Argo: The Issue of the Developed Biases against the Iranians Critical Essay

The modern political relations between the USA and Iran are characterised by the constant increase of tensions. The current prejudice of the US politicians in relation to the Iranian diplomats and representatives of the power is based on the years of the military and political conflicts. As a result, the US authorities are inclined to develop political relations and work out diplomatic contacts with the Iranian politicians cautiously.

The conflicts and tensions are associated with a lot of differences in the political regimes, ideologies, and approaches to the social development. In his film Argo (2012), Ben Affleck depicts one of the most controversial episodes in the relations between the USA and Iran.

In 1979, the Iranians attacked the American embassy in Tehran as a response to the Americans’ actions in relation to protecting Shah at the territories of the USA. Six persons escaped from the embassy, and the story of their escape is presented in Argo (Argo 2012).

The audience’s attention is drawn to the fact that not all the aspects of the historical event are represented properly because the film is based on the true story, but it does not represent the aspects of the situation in detail. Thus, the story is discussed from the perspective of the Americans, and it is possible to speak about the elements of Orientalism in depicting the characters and events.

Although there are decades between the present day and events of 1979, it is possible to observe the definite developed stereotypes in discussing the Iranians and the Iranian regime in relation to the previous and modern historical periods.

Orientalism is traditionally discussed as the method to depict the Middle Eastern culture by the representatives of the Western culture while imitating and reflecting the most remarkable features (Sardar 1999). From this point, Argo can be discussed as the vivid example to represent the cultural and social peculiarities of the Iranians through the eyes of the Americans.

In spite of the fact Affleck used the notes and documents provided by the participants of the discussed events and focused on the complete depiction of the specific details, the Westerners’ approach to discussing the Iranian hostage crisis was affected significantly by the developed stereotypes and prejudice.

Thus, in the context of Affleck’s work, Orientalism is the way to depict the Iranians through the eyes of the Americans, but not according to the aspects of their real cultural and historical heritage. That is why, the majority of the Americans agree with the historical and emotional background of the film when the Iranians state that Argo abuses them because of the faults in depicting the nation (Rezaian 2013).

The representatives of the Iranian community state that according to the film, the Iranians can be perceived as violent and irrational people who are oriented to developing cruel wars and to the mass destruction.

It is necessary to note that Orientalism depends on focusing on the specific details characteristic for the Middle Eastern environments (Sardar 1999). Nevertheless, the settings and atmosphere of the film do not provide the necessary effect to speak about the feeling of the definite Iranian atmosphere.

It is possible to concentrate only on the detailed depictions of the political discussions and tensions. The main focus of the film is on depicting the heroic actions of the Central Intelligence Agency and Tony Mendez rather than on reflecting of the atmosphere of Iran.

Nevertheless, the characters of the Iranians depicted in the film are actively discussed within the Iranian community because the producers focused on all the negative stereotypes associated with the Middle Eastern people.

The problem is in the fact that the suspense of the attacks from the Iranians in the form of terroristic or open military actions remains the characteristic feature of the relations between the USA and Iran (Mullen 2013).

The trigger for the actions of the Iranians regarding the attack of the embassy is presented in the film as the element of the documentary without the significant appealing to the audience in comparison with the emotionally vivid representation of the politically, legally, and morally wrong actions of the Iranians in 1979 (Argo 2012).

From this point, it is rather tricky for the Westerners to understand why the Iranians attacked the embassy, why they insisted on presenting the figure of Shah and what goals were followed with references to the Iranian Revolution.

Argo can be discussed as the film which stimulates the Americans’ vision of the Iranians as the aggressive and even ‘wild’ people focused only on the military actions and their specific military ideology. According to Ghomeshi, “Argo provides the uninitiated Westerner with a crash course in the nature of the Iranian people as if out of some kind of hawkish fairy tale. Not just the regime, the people” (Ghomeshi 2012).

Thus, the Iranians are treated in the film as “hordes of hysterical, screaming, untrustworthy, irrational, bearded and lethal antagonists” (Ghomeshi 2012). The particular features of these depictions are based on the necessity to portray the Americans diplomats as the victims in the story when the Iranians are presented in the role of aggressors.

Much attention is paid to the fact that the behaviors of the Iranians are not only rather violent but also meaningless. The Iranian officials are presented as lacking the necessary organization of actions. Thus, the Iranians act because of their violent nature (Rezaian 2013).

In fact, the actions of the military Iranians were the reaction to the activities of the US Administration protecting Shah. That is why it is possible to speak about the biases in depicting the Iranians and about the lack of the important historical context and focus on details to make the story really true and historically accurate.

The ‘aggressive’ and ‘irrational’ Iranians are presented as the extremists. From this perspective, extremism can be discussed, along with terrorism. In its turn, terrorism is the main evil which can be promoted by the representatives of the Middle East. This vision is one of the most developed stereotypes.

