Yes, the “historical context” voiceover is there at the start of the film. But that narration explains why the Iranian people were angry at the U.S. — it doesn’t justify what they did. Soon after the voiceover, you see the scenes of the scary-looking Iranian mob attacking the U.S. embassy. They aren’t made to look like reasonable people. Other than the maid at the Canadian embassy who refuses to reveal the hostages’ identity (and then takes asylum in another country), are there any Iranian “good guys” in the entire movie?

J.S.K. on February 25, 2013 at 11:36 AM

I hadn’t planned on checking back in with this thread which I’m sure no one is reading anymore since it’s so downpage now, but I’m extremely bored, so I did.

So since I did, for the record: No, you’re completely missing the point.

The “historical context” voiceover at the start of the film does not explain “why the Iranian people were angry at the U.S.” That’s my whole point. It’s a lie. It had nothing to do with “anger” (at least not in a Western sense). It had to do with Islam, and Islam only. It was a calculated, coordinated effort, just like in Benghazi. You seriously don’t see the pattern here? The “anger” was a pretense as part of a jihadi take-over of Iran. That’s all it was: a Sharia takeover of Iran (it should be highlighted, which was carried out in accord with Islam’s commands that Islamic law be the law of the land on the entire Earth). It wouldn’t matter what the US might or might have done, the Muzzies just would have made up some other excuse.

That was my whole point. We see this over and over and over again, no matter what the West does. They attack us, we ask, ‘why did you attack us?’, they say, ‘because you did A, B, and C.’ We feebly respond, ‘ok, then we won’t do A, B, and C.’ And then what happens? They attack us again. Rinse and repeat. And we’re such idiots that we keep falling for this, and continue to lose ground. It has nothing to do with the film making them, or not making them, “look like reasonable people.” My criticism was that the film advanced the Muslims’ false pretenses (that they’ve used over and over again since) thereby advancing the Muslims’ expansionist agenda. And you apparently fell for it.

Now, why would the film do that? Because Leftists theorize that they can team temporarily with the Muzzies for the purpose of destroying the US. Both Leftists and Muzzies have that goal in common. They both hate the US. Then, the Leftists imagine that once they succeed in overthrowing the US, they can ditch the Muzzies, and have their Commie utopia all to themselves. This is far from the first time this has been tried. In fact, it happened during the very Iranian revolution depicted in the film. There were actually Leftist, secular Iranians at the time, and they foolishly joined forces with the jihadis based on exactly that strategy. And what happened after the regime was overthrown? The Muzzies dumped the Leftists, and now the place is a Sharia hell hole. This is what always happens. Leftists (like that moron Affleck) never learn. The same thing happened in Egypt. Remember all that Lefty press about how one of the ‘Arab Spring’s’ main leaders was that Westernized secular techie kid who represented Google there? Where’s he now? That’s right, under the boot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Again and again and again and again…

It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the film depicted any individual Iranian “good guys.” Try to think on a broader level here. I said in my post that the film was subtle about this (somewhat – I thought it was pretty apparent). The point is that the film was trying to advance Islam’s overall agenda by advancing the Islamic narrative. See? Please don’t help the Left by falling for it.

Makes perfect sense that Michelle is part of the Oscars.

She and Obama have been “acting” as President and First Lady.
May their 2nd term be quick.

SmallGovtGuy on February 25, 2013 at 12:27 AM

Not only that, but her long running role as Barry’s beard wife may even be, if only for longevity, her best performance. The only question is whether she should get “Best Actress”, or “Best Actress in a Supporting Role”.

The fact that Argo won Best Picture is a crime, literally. The film was very subtle, but it was a pro-Iranian/Muslim film. Look at the opening “historical context” voice-over (don’t bother thanking me for having transcribed this): …

WhatSlushfund on February 25, 2013 at 1:28 AM

Yes, the “historical context” voiceover is there at the start of the film. But that narration explains why the Iranian people were angry at the U.S. — it doesn’t justify what they did. Soon after the voiceover, you see the scenes of the scary-looking Iranian mob attacking the U.S. embassy. They aren’t made to look like reasonable people. Other than the maid at the Canadian embassy who refuses to reveal the hostages’ identity (and then takes asylum in another country), are there any Iranian “good guys” in the entire movie?

https://twitter.com/Dudette9t9/status/305847708927815680/photo/1

Harvey Weinstein Arranged Michelle Obama’s Best Picture Oscars Surprise

According to Academy president Hawk Koch*, the plan came from Weinstein and his daughter, Lily. Koch and Oscar show producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron loved the idea. And when it was pitched to the first lady, Zadan told The Hollywood Reporter that her response was, “Yes, I think it’s a great idea. We watch movies all the time at the White House. Let’s do it…”

Just like an Andy Hardy…

*Not one of the Koch brothers…? /

“You can’t hold grudges.”

Really, Ben?

Grudges against whom?

Yes, it was nice to see that a guy, who just a few years ago was a gossip rag punch line, has regained his self respect and the respect of his peers. But saying “you can’t hold grudges” implies that there are people to hold grudges against. Which implies that others were at fault for what happened to you.

