Saturday, February 23, 2013

Go Watch ARGO...The Great Canadian/American Plan

I watched ARGO last night. For those who aren't aware it's the true story movie concerning how 6 Americans were hiding out at the home in Iran of the Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor in 79 when Americans were being held hostage. It's an exciting movie but I rightly guessed it had various elements which were only based on the TRUE STORY. Viewing it I was thinking anything's possible but certain of the exciting moments I considered in theory could have occurred but by the law of probability it didn't quite seem the case.  After checking out wikipedia  I found my suspicions were correct...the movie can only be taken by what the introduction lines states, "based on a true story".

Read about the true and false aspects here.....

I remember the period of time it took place...Americans were at a loss figuring out how to safely rescue quite a number of their people taken hostage. At the time it was not known there was actually 6 more Americans hiding out at the Canadian embassy. Behind the scenes however the Canadian/US government were working on a plan...a plan which actually worked. The said 6 Americans were enabled to successfully escape.

Enter Ben Affleck over thirty years later with his "Argo" film. 

Some controversy has come about in regard to how Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor is somewhat of a silent and almost docile follower of the plan put together supposedly by the American CIA. In the true story nothing could be father from the truth. Canadian officials played a far more significant role in "The Plan". Why would film director Ben Affleck not be perfect in his delivery?  Should he be overly criticized for his intentional marginalization of the true heroes of the event, chiefly Canadian Ambassador Ken Taylor and staff?  I wouldn't think so and I say that as a Canadian myself.

Here's why. Consider...all need to step back and appreciate what directors and producer are dealing with. The question how well something will do at the box office must be considered paramount. Americans, like any people group like viewing things which portray them as having achieved and accomplished  inspirational things which many times they've done. If theatre seats are to be filled obviously these are the things which must be shown. If things are embellished somewhat...well that's Hollywood. Instead however considering it a slight concerning Canadians lead of "The Plan" perhaps it could be looked upon another way.  It's great this film was made and the story has now been highlighted albeit not perfectly but consider it can be viewed as a starting point of discussion.

Besides there's been total vindication that's taken place. President Jimmy Carter recently interviewed about "Argo" just the other day acknowledged it to be a great movie but publically has set the record straight. In his own words,

President Jimmy Carter: "Well, let me say, first of all, it’s a great drama. And I hope it gets the Academy Award for best film because I think it deserves it. The other thing that I would say was that ninety per cent of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian. And the movie gives almost full credit to the American C.I.A. And, with that exception, the movie is very good. But Ben Affleck’s character in the film was only—he was only in, stayed in, Iran a day and a half. And the main hero, in my opinion, was Ken Taylor, who was the Canadian Ambassador who orchestrated the entire process."

Can it get any better than that? I wouldn't think so therefore myself as a Canadian can tip my hat to Ben Affleck for making a film that will, as it were appeal to an American audience but all the while they'll know it's details aren't to be taken too seriously...when the Calvary comes to save the day it's understood the great protection and risks came from their caring neighbours to the north. Go watch ARGO!

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Nope The Pope Was No Dope...It Was Time To Go

So Pope Benedict XVI has given his resignation. Interesting is that no Pope has ever did so since Gregory XII, in 1415. I'm guessing most Popes have felt and believed that to give up the post would almost seem like a sacrilege---some kind of letting down the faithful for them not to be on the scene until their last dying day. Enter Pope Benedict---it seems he's marched to a tune of a different drummer. I've seen some criticism of his retiring but in the BIGGER PICTURE of things I'd ask shouldn't he rather be commended?

How can Catholicism truly expect to connect and make a difference to a new and modern world when it's leaders regardless as to whether it be true appear old and decrepit with observers wondering if their mental faculties in place. It'd never be acknowledged but I'm sure the high ups within Catholicism  even within themselves are commending the Pope for the move. To always be on the change, at least after a reasonable length of a "term limit" always creates the impression of something new and maybe a fresh approach. How far their conscious allows them to go down that road is another question.