There are a lot of tricks in this film, first of all it is in the promotion of the main theme of the United States ideology. In fact, the main theme of the United States is not personal heroism and patriotism, but the unbreakable concept of family. For example, in the presidential debate in the United States, when the candidates first came up, they did not introduce their political opinions, but said that they had been married for a few years and how many children they had. Therefore, the hostage crisis that has been caused is actually the background. The real message to be conveyed is that the protagonist has gone from a loner who eats Chinese food and takeaways, and finally turns into a good man who embraces his wife, in short, All this is not to save the hostages, but to save the family. The one that has gone the farthest in this regard is "2012": a doomsday has come, just to make the couple reconcile as before.
Then it was to please Hollywood. In recent years, there are quite a few films that pay tribute to the film industry itself (or flattering): for example, Quentin's "Inglourious Basterds", Scorsese's "Hugo" and last year's Oscar's Best Picture "The Artist". But the movies mentioned in these three are actually a bit "anti-Hollywood": Quentin’s film says, "Those who treat movies as the main melody promo have to die!", Mérieux in "Hugo" is exactly used by the film industry Forced to go bankrupt, and even the name of "The Artist" seems to be a satire of Hollywood. Only "Argo" took it to the next level-our "Argo" saved 6 American citizens, and it was based on a true story. Can the judges of the film academy be unwilling to bloom? Our Hollywood is not only a kitsch entertainment industry, but also a living bodhisattva who saves people from fire and water, and we are proud of it.
Then there is to please the "target audience": the bad guys fail to succeed in the conspiracy, and the good guys hold the beauties. The so-called "target audience" I guess the conservative middle class, settle for the status quo, seek stability and fear change, and see no imperfect ending. For example, the Iranian maid in the Canadian embassy. At first, I thought that the Canadian ambassador and his wife were going to kill her. In the end, I thought how to be killed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. But good people will pay off, and she escaped safely to Iraq. This obviously cannot satisfy my taste.
Without the terrible "climax" at the end, my rating might be higher, because the film has many advantages. For example, the production is well-made, the degree of reduction is high, and the design in some places is also quite interesting-in the United States, the actors read the script of "Argo": the spaceship is about to be destroyed, and Argo (it is said to be the name of the spaceship) is the only hope, and finally Everyone came out of the cabin with a red flower in their hands and looked at the wreckage of the spacecraft in the desert. It seems to be a story of "rescuing the hostages". In Iran, the nasty guy with a beard and speaking Persian told the soldiers of the Revolutionary Guard in revolutionary language the story of "the people's uprising against the king", making them laugh with joy, haha, this comparison doesn't have much meaning. Yes, but at least it shows that the screenwriter is still very careful. The music selection is also good, I like Rolling Stones, Dire Straits and Led Zeppelin.
Now let's talk about this terrible ending. To be honest, what I felt when I saw the "last-minute rescue" was not nervous, but - embarrassed. When I watched it, I kept praying in my heart: "Don't show tension with a cross-montage", and then he crossed the montage. "Don't let the protagonist see the police car catching up from the porthole", then he saw it. I'm not disgusted by such old-fashioned treatment, but embarrassed...Really, any self-respecting director should not embarrass the audience when they want to make the audience nervous.
View more about Argo reviews