I don’t think so.

Ben, who forced you to do not one but two Michael Bay movies for huge, multi million dollar paychecks?

Who forced you date Jennifer Lopez?

Who forced you to take roles in Gigli and Jersey Girl?

Who forced you to have a pathetic gambling addiction?

Who forced you to become a drunk?

Who forced you to pontificate publicly about current events, when you have nothing particularly insightful to say?

Daredevil, Ben?

Gone, Baby, Gone and The Town should have come right after Good Will Hunting, not ten years later. If they had, you might even be a decent director by now.

I would rather have seen you give a speech about how a decade of poor choices can be redeemed by acceptance of responsibility, a good marriage, the support of one’s friends, and a little luck.

But then this is Hollywood.

Does anyone think Afflack actually directed that movie?

sartana on February 25, 2013 at 1:29 AM

Orson Welles once said that any idiot could direct a decent picture in Hollywood, as long as they were propped up by the right technicians and actors.

Afflack previously directed two competent but unexceptional movies. Nothing that shows any unusual talent or perspective.

Tellingly, he was denied a nomination for Best Director.

I haven’t seen Argo, because the highlight reel, otherwise known as the trailer, looked bad.

The consensus is that Argo won best picture because it shows Hollywood people in a heroic light. In other words, it made the impossible look real.

The Oscars are ridiculous. Both Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix gave genuinely stunning performances in The Master, but were denied awards because the Academy was afraid of offending Hollywood’s Scientologist mafia. Instead the nobody German guy won again for a Quentin Tarantino talk fest, and Daniel Day Lewis won for successfully impersonating a Disney animatronic robot.

Seth McFarland stunk. You know something is wrong at the Oscars when FLOTUS is one of the more elegant and poised presenters.

Only worth sitting through to see Shirley Bassey sing Goldfinger, and Adele sing Skyfall. That’s it.

Did anyone actually believe that lefty-wood would give best picture or best director for a movie that put republicans in a good light?

kregg on February 25, 2013 at 5:41 AM

It was more that the Academy hates Steven Spielberg. It’s fine, dude has plenty of lifetime recognition already and is likely to get more before he kicks off.

Yes, the Obamas owe Tinsel Town plenty for all their support – financial and promotional – during the 2012 election. But there’s simply no reason for Michelle Obama to be given the biggest assignment on Oscar night.

Wait. Did’t you just gave the reason…?

Nikki Finke, live-blogging the Oscars:

As if Hanoi Jane wasn’t fuel enough. Oh My God – the Academy actually fans the fire by drafting First Lady Michelle Obama to help present Best Picture from presumably the White House? So unnecessary and inappropriate to inject so much politics into the Oscars yet again. Hollywood will get pilloried by conservative pundits for arranging this payoff for all the campaign donations it gave the President’s reelection campaign. I don’t understand this very obvious attempt to infuriate right-leaning audiences. Clearly the studios only want to sell their movies to only half of America

.

Well, there’ll be no pillorying (sp?) from the MSM. I’m sure they thought Bangs was delightful and what a surprise!

Stop Feeding the Beast.

Hollywood is dead to me.
(Red Box at an absolute minimum)

The timing of the release, along with all of the attention it got always seemed suspect. Now with Me’chelle handing out the award, along with John Kerry’s reference to film a couple days ago, I think it’s pretty clear what we have here.

sartana on February 25, 2013 at 1:42 AM

Huma Abedin thanked in the credits. ‘Nuff said.

Interesting Drudge story on Michelle/Harvey Weinstein/the Oscar producers.
I think the audience gasped because it was so out of place to introduce politicians as part of the Oscar process.
And Michelle’s “Oh! We love the movies!” when you could imagine any other First Lady making a polite decline.
There will be a backlash. Against Weinstein you can guarantee. No? Look at Speilberg who didn’t move from his seat last night and people said it was because he got Bubba Clinton at the Golden Globes and it was an intrusion of politics where it didn’t belong.

Marcus on February 25, 2013 at 6:40 AM

I watched this on my big screen hi-def tv and it looked like Mrs. O had a 5 o’clock shadow. Just awful. There’s a beard joke in there, but I’m too tired to make it. Seriously, Weinstein overstepped and her makeup artist (that we are paying for) should be fired.

Did they give her a special oscar for biggest arse of the year?

Back to not watching the Oscars for me. THEY must be worshiped and idolized at every event in America.

THEY are AMERICAS’ IDOLS.

We fall on our faces and worship the great Lords of America. All Hail. Can we just go ahead and declare them gods and name every building in America after them? Could we change every street sign? Come on you libs get after it. You’re missing a great opportunity to perpetuate their greatness in our culture.

WhatSlushfund on February 25, 2013 at 1:28 AM

Excellent

Did anyone actually believe that lefty-wood would give best picture or best director for a movie that put republicans in a good light?

kregg on February 25, 2013 at 5:41 AM

good poing kregg

The whole thing is so overdone. Don’t feel like sitting through a stretched out show full of “star gazing.” Why should I care so much about someone who happened to act in a movie? I’m not even given a vote to help decide the winners.