Thus, the film contributes to creating the opinion that the Iranians can be the real threat for the peaceful life of the Americans because of their violent regimes, aggressive military intentions and actions, and because of the ability to abuse the human rights of people in spite of their nation or religion (Argo 2012).

As a result, the Iranian society of 1979 is presented as the immoral community of military men ready to express their aggression in relation to anyone who is the representative of the other nation or religion. That is why many critics discuss the film as the American propaganda oriented against Iran (Bedard 2013). Nevertheless, it is important to refer to the opinion discussed by Ghomeshi again.

Although the idea of the film is to present the aspects of the definite historical event from the Americans’ point of view, the producers fail to focus on the principles of the unjust regime, but they concentrate on the portrayal of the unjust Iranians. That is why the Iranian critics of the film pay attention to the fact that the scene in the market in Tehran depicting the aggressive Iranians is far from the real situation (Rezaian 2013).

Focusing on the message of the film, it is possible to assume that the producers of Argo intended not only to depict the brave and intelligent Americans realised the operation ‘Argo’ but also to present the Iranians as the developing nation of the aggressive and not clever people who can break the global peace because of their extremist ideas.

The idea of the Iranian Revolution is lost in relation to the historical context of the film. In his article, Ghomeshi asks important questions the answers to which could be provided in the film, but they were not. The discussion of the definite issues could reduce the effect of the negative depiction of the Iranians culture, social and political life, and moral norms.

Thus, Ghomeshi asks, “Might it be helpful to explain that not all Iranians were Islamic formalists who supported Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini?” (Ghomeshi 2012).

It is also important to note that “the revolution was a popular one that originally included liberal democrats, feminists, nationalists, socialists and workers – a revolution that was co-opted by the mullahs and extremists to lead to the Islamic Republic that we know today” (Ghomeshi 2012).

Those people who do not know the history of the Iranian hostage crisis and political relations of the USA and Iran can conclude about these factors with references to the images and discussions presented in the film. Nevertheless, this approach cannot be analysed as effective because the situation is represented only from the Americans’ perspective, and the vision is based on a lot of biases.

Thus, the audience cannot consider the film as the representation of the true and complex picture of the events. However, Argo provides the necessary support to the statement that the tensions between two nations continue to increase today.

It is important to pay attention to the fact that Argo is the political thriller that is why political issues and politicians are the film’s focuses. The operation ‘Argo’ realised by the Central Intelligence Agency in cooperation with the Canadian centres is discussed today as one of the most successful operations of the USA in Iran.

The producers of the film concentrate on the most vivid and significant aspects of the operation, which could be interpreted according to the Americans’ visions and interests. Thus, the figures of the successful Americans are opposed to the figures of the unintelligent Iranians who can not prevent the escape of six people from the country (Mullen 2013).

Argo is the film which can provoke the worsening of the political relations between the USA and Iran because much attention is paid to the political superiority of the USA as well as to the development of prejudice visions against the Iranians. The film is one more proclamation of the just ideals of democracy in contrast to the military regimes of such states as Iran.

The problem is in the fact that the tension of the political thriller can be discussed by the audience from the point of the political tensions between the nations. The opposition of the political regimes and the opposition of ideologies can be discussed as the influential factor for presenting the nations from the lens of the political conflicts. The focus on suspicion against the Iranians remains unchanged because of the extremist ideology.

As a result, negative stereotypes and misconceptions can rule the minds not only of the Americans but also the representatives of the other Western cultures who perceive Middle East as the source of the military threat for the globe.

The film does not provide the vision of the contemporary life in Iran, but viewers can rely significantly on the false analogies because of the accentuated moments of the film when the Iranians are presented as showing their disrespect in relation to the American flag and American people (Argo 2012).

The film by Ben Affleck affected the development of the great discussion among the politicians, historians, sociologists, and ordinary people because of the controversies in interpretation the hostage crisis in Iran in 1979.

It is the expected effect that the film is not accepted by the Iranian audience because the historical events are discussed from the point of the Americans who focus on their superiority and intend to increase the national consciousness with references to the film’s message.

Many Iranians are abused by the film because of depicting the nation according to the developed stereotypes and with focusing on the most negative features and qualities of the Iranian people.

As a result, it is possible to speak about the usage of Orientalism methods in the film when the events in Middle East are depicted through the lens of the Westerner’s vision.

It is rather difficult to produce the film and avoid the focus on stereotypes. Argo cannot be considered as the film the authors of which intended to represent the true picture of the Iranian society or political life in 1979. On the contrary, the Americans were in the focus of the film.

References

Argo, 2012. Web.

Bedard, D. 2013, Argo: Iran hostage crisis film fiddles with the facts. Web.

Ghomeshi, J. 2012, Argo is crowd-pleasing, entertaining – and unfair to Iranians. Web

Mullen, J. 2013, Coming soon: Iran’s response to ‘Argo’. Web.

Rezaian, J. 2013, Iranian media criticize Oscar win for ‘Argo’. Web.

Sardar, Z. 1999, Orientalism, Open University Press, USA.