Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Reflection of history in cinema
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 …show more content…
in what you are doing. The book begins with a brief history of Iran, and an explanation of the tensions between Iran and the United States. On November 4, 1979 Iranian militants, angry with the Unites States’ support of the Shah, stormed the United States compound in Tehran, Iran. Americans inside originally were calm, and some were even annoyed, but they soon realized the seriousness of the issue. Americans began destroying documents, and the marines put on their riot gear. But there were so many militants that they soon took control of the embassy. However, during the attack, 12 diplomats in the embassy managed to escape out a back door during the attack. Out of these 12, six were caught, but the other six managed to escape. The escaped American diplomats hide in the homes of two Canadian diplomats, and are sheltered by the canadian government. Meanwhile, Antonio Mendez, an artistic, top-level CIA officer and father of three, hears about the attack. He receives orders to find a way to get the Americans home. Mendez had previous experience in exfiltrating certain individuals, and has learned a lot from these missions. In some parts of the book, Mendez flashes back to these previous missions. He begins to focus his attention on devising the perfect plan to successful exfiltrate the americans out of Iran. It came to him that over the years, the CIA had seemed to recognize the similarities between Hollywood and spying, for both had to do with perception and disguise. He realizes that the CIA sends agents to Hollywood to work on film sets to improve their work as spies. This leads Mendez to come up with a brilliant idea. Mendez decides to enter Iran and disguise the diplomats as a Canadian production team scouting locations for a fake sci-fi film called “Argo.” Antonio Mendez then works out the details to make the scheme more believable. With the permission of the Canadian government, he creates fake Canadian passports for the diplomats. He creates an advertisement for the movie, writes a script, and staffs a production company named Studio Six in Los Angeles, California just in case suspicious Iranian officials start to poke around. Playing the part of the Hollywood producer for the movie, Antonio Mendez enters Iran with another agent. He meets with the escapees and prepares them for the most important role in their lives. He prepares their disguises, and helps them embrace their new identities. They frizz their hair, unbutton their shirts, and become “more flamboyant, edgier, sexier.” The diplomats and Antonio Mendez successfully complete their mission and return home to the United States safely. Months later, the rest of the US hostages in the embassy are released, after 444 days of captivity. The CIA kept silent about its involvement in the rescue of the six americans, and gave the credit to the Canadiens. However, even with the CIA’s involvement, the operation would not have been possible if it were not for the help of Canada. Getting the six American diplomats out of the hostile and chaotic revolutionary Iran seemed like an impossible mission. However, Antonio Mendez knew that with hard work and perseverance, he could accomplish the mission. Early in the mission, Antonio Mendez doubts that the plan to disguise and exfiltrate the diplomats will work. “With the six Americans we were basically dealing with untrained amateurs who were hiding out in a city seething with hatred for westerners. It would take all the resources we had to figure this one out” (Mendez and Baglio 121). In this quote, Antonio Mendez realizes how hard it will be to get the Americans out of Iran. He knows that this is a life or death mission for these diplomats, and they are not trained spies. They are at risk of cracking under the overwhelming pressure of the mission. However, Mendez also recognizes that they must use all resources available, and continues to persevere towards completing the mission. Instead of complaining that the mission is impossible, he uses his brain to come up with a solution. He talks to the diplomats individually to help them with their disguises and ease their worries. This teaches the reader that you can do anything if you do not give up, and have faith in what you are doing. The main lesson in Argo is developed by the author in more ways than one.
Another way the message is portrayed is during one of Antonio Mendez’s flashbacks. Mendez recalls when he was recently in Iran to help rescue a high-priority agent he calls “RAPTOR.” Mendez disguises RAPTOR and escorts him all the way to the check-in counter at the airport, and then waits to make sure he gets on his plane. But he soon realizes that RAPTOR has disappeared. Mendez looks for him, and finds him in the men’s bathroom. “I grabbed him by the elbow and hustled him out of the bathroom. As we hurried across the departure lounge and toward the gate, a few Revolutionary Guards gave us sideways glances but otherwise didn’t seem to care” (Mendez and Baglio 119). In the end, RAPTOR returned home safely. RAPTOR cracked under the pressure, and did not have full faith in his disguise and the mission. If it were not for Mendez pulling him out of the bathroom, RAPTOR could have been caught because he did not believe in the mission. Mendez worked hard on the disguise and believed that the mission would succeed, but unfortunately, RAPTOR did not. This teaches the reader that as long as you have faith in what you are doing, you can accomplish what you thought was
impossible. Another example of how the author develops the theme is in a similar flashback. In this flashback, it is Antonio Mendez’s first exfiltration, and he must exfiltrate a high-level KGB officer code-named NESTOR. However, this exfiltration was particularly difficult. “We were especially worried about security controls at the airport. Because of the manhunt going on, the airlines were requiring that all passengers reconfirm their flight in person before leaving the country” (Mendez and Baglio 125). Facing serious challenges, Antonio Mendez and the other agents worked their way around this problem instead of giving up. Jacob, another agent, knew the situation the best, and decided that he would take NESTOR through the airport himself. This was dangerous because NESTOR could compromise Jacob, but it solved the problem because Jacob could confirm his reservation for NESTOR. In the end, NESTOR safely escaped. This teaches the reader that even if something may seem impossible, you can never give up, because there is always a possible solution to