On Hollywood’s False Nobility, and the Growing Power of Hype

On Hollywood’s False Nobility, and the Growing Power of Hype

null

Hollywood has always thrilled at its power to pluck a Lana Turner from the
soda fountain at Schwab’s, but it takes onanistic pleasure in the dark side of
its hype machine, too: how believing too much in Tinseltown’s promises can transform
nobodys into somebodies—Monroe, Harlow, Dean, and, even worse, poor
anonymous never-weres like Peg Entwhistle, the frustrated actress who
suicidally leaped off the H of the Hollywoodland sign in 1932. (Rather than die
instantly, she bled to death from a broken pelvis. This town doesn’t cut anyone
a break.)

Most movies about Hollywood’s illusion factory lie somewhere between
self-flagellatingly critical and winkingly celebratory:The Player, Sunset
Blvd.. Get Shorty, Barton Fink, Boogie Nights, Ed Wood, The Stunt Man, Singin’
In The Rain, Tropic Thunder, Bowfinger, LA Confidential.
There are some
notable exceptions, such as Adaptation (reality can’t be shoehorned into
art, and certainly not into movies) or Sullivan’s Travels (legitimate pleasure
in movies is a noble pursuit), but most others hold true to playwright Wilson
Mizner’s adage that life in Hollywood is “a trip through a sewer in a
glass-bottomed boat.”

Despite its ambiguity about the Hollywood hype machine, the Academy’s
sentiments about the hard work of making art is completely unambiguous. Ray,
Shine, Precious, Atonement, Hustle And Flow
—it celebrates films affirming
the redemptive power of creative craft, and how devoting oneself to its
difficult demands is a way into a better life. (Part of the 2010 Oscar Best
Picture race was between films declaring that devoting oneself to a difficult
craft will save you (The King’s Speech) vs. devoting oneself to a
difficult craft will destroy you (Black Swan). The King’s Speech
won.)

In 2012, both Silver Linings Playbook and Argo
were up for Best Picture, and any smart bettor would have fingered Silver
Linings Playbook
as the shoo-in because of its “art saves all”
theme—how a recently released mental patient (Bradley Cooper) and a grieving
temptress (Jennifer Lawrence) heal themselves through ballroom dancing. Argo‘s got no art, just a bunch of hype conjured up by a CIA agent (Ben Affleck) and a pair of weary Hollywood
old-timers (John Goodman and Alan Arkin) looking to spring some hostages with a
story about a non-existent movie. “Art saves” vs. “Hype
saves” is no contest—but, strangely, the Academy didn’t see it that way.

Wink-wink movies about the illusory nature of Hollywood are nothing new. When
Gene Kelly crows at the end of Singin’ In The Rain “Stop that girl! That girl running up the aisle! That’s the
girl whose voice you heard!” it’s a moment of triumph: the illusion
factory drops its veil to celebrate the creators at the core. However, when you
drop Argo‘s veil and there’s nothing there. We’re
not even going to pretend anymore, the Academy announced. Sixty years after Singin’, Argo‘s
Best Picture win legitimized the triumph of hype over art. It announced a new
era of Hollywood sociopathy, where not even style replaces substance: lies
replace style replace substance, and you’re expected to nod and smile all the
way to the box office as your hand closes on a fistful of air.

But come on, you say, lives were saved. Doesn’t that justify a certain kind
of noble falsehood, like in 1997’s Best Foreign Language Oscar winner Life
Is Beautiful
, where a father’s perverse recasting of a concentration camp
as game show enables his son to escape with hope unscathed? Or Schindler’s
List
, where a German businessman conceives of a semi-truthful scheme to
save Jews in his employ? Or The Counterfeiters, where a group of
concentration camp inmates survive by making fake money? Or Jakob the Liar,
where a Jewish man keeps hope alive in the ghetto by making fabulous stories
about the messages he hears on a secret radio—and then succors the audience
with an alternate, sunnier ending?

The common denominator of all those movies is that they are Holocaust
survival stories. When Argo shamelessly borrows
that “noble falsehood” genre blueprint, it brings the same invisible
weight to a story completely unconnected to the Holocaust. It makes clear
exactly what we’re supposed to think about the movie’s Middle Eastern villains,
while deftly sidestepping any accusations of making a movie about Nazis in
keffiyeh.

But if the villains in Argo are really Nazis,
then what does that make our heroes? Argos borrowing
of the “noble Holocaust deception” genre requires the appointment of
Hollywood as a sovereign Jewish nation, a connection that’s irresponsible at
best and slanderous at worst. And in addition, the surrogate Jews escape at the
end because of cunning, justifiable lies, and the illusion-casting power of
Hollywood in their back pocket—an unflattering toolkit that harkens back to
anti-Semitic canards about how Jews do business and who really runs Hollywood.

