2013 Oscar Pool - Movies & TV - Forums : Best Ever Albums

19loveless91
mag. druž. inf

I actually agree with the gist of what Naples is trying to say. A film will always offer merely an "illusion of reality", even when based on true events, and that's why you should never view it as something that is trying to tell you an "objective" truth. Their purpose IS to entertain (in one way or another), MORE than it is to educate (obviously, depends on the film).

Does anyone complain about historical inaccuracies in Tarantino's movies? Of course not, they're so OTT, it's where the "point" lies even. Then you have a myriad of examples, where the movie doesn't portray something (location, area of expertise, whatever...) correctly. Note, when you watch a movie or a TV show which relates to something you know a lot about - even minor inaccuracies will bother you a whole lot. For example, I saw complaints on IMDb about Zero Dark Thirty and how it portrayed Pakistan (and you know that inaccurate depiction of foreign countries is nothing new). Then, I wonder how actual doctors view all those medical shows on TV. And I don't even want to know what forensics and actual detectives think of shows like CSI or NCIS. As for me, I personally get irritated most of the time there is talk about chess in movies.

But still.. That's what artistic license means. They're taking something as the base for the story, then build on that to make a product they want - now what is it they want to make, it's their choice, but in many cases, the end product will end up being far out from reality. But as I said, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's always gonna be an "illusion of reality".

Having said all of that, it doesn't mean that Argo (and other similar movies) should be immune to criticism. Because, I agree with what people have said, if there are obvious "inaccuracies", there should be some sort of justification for them (some point to it). Naples argues, that the point is to make it more entertaining. Is the movie really more entertaining because they "neglected" to mention some important details? Did diminshing a role of Canadian diplomats really bring something extra to it? Now I personally don't (100%) agree with tekin's theory on why they decided to do it, although it's a valid interpretation and a totally understandable reason to dislike the film. But I think it's more that they simply wanted to glorify the "escape idea" + the Hollywood's role in all of this, and this is where all those problems with historical accuracy came from. They had to make the situation those people were in seem as dangerous, and the escape idea as implausible as possible. You can argue how one-dimensionally the Iranians are portrayed, but quite frankly I think it's (to borrow a line from Archer) "merely incompetence" from writers' end. After all, is there anything interesting you could say about ANY character here? Those american diplomats - what do we really learn about them?

I have to say, I actually still enjoyed Argo a lot, maybe because I can go past the bullshit and don't see it as anything more than a product that is meant to entertain. What bothered me the most was actually the kind of minor stuff, like all of "last second" escapes, fake tension (e.g. the airway chase scene) - which again didn't bother me because it would be historically inaccurate, but quite simply because it was done in the manner of all those average and overly clichéd action flicks.

Guest

RFNAPLES wrote:

A few of the awards won by Argo:

A few of the awards won by Fahrenheit 9/11:

Fahrenheit 9/11

Argo

RFNAPLES
Level 8

Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA

I don't
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

RFNAPLES
Level 8

Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA

19loveless91 wrote:

I actually agree with the gist of what Naples is trying to say. A film will always offer merely an "illusion of reality", even when based on true events, and that's why you should never view it as something that is trying to tell you an "objective" truth. Their purpose IS to entertain (in one way or another), MORE than it is to educate (obviously, depends on the film).

Does anyone complain about historical inaccuracies in Tarantino's movies? Of course not, they're so OTT, it's where the "point" lies even. Then you have a myriad of examples, where the movie doesn't portray something (location, area of expertise, whatever...) correctly. Note, when you watch a movie or a TV show which relates to something you know a lot about - even minor inaccuracies will bother you a whole lot. For example, I saw complaints on IMDb about Zero Dark Thirty and how it portrayed Pakistan (and you know that inaccurate depiction of foreign countries is nothing new). Then, I wonder how actual doctors view all those medical shows on TV. And I don't even want to know what forensics and actual detectives think of shows like CSI or NCIS. As for me, I personally get irritated most of the time there is talk about chess in movies.

But still.. That's what artistic license means. They're taking something as the base for the story, then build on that to make a product they want - now what is it they want to make, it's their choice, but in many cases, the end product will end up being far out from reality. But as I said, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's always gonna be an "illusion of reality".

Having said all of that, it doesn't mean that Argo (and other similar movies) should be immune to criticism. Because, I agree with what people have said, if there are obvious "inaccuracies", there should be some sort of justification for them (some point to it). Naples argues, that the point is to make it more entertaining. Is the movie really more entertaining because they "neglected" to mention some important details? Did diminshing a role of Canadian diplomats really bring something extra to it? Now I personally don't (100%) agree with tekin's theory on why they decided to do it, although it's a valid interpretation and a totally understandable reason to dislike the film. But I think it's more that they simply wanted to glorify the "escape idea" + the Hollywood's role in all of this, and this is where all those problems with historical accuracy came from. They had to make the situation those people were in seem as dangerous, and the escape idea as implausible as possible. You can argue how one-dimensionally the Iranians are portrayed, but quite frankly I think it's (to borrow a line from Archer) "merely incompetence" from writers' end. After all, is there anything interesting you could say about ANY character here? Those american diplomats - what do we really learn about them?

I have to say, I actually still enjoyed Argo a lot, maybe because I can go past the bullshit and don't see it as anything more than a product that is meant to entertain. What bothered me the most was actually the kind of minor stuff, like all of "last second" escapes, fake tension (e.g. the airway chase scene) - which again didn't bother me because it would be historically inaccurate, but quite simply because it was done in the manner of all those average and overly clichéd action flicks.

Great post
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

Guest

RFNAPLES wrote:

Great post

If you think that's a great post it suggests that you don't have sufficient mental faculties to present your own ideas because in that post we have:

19loveless91 wrote:

I agree with what people have said, if there are obvious "inaccuracies", there should be some sort of justification for them (some point to it). Naples argues, that the point is to make it more entertaining. Is the movie really more entertaining because they "neglected" to mention some important details? Did diminshing a role of Canadian diplomats really bring something extra to it?

And there is something called Skopos Theory which in a simplified form tries to say that you should evaluate a text based on it's purpose or function. Suggesting that movies are made just to entertain (esp. in its hollywoodian scale and moreover when CIA is involved) is just pure credulity. We can assume entertaining nature of a movie if it doesn't imply otherwise itself. And if distortion of facts in a movie helps to develop its plot or showing that part of reality isn't possible in the film format or the director or writer doesn't seem to try or to be committed to retell a historical story then I have no problem with that. The problem is that none of these conditions are satisfied either implicitly or explicitly in that movie.

RFNAPLES
Level 8

Gender: Male
Age: 75
Location: Durham, NC, USA

^Poor post
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

Guest

useless

RFNAPLES wrote:

^Poor post

You have no arguments at all. You were owned RFNaples, just accept it and live with it. Smile