For this essay, I chose to do a movie review on the historical drama film Argo directed by Ben Affleck and screen writer Chris Terri. I picked this movie because at the time it came out on October 12, 2012, the title caught my attention and after viewing the movie I thought it was so amazing how this actually happened in real life and the movie was well written and suspenseful at the end. Before this movie, I was unaware this event actually occurred. Towards the end, I was at the edge of my seat and felt like I was living in the moment. This is one extraordinary event in American history where they succeeded. The movie takes place in Iran during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. In the beginning, the story starts off with background information …show more content…
Mendez contacts a Hollywood make-up artist John Chambers who had also worked for the CIA in the past. Soon Mendez and Chambers get in touch with a film producer named Lester Siegel. All 3 men set up the fake film production company and make their plans public. They successfully establish the beginning stages of Argo. Argo was suppose to be a “science fantasy adventure” that takes place in the deserts of Iran. While the plan was forming, the rebel’s at the abandoned American Embassy hired children to restore the embassy’s destroyed remains and photographs. Mendez meets with the 6 Americans and hands them the Canadian passports. Canada at the time were somewhat allies Iran before this event happened. The 6 Americans were hesitant when it came to trusting Mendez at first but knew they needed to get out asap and that was their only hope. The American fugitives were each given a new identity they had to look like, learn, and become. There was a scene where Mendez and the 6 Americans for the first time in a while go out in public and walk around the outside markets where things start to turn sour. Some of the American’s faces were captured by a undercover Iranian …show more content…
Mendez at that point did not know what to do and could not tell the 6 Americans about the change of plans. He knew that if he told them, they would lose all hope. That night when Mendez returns to his hotel room, he decides to go though with his original plan. The next morning he calls his boss Jack O’Donnell that he will be moving forward. This creates conflict because O’Donnell frantically had to make calls to authorize the tickets for the Swissair flight. As the 7 Americans leave the ambassador’s house, the ambassador has his security destroy all the machines in his home and destroy as much evidence possible soon after him his wife and all staff members leave the house as well. Meanwhile at the airport, Mendez and the other Americans are so close to boarding the plane but are stopped last minute. One of the security men are suspicious about one of the American’s passports and then all 7 are told to stand to the side and then interviewed by a few Iranian soldiers. Joe Stafford knew how to speak arabic and explained their purpose for visiting Iran. He told the story behind Argo and showed newspapers, pictures, and drawings of the “production.” The soldiers seemed intrigued but the head soldier needed more confirmation if anyone wanted to board the plane. Mendez handed the soldier a card with the studio’s number. This was
The book, Argo: How the CIA and Hollywood Pulled Off the Most Audacious Rescue in History, written by Antonio Mendez and Matt Baglio, is a first-hand account of the dangerous but successful mission, aided by Hollywood and the Canadian government, to rescue six US diplomats from Iran after they escaped the US embassy during the Iran Hostage Crisis. Even though this is a non-fictional story, it still has themes. This story about courage and problem-solving conveys many important messages to the reader. The most meaningful message that Antonio Mendez and Matt Baglio are trying to convey to the reader is that no matter how difficult it seems to solve a certain problem, you can solve any problem as long as you put your mind to it, and are confident
In today's day and age, it's rare to see famous historical events and societal disasters not be picked apart by film directors and then transformed into a box office hit. What these films do is put a visual perspective on these events, sometimes leaving viewers speculating if whatever was depicted is in fact entirely true. I have never felt that feeling more than after I finished watching Oliver Stone’s JFK.
America’s well-being was shattered on November 22, 1963, the day of John F. Kennedy’s assassination. Although authorities arrested Lee Harvey Oswald as the president’s killer, a multitude of citizens in our country believe a conspiracy was involved, and that Oswald was not the lone assassin. The film JFK encompasses facts that support conspiratorial actions being part of JFK’s assassination. These facts support a disparate opinion and gives viewers and movie characters the chance to formulate their own opinions instead of blindly following that of another. In JFK, Oliver Stone displays certain events in different perspectives in order to prevent blind following from inattention.
It is very common in society for movies to be made from popular works of literature. This then sparks a debate of which was better. With a younger audience, most people tend to choose the movie, however, more literate people always chose the book. The Laramie Project written by Moises Kaufman is a play based off of interviews with people who experienced the devastating event in Laramie, Wyoming. A young man was beaten within an inch of death and then left to die because he was gay. The play includes interviews from a large group of locals, which provides many unique perspectives of the events. The play was then turned into a movie in 2002. After reading the play and seeing the movie, I determined that, overall, that reading the original play
They had guns! He stared into the night, hoping that maybe there would be some U.S. Marines out for a stroll, but there was only a lone man sitting in his rocking chair out in front of his ruined house and for a moment Oscar could have sworn the dude has no face, but then the killers got back into the car and drove (Diaz 298).