Argo is dishonest and shameful for the way it
privileges hype over art. But its willingness to cloak itself in the horror of
the Holocaust for sheer narrative convenience, as well as to milk racist
reactions on both sides of the conflict between the Jewish and Muslim worlds
for emotional resonance, proves it’s the most morally bankrupt movie to ever
win Best Picture. It’s more than dishonest. It’s dangerous, and awarding it
Best Picture showed a lack of concern about the parallels Hollywood is drawing
when we’re at war with the Middle East. Worse, it remains to be seen if
upcoming releases like Edge of Tomorrow, Elysium, or the reboot
of Robocop—all pure entertainment, none legitimized as lauding true
historical events like Argo—are going to play faster and looser with those
parallels in their own metaphorical war landscapes. And considering the
vociferous response to Argo in Iran (the movie is banned, and a feature The
General Staff
 is being planned as a
rebuttal), those won’t go ignored, either. The only response to the poisonous era
Argo’s Best Picture win has possibly ushered into American moviemaking is its
own oft-repeated refrain: “Argo fuck yourself.”

Violet LeVoit is a video producer and editor, film critic, and
media educator whose film writing has appeared in many publications in
the US and UK. She is the author of the short story collection
I Am Genghis Cum (Fungasm Press). She lives in Philadelphia.

VIDEO ESSAY: Who Should Win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor

VIDEO ESSAY: Who Should Win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor

Part of "Who Should Win," a series of video essays co-presented by Indiewire Press Play and Fandor.

This year’s Best Supporting Actor nominees are all previous Oscar winners, which eliminates some of the career achievement concerns that can affect these awards. Let’s hope that puts more emphasis on the quality of the performances, which are all worthy of consideration.

As a wisecracking, world-weary Hollywood producer, Alan Arkin gives a light-hearted lift to Argo’s political thriller proceedings. In Lincoln, Tommy Lee Jones plays the salty senator Thaddeus Stevens. Jones’ performance lives in his eyes. It shows the mental activity of an old man challenged to rethink his politics in order to achieve his lifelong dream of abolishing slavery. Jones is currently the narrow favorite to win the Oscar, but I think there are three performances better than his.

In Django Unchained, Christoph Waltz is a ruthless bounty hunter whose conscience awakens when he helps a freed slave on his quest. Waltz is a master of playing surface-level civility. But in this film, he peels away those layers ever so gradually to reveal his moral outrage seething underneath.

Robert De Niro gives his best performance in years in The Silver Linings Playbook. He plays a football-fixated father, whose attempts to help his son are undermined by his own manic temperament. It’s a display of late-career virtuosity, showing the emotional range he’s mastered over a lifetime: from explosive menace to wisecracking warmth. In this film, he adds an extra dimension through a sense of advanced age and frailty, which he uses to disarming pathos in this scene. But as it turns out, this emotional display is a put-on, as he just wants to loop his son into a crazy scheme. De Niro’s character is an inspired creation of demented obsession, charged with startling vitality.

But I have to give the top prize to Philip Seymour Hoffman for his work as the self-help guru Lancaster Dodd in The Master. It surprises me to say this because I’m not even sure if it’s a complete performance—by the end, his character seems to disappear into the movie’s unresolved clouds of ambiguity. But for the first 90 minutes of The Master, Hoffman is key to making this film work. He’s a pillar of authoritative self-control, a counterbalance to Joaquin Phoenix’s utterly unhinged lead performance.

But Hoffman is doing more than just playing the straight man. There’s an unforgettable scene where Hoffman’s Dodd first processes Phoenix. From Dodd’s face and his line of questioning, we see a refined man fascinated by a wild beast of a human, but we catch a glimpse of that same wildness lurking in him as well. That wildness explodes in a later scene when Hoffman is ambushed, and his lack of self-mastery is exposed. In just these two scenes, Hoffman is able to chart out the entire three-dimensional psychic landscape of a character. It’s this richness that keeps us watching even as the film takes us to increasingly difficult territory.

Kevin B. Lee is Editor in Chief of IndieWire’s PressPlay Video Blog, Video Essayist for Fandor’s Keyframe, and a contributor to Roger Ebert.com. Follow him on Twitter.

The Sensible Craft of Ben Affleck’s ARGO

The Sensible Craft of Ben Affleck’s ARGO

null

Ben Affleck's third directing effort, Argo, is funnier than expected, is expertly paced, and has a fantastic 70s look (the most convincing since Zodiac), plus knockout supporting performances by Alan Arkin, Bryan Cranston, and John Goodman in very colorful roles and Victor Garber, Tate Donovan, and Clea Duvall in much subtler (at times almost colorless) ones. It’s not the perfectly carved gem you’ve heard it described as in the reviews, but it’s very good, and it's honorable in ways I didn’t expect. I don’t give star ratings, but afterward, I thought it was the very definition of a three-star movie. There’s nothing hugely wrong with it, and for the most part it’s a pleasurable thriller that had considerable potential to be exploitative but resisted the urge to do so. But there's a great or at least highly unusual film struggling to get out of this one, and it never quite escapes.

