white straight ciswoman mid-20s-ish. surrounded by telly. likes words,
I have a hole punch, let's not get big-headed now.
keppps << shallitellyouastory
All right, I posted this to delladilly, but I need to make a new post about this, because I really think this is a conversation worth having.
A lot of people in the tags right now are discussing contrivance — how Lydia’s recent arc means that a number of people have had to just not be checking her channel OR her twitter, all at the same time. It’s been a delicate house of cards.
This makes me wonder if the original plan was for radio silence during the Brighton arc, which would fix most of the problems that I had with implausibility. It also would have spared us a month of an emotionally abusive, highly triggering relationship being portrayed week-in and week-out — one that honestly didn’t tell us very much that we didn’t already know. (Lydia’s first arc introduced us to Mary, and showed us that she uses unicorn stickers for great bullying justice; Lydia’s second told us about Brent, and showed us how Jane and Lydia are when Lizzie isn’t around. Lydia’s third arc didn’t have any new revelations, besides “Lydia falls for George and he treats her like shit,” which is something we could have intuited would happen.)
Just because a plot arc might be interesting to those writing it, doesn’t mean it fits the flow of the rest of the show. Example: go find any movie that includes deleted scenes. Directors will explain that the scenes were fascinating, well-acted, really cool … but slowed the movie down at the wrong time, or had the wrong feel to fit the surroundings. And that’s even before we get to the above problems with this particular arc.
If this is a case where the creators deviated from their original game plan because of the fans, then I really wish they hadn’t. Listening to your fans shouldn’t override what you know needs to happen structurally. Be in charge of your story, and do what needs to be done.
Seriously, all of this. For all that the LBD creators pride themselves on how ~interactive~ they are, capitulating to the whims of your audience does not a good narrative make. Things should have coherence and structure so that said audience doesn’t look at your story several months down the line and realize that there is nothing for them to suspend their belief upon.
Instead of keeping its eye on the big picture of revolutionary Iran, the film settles into a retrograde “white Americans in peril” storyline. It recasts those oppressed Iranians as a raging, zombie-like horde, the same dark-faced demons from countless other movies— still a surefire dramatic device for instilling fear in an American audience. After the opening makes a big fuss about how Iranians were victimized for decades, the film marginalizes them from their own story, shunting them into the role of villains. Yet this irony is overshadowed by a larger one: The heroes of the film, the CIA, helped create this mess in the first place. And their triumph is executed through one more ruse at the expense of the ever-dupable Iranians to cap off three decades of deception and manipulation.
Looking at the runaway success of this film, it seems as if critics and audiences alike lack the historical knowledge to recognize a self-serving perversion of an unflattering past, or the cultural acumen to see the utterly ersatz nature of the enterprise: A cast of stock characters and situations, and a series of increasingly contrived narrow escapes from third world mobs who, predictably, are never quite smart enough to catch up with the Americans. We can delight all we like in this cinematic recycling act, but the fact remains that we are no longer living in a world where we can get away with films like this—not if we want to be in a position to deal with a world that is rising to meet us. The movies we endorse need to rise to the occasion of reflecting a new global reality, using a newer set of storytelling tools than this reheated excuse for a historical geopolitical thriller.
I watched this move over the weekend, and I was troubled by many of the same things. At the beginning, it’s mentioned very briefly that, oh, this whole revolution took place because America installed a dictator in Iran who was mercilessly cruel to its citizens, and then when people had finally had enough, we took him back and let him chill in an American hospital. I was hoping that at the end, the movie would go back to the larger discussion about the Iranian revolution. Spoiler alert: it did not. Disappointing.
so disappointed but also not surprised that george invested in this·i bet he thinks it an extension of his global activism·in social justice you need to be constantly educating yourself·constantly reevaluating·and asking yourself the question am i doing this to feel better about myself·is this about me·or is this making a contribution·especially when you come from an outsider position·at best argo is woefully misguided·at worst it’s the same bullshit propaganda that leads to perpetuating xenophobia and an atmosphere that results in shootings at temples·mosques being burned down·and mothers bludgeoned to death in their homes