Last week Mr. O'Connor brought up an interesting
fact about the movie Lincoln. O'Connor announced that Lincoln knowingly
expresses misleading information. In the movie, it supposedly states that
Connecticut voted against the 13th Amendment, while in reality Connecticut was
in favor for it. Just as Lincoln displayed false information, the movie Argo
did as well.
According to this interview on CNN with Jimmy Carter, Carter states, "that ninety percent of the contributions to the
ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian, [however] the movie gives
almost full credit to the American CIA".
First off, I understand that directors choose to
"alter" aspects of history in order to add drama, however, I wonder
to what degree is it considered ok for directors to knowingly change facts
of history?
To add, I also find it interesting that, as Carter
mentioned above, the directors of Argo chose to give credit to the Americans,
rather than the rightfully deserved Canadians. Did the directors choose to
divert the attention to the American CIA for merely the affect of drama? Or are
Americans not inclined to watch a film where they are not shown in the most
positive light possible?
This reminds me of another discussion we had in the beginning of the
year about how the government chose to only show clips of the Vietnam war that
illustrated progress and success, instead of showing that there was very little
progress or success actually being made. Just as the U.S. government chose to
not tell the whole truth, do you think the film-makers of Argo had the right to
stretch the truth in order to appeal to the audience, why? If you were the
director of Argo would you have chosen to do the same thing?
No comments:
Post a Comment