In this day in age, it is very common to find films adapted from books. Many of those films do a very well in their adaptations, but some fall short. Since it was finished, and even before its release date, the V for Vendetta film has gained some controversy from its own author. But, although the film did not end up how Alan Moore, the author, would have wanted it, he did not contribute to the project, even so, the filmography very clearly kept with the original work and showed itself as a product of the time.
For this free choice final paper, I decided to analyze Oliver Stone and his two films Platoon and JFK. Oliver Stone, a three-time Academy Award winner and known as one of the best filmmakers in his generation, ignores Hollywood convention warning against making films with a message. Among some of his great films, he made the two films Platoon and JFK. In Platoon, he presents a gritty and emotional examination of American soldiers during the Vietnam War through the lens of Chris Taylor, a biographical representation of himself and so...
...s at that time who have come of age. Perhaps no film in recent history has captured more attention and generated more controversial debate. This film resonates the feeling and question that common people had about the JFK assassination in the 60s. As a result, the debate about the validity of JFK extended much further into the war-torn cultural landscape of America in the 1990s than most observers noted. The JFK was a telling incident demonstrating the larger cultural conflict over values and meaning in America and the competition to define national identity. The whole affair demonstrated how effective a motion picture can be as a transmitter of knowledge, history, and culture. As a result, the debate about the validity of JFK extended much further into the war-torn cultural landscape of America in the 1990s than most observers have noted.
Enter the United States Government and CIA that set forth a plan to rescue the six Americans. Different plans were discussed, when Tony Mendez, played by Ben Affleck, devised a plan
the 1980’s, which is also when it is set. It is based in and around
Suderman, Peter. "MOVIE REVIEW: ‘Argo’." The Washington Times. N.p., 11 Oct. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.
What attracts us to the movie theatre on Friday nights? Is it the commercials we see? Or is it all the gossip we hear from friends and TV talk shows? Well for many, it is the critiques we read and hear almost every day. One who specializes in the professional evaluation and appreciation of literary or artistic works is a critic. The profession of movie criticism is one of much diversity. Reviews range anywhere from phenomenal to average. Not only are movies created for the entertainment and sheer pleasure of the audience, they create a market of jobs and open doors to the world of financial growth. The success of these films, whether they are tremendous or atrocious, is not only dependent of the actual film, but also upon the critic’s reviews. It is a form of assistant advertising, in addition to commercials and billboards. A movie review is composed of summaries, plots, controversial issues, perks, and detriments. They discuss the features of the movie and certain points that appeals to the critic. Not to forget that the sole purpose of writing these reviews is to persuade the reader to take on a pre-opinionated view of the film prior to viewing it. In addition, they hope the reader enjoys their style to further persuade them, as well as others, to persist in reading their reviews.
To begin with, this paper was written with the intent to provide a full analysis on the movie Black Hawk Down. Over the course of the following paragraphs, I will establish a base as to why I think this movie is important to history, as wells as provide an in-depth overview of the narrative, and the translation of the story into a film. Since there are many different characteristics that make up a great film, the following text will provide what I think to be the strongest elements of the narrative, mise-en-scene, character development, and overall reception of the audience.
Iago, the evil villain of Shakespeare's Othello, is more than just a villain. In many ways he is the most intelligent and appealing character in the play. Iago shows superiority over the rest of the characters in the play. He has the ability to manipulate the characters in the play, therefore controlling the play with every sequence of events. His intelligence shines through his ability to deceive, his ability to strategize, and his ability to twist the truth. Iago is appealing to the characters of the pay because he gives them what they want. Iago is appealing to the reader as well. His character is totally unconflicted about being evil, making him known to some authors as the villain of all villains. Iago is, in many ways, the most intelligent and appealing character in the play.
“Entertainment has to come hand in hand with a little bit of medicine, some people go to the movies to be reminded that everything’s okay. I don’t make those kinds of movies. That, to me, is a lie. Everything’s not okay.” - David Fincher. David Fincher is the director that I am choosing to homage for a number of reasons. I personally find his movies to be some of the deepest, most well made, and beautiful films in recent memory. However it is Fincher’s take on story telling and filmmaking in general that causes me to admire his films so much. This quote exemplifies that, and is something that I whole-heartedly agree with. I am and have always been extremely opinionated and open about my views on the world and I believe that artists have a responsibility to do what they can with their art to help improve the culture that they are helping to create. In this paper I will try to outline exactly how Fincher creates the masterpieces that he does and what I can take from that and apply to my films.