearing a toque and cooking back bacon. If the SCTV MacKenzie brothers were incorporated as part of the staff of the Canadian embassy, I'm sure the US audience would have accepted it as fact.

Ben Afflect saw a script and thought it would be a good movie. It isn't the first time a warped view of history was turned into a movie. I remember when Monster came out, police and victims families were outraged that the producers hadn't taken the time to get the facts of the convicted murderer sympathetically portrayed in the movie.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
There is a rumour that fearful of a release of the hostages in October creating an October surprise that could propel Carter into an election win - Reagan's camp made a deal to secretly break the arms embargo and trade weapons through a third party into Iran. The deal was contingent on Iran holding the hostages until after Reagan was president.
Like all other conspiracy theories, all the people who would have had to know - and would dearly love to embarrass the U.S.A. - have never uttered a word about this merely because they want to keep the conspiracy going?
 

IM469

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2012
11,145
2,491
113
Like all other conspiracy theories, all the people who would have had to know - and would dearly love to embarrass the U.S.A. - have never uttered a word about this merely because they want to keep the conspiracy going?
There was enough substance that there was a congressional investigation held. I don't know this is true but the concept that Iran gave up the hostages because they were afraid of Reagan is extremely far fetched. Furthermore - there is a hidden communication link that is always kept out of the public eye. It is in the interests of all governments not to breach this confidence. You see only what they want you to see - that is what was so frightening about WikiLeaks to the government.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,084
1
0
There was enough substance that there was a congressional investigation held. I don't know this is true but the concept that Iran gave up the hostages because they were afraid of Reagan is extremely far fetched. Furthermore - there is a hidden communication link that is always kept out of the public eye. It is in the interests of all governments not to breach this confidence. You see only what they want you to see - that is what was so frightening about WikiLeaks to the government.
... and what was the findings of that investigation?
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
Movie Critique/Review

As previously mentioned, at the outset the movie rather “dises” the British, while praising Canada (but it doesn't at all explain why the British couldn't offer shelter to the six).

As should be expected since it is based upon the memories of the exfiltrator it is weak on the actions of Canadian Diplomats in Tehran.

Perhaps most annoying is part of the last six minutes where after one CIA Officer says “Thank God for Canada”; the follow-up line should have been “in addition to all they have actually done for us, we have to be sure that the Agency's involvement isn't mentioned at all since it would endanger the lives of the hostages.” Instead as delivered it sounds like sour grapes, and frankly should have been re-shot (it would have been less than a minute and a half).

It also "disses" Antonio Mendez the CIA Officer, in-fact he was painting (fine art not house painting) at home when he was called into the office, in the movie he is separated and it looks like he has been on a Chinese take-out and beer bender in a hotel room.

Would be interested in learning how much of the story Ambassador and Mrs. Taylor's housekeeper is factual.

Now as to the Movie as a movie

It has humour and lots of dramatic tension, in general it is a decent movie and certainly I'd recommend seeming it.
 
Toronto Escorts