the problem. Another example of how the author portrays the lesson to the reader is when Antonio Mendez is presenting the different options for exfiltration to the american diplomats. He presents the options of posing as American teachers and Canadian nutritionists. But he also displays his confidence in the Hollywood movie plan. “‘I’ve managed a lot of these kinds of operations in the past,’ I said. ‘And I’m confident that the Hollywood option will work.’” (Mendez and Baglio 242). In this quote, Antonio Mendez is trying to convince the american diplomats that the Hollywood option is the best option. His confidence in the Hollywood plan is really the key to the success of the operation. The Hollywood plan might not have been used if Mendez was not so confident in it, and the diplomats might not have escaped. This teaches the reader that what seems difficult, can be accomplished as long as you are confident in what you are doing. One final example of how the author develops the theme and conveys his message is when Antonio Mendez is in the airport, helping the diplomats escape. As he watches the diplomats become the Hollywood producers they are playing, he has full faith in the diplomats. “We were in the moment. They appeared to have listened to everything I had told them in our rehearsals. All right, I thought. They can do this” (Mendez and Balio 268). In this quote, Mendez realizes that all is hard work is starting to pay off. He believed in his plan, and now he believes in the diplomats. He is proud of them for listening to him, and for really playing the part. He knows they can do this. Because Antonio Mendez never gave up and was confident in the success of the operation, he achieved what many called difficult and even impossible. In conclusion, Antonio Mendez wrote the book not only to tell the story of six american diplomats hiding out in Iran during the hostage crisis, but to also teach the reader that anything is possible with hard work and confidence. He portrays this message by telling the story of the exfiltration of the six american diplomats, as well as other infiltrations that he was a part of. All the infiltrations seem to have one thing in common: the key is in confidence and perseverance. In the book, the author is trying to teach the reader that although some things may seem impossible, these things can be accomplished as long as you never give up and have faith in what you are doing.
Killing Reagan is a book written by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard. The book’s focus is to take readers behind the scenes, through the life and times of Ronald Reagan. From his Hollywood days to his days in presidency, near-death experience, and the nearly impossible obstacles he had to overcome in order to carry out the duties as a man and as President of the United States. The authors wanted to create a portrait of a “great man operating in violent times”, and that they did.
In the end, the professionalism and expertise of all the operators involved in operation Anaconda had prevailed and the mission would be considered a success. Mulholland assessed the performance of his men. “We put these small groups of highly trained, very dedicated professional unconventional warriors…into an alien country…and destroyed al-Qaeda and the Taliban in his backyard, in his stronghold.”23
This historical study will compare and contrast the depiction of the “War on Terror” in a pro-government and anti-government plot structures found in Zero Dark Thirty (2012) by Kathryn Bigelow and The Siege (1998) by Edward Zwick. The pro-government view of Zero Dark Thirty defines the use of CIA agents and military operatives to track down Osama Bin Laden in the 2000s. Bigelow appears to validate the use of torture and interrogation as a means in which to extract information in the hunt for Bin Laden. In contrast this depiction of terrorism, Zwick’s film The Siege exposes the damage that torture, kidnapping, and
The Cold War and post Cold War eras have brought with them many interesting aspects. New technologies initially meant for mass destruction filter down into the civilian world, making current lives easier. One example of this is the anti-lock braking systems of today’s cars. Originally designed to slow fighter-planes on landing without skidding, these systems make it safer for parents to take their children on vacation. One less noted advancement the eras brought is a considerable amount of exciting and forewarning fiction. While most authors chose to warn of nuclear and post nuclear holocaust, one significant author chose a different approach. Tom Clancy chose to write of conventional warfare and sometimes unconventional enemies. Between his novel Red Storm Rising and Debt of Honor, Tom Clancy makes evident the changing face of America’s enemies and threats, while staying true to issues that keep people interested in his books.
The movie Thirteen Days is 2000 docudrama and is directed by Roger Donaldson who is Australian and tries to portray the film in a serious manor. The movie is based on the 13 days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and shows the perspective of the US political leadership, specifically Special Assistant to the president Kenny O’Donnell, President John F. Kennedy and the Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. This film is not based on the book of the same name written by Robert F. Kennedy like the first docudrama film about the Cuban Missile Crisis, The Missiles of October; this film was meticulously researched and was based on The Kennedy Tapes: inside the white house during the Cuban Missile Crisis which was written by Ernest May and Phillip Zelikow. This is a positive for the film because Thirteen Days had the possibility to become an almost accurate film due to the declassification of important documents, but this was not the case due to the ‘Hollywood effect’ which is a key reason why this film is not history but entertainment. This film exposes how close America actually came to a Nuclear Holocaust. In this essay I shall cover all the positives and negatives to show whether or not the film is a good source of history but or actually was made for entertainment purposes. There are two main historical issues with this film that make it more entertainment than History; the first being Kevin Costner’s portrayal of Special Assistant Kenny O’Donnell, although the film is seen through his eyes and shows him to be in John F. Kennedy inner circle; in reality he may not have played an important role as the film portrays, since he was only Kennedy’s appointment secretary not the Personal advisor he is portrayed as in this film. Another historical w...
