Argo: Balancing Hollywood’s “Anti-American” Tradition

The Ben Affleck-directed Argo begins with a bit of historical context. The movie occurs during the Iranian Hostage crisis, which was a result of the 1979 Iranian revolution (or revolt, depending on your perspective). From my knowledge, the historical narrative given at the start of the film was both accurate and succinct, educating the audience with information rarely encountered in the average high school curriculum.

The narration, told by a woman with an Iranian accent, puts a distinctly Iranian perspective on the story. She starts by explaining the history of the great Persian empires, then moves onto the story of the 1953 CIA-led coup to overthrow the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh (who was planning to nationalize the Anglo-American oil holdings in Iran). The movie makes it very clear that the “successor” to Mosaddegh (the shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) was a brutal and cruel authoritarian dictator who relied heavily upon the support of the American government to crack down on his constituency.

Which is odd.

Argo is a movie made in the United States. Its story was written by Americans and it was produced by Americans. It was directed by an American. It focuses largely on American or otherwise Western characters, nearly all of whom are played by American thespians. It was intended to play in front of American audiences in American theaters. Not least of all, the story, at least superficially, is one of great American ingenuity, perseverance and triumph.

But, before any of the pro-America story begins, the audience is very clearly reminded that, well, most of what happened in Iran was caused, or at least precipitated by, the arrogant meddling of the United States of America. Without the 1953 coup, there is no Reza. Without Reza, there is no Khomeni. Without Khomeni, there is no revolution. And, without the revolution, there is no hostage crisis.

Even throughout the movie, the previous actions of the United States are questioned, sometimes by members of American government. CIA members, even the president’s Chief of Staff, all take jabs at the recently overthrown, but American-supported shah. Nearly all of the Americans in the movie at some point admit to the nefarious actions the shah took to solidify his power.

Argo had a wonderful chance to become an American propaganda movie. The Iranians could have all been made villains. The Americans could have all been made heroes. The mistakes made by the U.S. during its history, the ubiquitous sense of the American government’s incompetent gridlock could have all been swept under the rug.

But they weren’t.

Instead they were put on broad display. The movie did not just point them out to the audience, it shoved them to within inches of the audience’s eyeballs.

It could be labeled self-defeating, this behavior. If this movie were made in any other country in the world, or involved any other country in the world, it would have been akin to some state-run, unity-producing piece of patriotic propaganda. It would be shown in middle schools across the nation, impressing upon young minds the innate heroic qualities of their fellow countrymen.

Although Argo ends with a patriotic flourish, it will never be shown at your neighbor’s Kool-Aid party. It falls perfectly in line with the vision many apple-pie-loving Americans have of Hollywood and the entertainment industry as a whole: it is as anti-American as an American institution can be. To many of these people, showbiz is filled with apologists who seek to undermine the reputation of the United States in the eyes of its allies and enemies.

While such sentiments are not entirely accurate, it may be closer to the truth than its polar opposite argument. Many of the political statements made by the American entertainment industry are as or more critical of the United States, its government and its policies as they are of any other country or people. And this certainly presents a contradictory image of the United States to foreigners. The president says one thing, Sean Penn says another. (Side note: some true Hollywood crazies somehow got the go on a 9/11 “truther” movie).

But, while this may encourage outsiders to perceive the United States as a divided house, set to collapse in on itself, the reality is quite different. Self-deprecation and self-examination are integral to growth, both for individuals and communities. The great unifying propaganda pieces are as likely to rally the good guys to defeat a truly evil enemy (see the Alliedeffort against the Nazis during the Second World War) as they are to rally the good guys to work alongside a truly evil enemy in a fight against other good guys (see the Nazi effort against the Allies during the Second World War).

Within the truly free society that Americans have created, the various viewpoints, be they overly truthful (if such a term could be possible) or just downright crazy, have a way of balancing against each other and, to certain degrees, cancelling each other out. The cynics keep the naïve from flying too close to the sun, just as the naïve keep the cynics from burrowing too deep into the darkness.