Written by Chris Terrio, Argo concerns a CIA plot to free six Americans who escaped the takeover of the US embassy after Iranian militants seized it in 1979, then hid in the home of the Canadian ambassador (Victor Garber). Affleck’s character, agent Tony Mendez, pretended to be a producer scouting locations for a Star Wars ripoff titled Argo (a script that actually existed). Then he enlisted four movie producers (represented by Arkin’s composite character, Lester Siegel) plus makeup artist John Chambers, an Oscar-winner for Planet of the Apes, to help him create media “evidence” that the picture was actually in production and figure out which of the hostages should pretend to be which film crewmembers touring Iran. The top secret Argo operation was only declassified in 1997, and after its successful conclusion, Mendez had to go through the mordantly funny ritual of being awarded a medal for outstanding service, then handing it back immediately and swearing never to speak of the operation again.

Affleck directed the excellent Gone Baby Gone and the engrossing and incredibly corny The Town; he’s a handsome, capable actor-filmmaker of a sort that has many cinematic precedents. He could be another Robert Redford or Kevin Costner, or maybe (if he’s willing to go weird now and again), a Cornel Wilde. By that, I mean Affleck’s a solid, likable leading man, but not an amazing one, and his style consists mainly of sensible craft. Quotable lines abound: "John Wayne's in the ground six months, and this is what happens to America," Arkin’s producer grumbles, watching TV news coverage of America losing its collective shit over the hostage crisis. "Target audience will hate it," Chambers tells Mendez, describing a cheap sci-fi film he’s working on. Mendez: "Who's the target audience?" Chambers: "People with eyes." The film’s sense of humor—knowing but incredibly dry, like David Fincher’s, but without the undertone of perverse darkness—is its greatest asset. The suspense sequences are a close second. During the film’s climax, Affleck makes a simple scene of a Swiss Air employee checking a passenger manifest thrilling, and he does it through very basic directing techniques: cunningly-judged cross-cuts, tight close-ups of faces and hands. Argo seems like the kind of movie that comes on TV while you're trying to get something done—you don't get it done because you have to watch the whole thing.

nullThat's not the same thing as saying Argo is a masterpiece, though. Alexander Desplat's score leans on faux-Arabian Nights instrumentation and percussion, aural cliches that are frankly beneath a composer of his wit and passion. The script drops hints that the film will explore reality/fantasy, being/performing, but it never follows through. We see the hostages (including DuVall and Donovan) learning to play their parts, struggling with back stories and lines while Affleck “directs” them, but we never get a sense that the challenge affects them psychologically, beyond burdening them with homework while they’re trying to escape a nation in turmoil. Maybe this is a fair approach, but it’s disappointing because so often the situations and lines promise something deeper. The notions don't coalesce; they just hang there, like sub-narrative clotheslines on which deadpan one-liners can be affixed. And if director/star Ben Affleck and company were going to take liberties with the historical record—all movies do, don't mistake me for a historical literalist, please!—I wish they'd given the hostages and the Iranians one or two more good scenes to develop their personalities, maybe at the expense of all the "Tony Mendez loves his son" material, which, while sincere, didn't add much to the story or themes, and could have been deleted. (And why not cast a Latino actor in this part? Benicio Del Toro might've gotten a second Oscar if he'd starred in this.) 

Nevertheless, the grainy CinemaScope, period rock, giant mustaches, wide lapels, Hollywood insider humor, vintage "Nightline" clips, and a soupçon of historical/political context all tickled my ‘70s-kid pleasure centers without devolving into meaningless nostalgia. I expected a handsome but bloodless HBO docudrama-type thing, but Argo delivered more than that in every department, so watching it was like opening a box of Crackerjacks and finding a bunch of prizes inside. I loved the semi-storyboarded prologue summing up several decades of Iranian history; Black Sunday and Green Zone, to name just two mainstream Hollywood suspense pictures set in the Middle East, didn't bother with that kind of thing. And I liked that Argo gave us a little scene at the end showing that the young woman who bluffed the security people at the Canadian ambassador’s front gate got out, too, even though she ended up in Iraq; a lot of films about Yanks in turmoil-ridden countries forget that the nonwhite bit players are anything other than means to white folks’ ends.

Affleck's not the second coming of Orson Welles, or even Clint Eastwood—not yet, anyway—but he hasn't made a bad film yet. I wouldn't storm any gates if Argo won Oscars. It's not especially deep, but it is witty and exciting and it doesn’t make you hate yourself for enjoying it, and it tells a story you probably haven’t heard before. I’d like to see a sequel about what happened to the Canadian embassy employee in Iraq. Did she survive the Iran-Iraq war? Was she still around during the first and second Gulf Wars? Has she seen Argo?

Matt Zoller Seitz is the co-founder of Press Play.