"Slate" magazine had written an article critical

of the new film "Argo" saying that it isn't "accurate".  The article is actually titled "How Accurate is Argo".

What's really inaccurate are the claims of Slate.  Oh, there is a kernel of truth to them, but in making them ten years after they almost entirely ignored the lies in a documentary film, which is supposed to be very accurate and tell the truth; is the height of hypocrisy.  That ten year old film is "Bowling for Columbine".  If you have not yet seen "Argo", what follows will contain spoilers.  You were warned.

The basic premise of "Argo" is entirely true.  Ben Affleck's character of Tony Mendez was an exfiltration specialist working for the CIA and who was approached in the weeks following the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Iran.  What's not in the film is that he was first working on getting the actual hostages out, and it wasn't until a few weeks later that he was brought into a critical loop.  A loop concerning the story contained in "Argo".

Six employees of the embassy who worked in the Visa section, which was actually open on November 4, 1979 (no dramatic license there) when the so-called "students" stormed the embassy.  They did make their escape and all six ended up at the homes of Canadian diplomats eventually.  The film shows all six in one home, in reality, they were split up between two homes.  A minor change in the details. 

One of the details that was altered in what Affleck referred to as "dramatic license" was not including the actual involvement of the Canadians in the rescue operation.  They bought the airline tickets, they sent people in and out of the country to get exit visas and so on.  None of that is central to the film, nor would it have driven the story.

Remember those key words.  "Based on a true story".  It doesn't purport to be a documentary account of the events, or that it is telling every single detail of what actually happened. 

In real life, the Canadian government got full credit for the rescue because of the possibility that knowledge of CIA involvement might have resulted in reprisals against the 52 hostages still being held in Iran. 

Slate is all bent out of shape because in the film, Mendez, working with his friend John Chambers (played by John Goodman), and producer "Lester Seigel" (played by Alan Arkin) are digging through a pile of scripts and Mendez finds one named "Argo".  In fact, the Seigel character is a fictionalized representation of Chambers' colleage, special effects man Bob Sidell and the script was for a film called "Lord of Light" that Chambers had been hired to work on already.  In reality, they put a new cover page on the Lord of Light script, called it Argo and it was used solely as a prop to create a fictional production company to backstop the cover story.

So the only elements that were actually altered were how the script came to be chosen, and that the film used a producer rather than a special effects man.  Again, minor points involving dramatic license, because the producer character was used in fictional negotiations and to represent real publicity efforts the trio engaged in to promote the cover story.

The only major fictional departure from reality is that the film creates "jeopardy" for the six and their handler as they try to leave the country.  Supposedly, the efforts to put together the shredded files of the embassy have borne fruit and there are now photos of the six available to the not-so-secret secret police and they are trying to chase them and prevent them from boarding the plane.  This is the sole incident of any serious amount of deviation from the actual events.

And it's entirely understandable.  The climax of a film is supposed to be fraught with tension, tension that is released when the hero finally prevails against the jeopardy.  Had the film shown the seven travellers sailing through airport security "as smooth as silk" the conclusion would have been very, very boring.  Instead the audience gets a dramatic finale as they deserve.

Yes, the Canadian government was upset with the closing credit titles about their "limited" involvement and Ben Affleck went back and had them re-written to more accurately reflect at least part of their role in the rescue.

But Slate's article is highly misleading and does not present a true picture (no pun intended) of how closely the film hews to the truth, or that Affleck has admitted to using "dramatic license", a phrase the article uses twice in a critical fashion.

Now let's talk about how Slate did not give the same type of examination to "Bowling for Columbine" which was supposed to be a documentary film.  It claims the Bush campaign ran the entire Willie Horton ad that it shows.  It does not mention that most of the ad was actually produced and run by an organization over which the Bush campaign had no control.  It includes a subtitle that reads "Willie Horton released.  Then kills again."

That's a lie.  Horton's arrest subsequent to his getting out was for rape and aggravated assault.  Moore edited this out only after the criticism of this became well known.

The film misuses and misleads its audience into thinking that in the wake of the events at Columbine, at the NRA's annual meeting in Denver shortly thereafter, NRA president Charlton Heston holds up a musket and says "I have only five words for you.  From my cold, dead hands."  In fact, that speech was made a year later, 1,300 miles away.  Moore edited in comments from Heston's speech about how the mayor of Denver did not want the NRA there.  In fact, the NRA convention was not planned in the wake of Columbine as Moore suggests, but had been scheduled years in advance.  All events were cancelled except a member's reception before, and the required annual meeting.  The meeting is required by the NRA's bylaws, the laws of the State of New York and there wasn't sufficient time to hold the meeting required to postpone that required annual meeting.

None of this was reported by or commented on by Slate magazine.  There are many, many more lies and misrepresentations in "Bowling for Columbine" which won an Academy Award for Best Documentary.  It only deserves that awards if the rules regarding the requirement that documentary films contain truth are repealed.

Slate's criticism of "Argo" is inaccurate, misleading and inappropriate.  It should be ignored.