Oscars in Review: ‘Argo’ win was inevitable but mediocre

By Varun Bhuchar, The Dartmouth Staff

Published on Tuesday, February 26, 2013

  • Print
  • Report an Error

The last time the Academy and I kind of agreed on a Best Picture winner was when the exciting and timely “The Hurt Locker” (2009) won over the visually impressive but wholly unoriginal “Avatar” (2009). Since then, I’ve watched the Academy give its most prestigious award to films that can be considered inferior in retrospect. After all, when was the last time you popped in “The King’s Speech” (2010) for fun? Would you have bothered with “The Artist” (2011) if it were made in color and with sound? These questions should make you think about how the Academy operates in giving its top prize to a film that is considered safe but fails the ultimate test of time. “Argo” (2012) continues this streak of comparative mediocrity after it walked away with the best picture at the 85th Academy Awards on Sunday.

After winning nearly every guild award under the sun, “Argo”’s win was inevitable. Set during the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, it is the story of a clandestine CIA mission to save six American diplomats who are hiding in the Canadian ambassador’s house under the guise of scouting a science-fiction film in Iran. It is a plot that seems like it would be at home at any good espionage thriller. However, “Argo” manages to take an exciting event mired in complex historical context and turn it into a two-hour patriotic feel-good fest. Now, there’s nothing wrong with films that set out to do this, but “Argo” is so saccharine, so non-offensive and so inconsequential in the scheme of things that its message becomes nauseating. The blame for this lies solely with its director, Ben Affleck.

Affleck is a long way from “Gigli” (2002), the notorious box office bomb that nearly killed his career. Since then, he’s become one of the most respected directors in Hollywood after the critical and commercial success of his first two films, “Gone Baby Gone” (2007) and “The Town” (2010). I, however, do not share this sentiment and “Argo” did nothing to change my opinion of Affleck’s directorial ability.

Two much lauded qualities of the film are the opening scene, which depicts the storming of the embassy, and the climax. Both been praised for their suspense and realism; I for the life of me cannot understand why. The opening suffers from a case of awful pacing. After the fifth shot of people shredding documents, I found myself checking my watch to make sure that time was in fact moving forward, and that I had not been sucked into some awful “Groundhog Day” (1993) vortex where I would be forced to watch an embassy siege for the rest of eternity. The film’s climax is perhaps the only time I can remember literally rolling my eyes at something, as six plot points converged at once in a manner not seen outside of some farcical comedy from the ’60s.

Yet I could forgive all of that if it weren’t for the fact that “Argo” commits the egregious sin of being completely irrelevant. Its portrayal of America as good and Iran as bad does nothing to assuage the already high tensions between our nations, and its glorification of Hollywood reeks of the same self-congratulatory behavior that the Academy would reward without question in the past.

So why did “Argo” walk away with the big prize? Many point to Affleck’s directing snub as the reason for the enormous outpouring of support the film received in the final stretch of Oscar season. If that claim is true, then its victory is an even dumber move than I previously thought. This reasoning is made all the more ironic because it is the directors’ branch of the Academy that nominates the directors for the award. If Affleck’s peers, the directors he so badly wants to be compared against, didn’t deem him worthy to receive an award that rests on how well one man steered a film to completion, then what does that say about their general opinion of “Argo”?

Indeed, the highlight in a dismal broadcast that saw Daniel Day-Lewis steal Joaquin Phoenix’s Oscar and Jennifer Lawrence win hers for an unworthy role was Ang Lee’s win for “Life of Pi” (2012). “Life of Pi” was not my first choice to win best picture: that would have been “Django Unchained” (2012), a close second. Lee’s masterful direction of a beautiful tale will be remembered more often than whatever Affleck tried to accomplish with “Argo.”

“Argo” is currently playing at the Nugget.

Comments

Criticism as a profession that has your name all over it. I found the movie very interesting and most of all, very proud of Tony Mendes' role in rescuing the hostages. Does it matter that he risked his life? That he insisted on carrying out the nail biting task of guiding the hostages through the checkpoints? Does it matter how joyful the hostages felt as the wheels of the airliner lifted off the ground while departing Iran? It’s a feel good story and you made it feel bad and unfortunate. You have ruined the reason that people go to the movies. You have stolen the joy out of entertainment. If I could, I would abolish the role of the critic in entertainment. Affleck did an admirable job getting the story out to “people” who need to understand the situation. He has my admiration.

By on Feb 26 | 1:24 am

Spot-on analysis of Ben Affleck’s overblown, overhyped abilities. Great in “Good Will Hunting”…all downhill, rapidly, since. His movies are terribly obvious and simply lazy. But when has that ever stopped Hollywood from handing out gushing praise?

However, regarding “The King’s Speech” … inferior? Incorrect, even if were to agree that the sole criteria for a great movie be that it is “fun” (which, incidentally, we don’t) TKS is a moving piece of art, with historical compass, that delivers a beautiful message. It will stand long after many, many others have faded from memory.

Otherwise, great piece from a new fan in California.

P.S. “The Hurt Locker” should have won over “Fern Gully,” I mean “Avatar,” but anything should have. THL was not a great movie; 2009 was a worthless movie year.

By on Feb 26 | 1:39 am

“Its portrayal of America as good and Iran as bad does nothing to assuage the already high tensions between our nations….”. What would assuage the tensions between the Arab World and the U.S.? No one seems to find an answer. It’s because Arabs are culturally a black-hole where reason and the willingness to work together for peace DO NOT EXIST. Wouldn’t you agree that Iran is a dangerous place? A bad place? I don’t find this comparison of good and bad relevant or any different than liberal Hollywood Politics, actually very similar. It’s “fact”. This is anti-American. Don’t assume the readership will come to your conclusions or disown America for the sake of a good Iran.

By on Feb 26 | 1:47 am

First of all, the Groundhog Day line made me legitimately laugh out loud while reading this. Perhaps Lewis did not deserve the best actor award, but I felt the real slight was Tommy Lee Jones, whose role in Lincoln gave the movie its true qualification.

By on Feb 26 | 1:44 pm

Argo was Hollywood’s attempt to wrap their minds around the events at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the Sept. 11. death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others killed in the night of violence. Hollywood is pseudo intellectualized with its nod to major world events and feels Argo is timely and safe. It is overblown with jingoism. The last scene with Ben Aflect at his house trying to make up with his estranged wife while the American flag snaps in the background was nauseating.

By on Mar 1 | 2:24 pm

Comments are closed on this article.

Most Viewed | Latest Comments

  1. Debate on Student Life Must Not Become Personal
  2. Speaker examines democracy, markets
  3. Professors receive $12 million for biomedical studies
  4. College's Homecoming unique among Ivies
  5. Daily Debriefing
  6. Students criticize PB’s choice of ASAP Rocky
  7. Assault victims face tough judicial process
  8. Freshman charged with rape
  9. McKay: Understanding Sexual Assault
  10. Big Green men's hockey routs RPI, upended by Union