Tuesday, 23 October 2012

Argo: A Review


Fifteen years ago Ben Affleck burst onto the Hollywood scene with the 1997 film Good Will Hunting, which he co-wrote with childhood friend Matt Damon. Affleck and Damon went on to win an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. It seemed however that Affleck's acting career was quickly overshadowed by Damon as Hollywood played it's all time favourite game of comparison. In 2003 as Damon was riding the high of the successful The Bourne Identity (Dir. Doug Liman), Affleck was trying to get away from the negative publicity that swarmed his critically panned film Gigli (Dir. Martin Brest).

Affleck directs on the set of Argo

Affleck had a skill however that Hollywood had yet to see. In 2003 he directed a film he had written called Gone Baby Gone, an emotionally charged drama centered around the kidnapping of a little girl in Boston. He followed this with The Town in 2010, a critically acclaimed drama, set near Boston, in which he directed and starred. It seemed that Affleck had successfully stepped out of the shadow and into his very own spotlight. With two dramas under his direction, it wasn't a surprise to learn that his third film would also be a drama. It was a surprise however that he chose to take on a highly political subject like the 1979 American Embassy hostage crisis in Iran. 

Affleck's Mendez goes through the plan with the American fugitives 

Argo begins in the thick of it, the protests outside the American Embassy in Tehran. Flags are being burned, anti-American slogans are shouted passionately. Affleck doesn't just fly the camera through quickly and rush to the American point of view. His camera stays with the protestors, hearing their anger, letting them have their say. By the time you do get inside the embassy and meet the six fugitives to be you have an understanding that this is not a film about who is right and who is wrong. Politics, although always in the background, are never focussed on. 

Mendez and O'Donnell (Bryan Cranston) pitch the best bad idea they've got 

Just before the embassy is overrun six employees escape and are taken in by the Canadian Ambassador, Ken Taylor and his wife. There is a line in the film which states that the British and the Kiwis refused them help. This is factually incorrect. The British and the Kiwis helped get the fugitives to the Canadians, and Taylor and his wife played a much larger part in the rescue. This is a story where only one true hero can emerge however, and not surprisingly that hero has to be American.

John Chambers (John Goodman), Leister Siegal (Alan Arkin) and Mendez (Affleck) have one last toast before showtime

The film is emotionally powerful to say the least. It has you on the edge of your seat all the way through, allowing enough humour to break the tension, but never too much to distract from the gravity of the situation. The idea of sending Tony Mendez (Affleck) into Iran as a would-be filmmaker for the fictional film "Argo", and walking out with the six hostages posing as a film crew is ludicrous, yet as the film quotes "it's the best bad idea we've got". The first half of the film sets up the fake film. It needs to be real, so real that Hollywood buys it. Enter our producer Leister Siegal (Alan Arkin) and makeup artist John Chambers (John Goodman), the only two Hollywood players that know the truth of what the CIA is attempting to do. Arkin and Goodman supply much of the comic relief in the film and do it so brilliantly you eagerly anticipate their appearances on screen. Affleck's Mendez is sober, solemn and serious, the key player in showing the tension. As our protagonist his point of view becomes ours, where he goes we go, and where he goes is where no American would want to have gone in 1980. We have no reason to believe that he will be successful except for a short acknowledgement that he is the best and he's never left a man behind. However, we find ourselves daring to believe he'll be successful because the alternative is too tragic to consider.

The stakes are high as Mendez and the fugitives are questioned by security 

What follows is a suspense-ridden, high stakes game of cat and mouse where the only way to win is if the mice keep a step ahead of the cat at all times. The cinematography creates the illusion of it being shot in the early 1980s, lending a nostalgic, somewhat documentary feel, creating a sense of realism. Although Mendez is clearly the hero of the film there is still a sense of ensemble work from the supporting cast, including a great performance by Bryan Cranston as Mendez's CIA supervisor Jack O'Donnell. 

Affleck may never be able to fully shed the horror that was Gigli, but if that old Hollywood adage that you're only as good as your last film holds true then Affleck is going to be ok. 


Wednesday, 3 October 2012

Women at War

Last Friday I attended a screening of the documentary The Invisible War (Dir. Kirby Dick, 2012) at the Vancouver International Film Festival. Going in I knew it would be a difficult watch, with a subject matter that revolves around the rape of soldiers in the US military I anticipated that it would be a heavy film. I didn't anticipate however the strong reaction it would have with myself and the audience around me.


The documentary investigates what can only be described as an epidemic of sexual assault in the US military. The statistics tell us that 20% of female soldiers in the US military have been sexually abused. We know from statistics that 80% of sexual abuse victims do not report assaults, therefore the number would in fact be significantly higher. The film introduces us to a number of rape victims from a series of military outfits including the Navy, Marines and Coast Guard. It is nothing short of horrifying listening to their experiences, going from proud, dedicated soldiers to broken victims at the hands of not only the perpetrators, but also the US military.

Elle Helmer

Hearing their ordeals was difficult enough. The sobs of the audience members around me told me I wasn't alone in this. Where it gets really difficult however is when you find out what the US military did after the victims reported their assaults. That would be a whole lot of nothing. Due to the military's own form of justice the victims had to go through their chain of command to report the abuse. Those in positions of power however are not trained or equipped to deal with such matters, and as one interviewee noted it would be seen as a leadership failure if it got out that there had been an assault in their unit. Therefore the assaults are 'dealt' with by the military, and this usually means that the perpetrator walks off free.

Kori Cioca and her husband 

That unfortunately isn't the worst of it. The majority of  women who did report abuse ended up being investigated themselves. They were told that their accusations were false, or that they had bought it on themselves. One of the women we see, Kori Cioca received her papers and was discharged after she reported the rape. Her story is particularly tragic. Not only was she sexually violated, she was also physically abused by her attacker, so much so that it broke her jaw. When we see her in the film she has been on a soft diet for two years because of the injuries she received at the hands of the perpetrator. She has been waiting over 14 months for medical aid from the military, and near the end of the film we find out she has been denied. A variety of ridiculous reasons are given, one being that she was two months shy of the two years of service needed in order to be eligible for aid. She was two months short of two years because she was discharged for reporting her attacker. He is currently still working at the US Coast Guard.


The film brings to light the military sexual assault prevention and assault program, which basically consists of telling female soldiers to walk with a buddy, and reminding male soldiers to "ask her when she's sober". When they interview Kaye Whitely, the former director of the program she clearly has no expertise and no actual system in place for rape prevention. The whole program seems to be an attempt to appear as though prevention is in place when it is fact not.


I cannot recommend this film enough. Although the subject matter is heavy and the stories disturbing, it is vital that we bring such atrocities to light and ensure that this does not continue to happen to both men and women in the military. The film encourages us to share this story with friends and to sign this petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/support-military-sexual-assault-survivors, and I encourage you also. Please check out http://invisiblewarmovie.com/ for more information and make sure that you spread the word and ensure that the victims never have to feel invisible again.