Just as with “All The President’s Men”, one can investigate the ethical issues in accordance to the SPJ Code of Ethics. Set in 1992, during the besiegement of the capital of Bosnia, Sarajevo, American and European journalists risked their own lives to report on the tragic and horrific incidents that took place. Flynn, an American journalist, and Henderson an English journalist, are the two main journalists who are featured in the film. Since the journalists are in the middle of a war scene, their lives were inherently in constant jeopardy. In order to report on the incidents that are occurring, they often found themselves in the middle of a shooting or in the aftermath of dead bodies lining the streets. Flynn and Henderson are both passionate about their work; Flynn especially is determined to catch the best story at all costs. Whereas, Henderson begins to find himself emotionally attached to one of the victims in Sarajevo. In the midst of life threatening chaos and terror, both Flynn and Henderson sought the truth and reported it. They were both courageous and respected the lives of whom they were
On October 3rd, 1993, a joint task force of Army Rangers and Delta Rangers were dispatched into the war torn slums of an uncontrolled United Nations section of the city Mogadishu, Somalia. The mission that day was only supposed to last at most an hour, but ended after a day of nonstop gunfights. When the initiative was lost, that’s when hell broke loose and prevented this mission from going according to plan and causing a disaster.
In his article, “Fleeing Terror, Finding Refuge,” Paul Salopek describes the prolonged conflict and distress of the Syrians. The Syrians, having been introduced into a warzone, are being forced out of their homeland in search of refuge. Salopek introduces the struggles of the Syrians in an intriguing and eye-opening style throughout his article. Throughout the article, “Fleeing Terror, Finding Refuge,” Paul Salopek is able to use the rhetorical strategies of rhetorical questioning, diction, and anecdote as a way to involve, inform, and create a lasting impact upon his audience relating to the Syrian Refugee Crisis.
On May 5th, 1980 the world was watching as the SAS was about to perform a life-taking raid on the Iranian Embassy in London against a six-man team known as the 'Democratic Revolutionary Movement for the Liberation of Arabistan' (DRMLA for short) (Barnes). The goal of this team or terrorist association was to draw attention to its demands for the self-determination of the Arab population of Khuzestan. The SAS had gotten into the Embassy by rappelling from the top of the roof into the windows of the Embassy. Surprisingly, the raid had only lasted nearly seventeen minutes long. The raid was a huge success for the rescuing of nineteen of the twenty hostages with all but perfect military performance, although two soldiers were killed by the terrorist’s. In fact, Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister of London at the time, had stated that it was “a brilliant operation” (Barnes).
Johnson, Brian D. "Ben Affleck Rewrites History ‘Argo’ Shifts the Spotlight from Ken Taylor, Our Man in Tehran, to CIA Spy Tony Mendez." Maclean's. N.p., 12 Sept. 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.
Another rhetorical device the authors used to develop a genuine piece was the use of humor, which goes hand in hand with pathos. Actual, humorous events that their interviewees shared were included in the book in an attempt to show the humanitarian side of the crisis and the efforts on both the Canadian and American sides, home and abroad, to keep emotions under control during a very strenuous time of both country’s histories, as well as to give the story more of a reality feeling rather than strictly political.
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.
It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign US embassy set the stage for the events to follow for the next 23 years.
On 10th of August 1978, the last year of the Pahlavi-era, Hoseyn Alizadeh and his two friends Farajollah and Hayat, attended a screening of Massed Kimia’s The Deer (1974) at the Rex Theatre in Abadan, Iran. The film told the story of an anti-government smuggler, and only narrowly passed censorship after considerable negotiations between Kimia and the Forbidden Acts Bureau of the Iranian Government. Four years later, and half way through this particular screening, Hoseyn and Farajollah left the cinema. They closed and locked the exit doors, and then doused them with high-octane aircraft fuel. They set fire to the doors and fled. The fire burned down the entire theatre, along with their friend Hayat, and the 470 others that were watching films.
Movies are a great version of storytelling because they make stories more relatable and memorable. Storytelling is one of the most powerful capabilities humans possess. It can be used to motivate, dominate, and influence people. The scope and power of storytelling has grown immensely from its roots in stories told over the campfire. It now covers every dimension of human emotion and endeavor. This makes stories incredibly relatable and influential in that one can relate to the emotions that are being depicted and can, if wanted to, be influenced by the decision the character made. Before movies were invented, people relied on speaking and “the written word” to hear stories. Each person visualized the story’s characters, sets, and actions differently. Moviemakers have moved a step further in the way of storytelling. They take it upon themselves to physically set up the sets, give faces to the characters, and sh...