A movie about a movie; always intriguing, often perplexing.
The story begins where the movie begins. Storyboard-style illustrations describing "current" events in Iran glide and snap on the screen, with a narrative to go alongside. There is a relatively smooth connection to what could be security cameras, watching hordes of angry Iranians mobbing the United States embassy. True-to-time everything really helped cement the time and honesty of this film early on. The documentary feel is enforced by wide shots, news bits and lack of English as the main language. After this sequence, the film almost lost interest for me.
The energy level for this film is fairly constant. As with most high-budget films, there are many cuts and shots for very scene. Besides affecting the actors, this keeps every shot exciting. After a while, though, it's normal. It's hard to experience thrill and danger when the whole film is thrill and danger. Even the slower scenes use so many cuts they aren't really that slow. This gave me no time to rest. I was worn out, so to say, before the high-action sequences even began.
Another side effect of this technique is the affect on the actors. When the camera switches every few seconds, it's hard to remember where you were. This left the actors repeating actions, or acting as if the step they took in the last shot hadn't really happened. This led to the appearance of poor acting, and poor directing. Also, while costumes were spot-on, the actors didn't feel like they had just stepped out of the 70's. They looked like actors playing people from the 70's. There was something intangible that was off in the performance of the "houseguests". They were stiff with each other beyond what the situation called for. For what it's worth, the CIA agents and Canadians were right on. In general, the acting was well done and carried the story.
One thing the camera did well was stay at eye-level. As a modern-day viewer, you know the end of the story. Keeping your view on the same level as the characters, seeing as they saw, keeps uncertainty in the story line.
Along with generally good acting was the normalcy of the situations. Not the overall scenario, thank goodness, but the little things. Smoking and drinking weren't associated with any messages, positive or negative. People were people. The Hollywood and CIA people were a little super-human, but everyone else was normal. Again, normalcy added to the uncertainty, as you had no special knowledge outside what came into the theater with you.
Overall, this was a decent film. Urgency was relatively well displayed. I personally would have understood the story better if it were told with all the pieces, not just acting and sequence. Chess is much more interesting when you use all of the figures, not just the recognizable, powerful ones. For example, fewer cuts in slow scenes and reserving dramatic, sweeping, nerve-wracking shots for the intense scenes would have aided the flow of energy. The story itself was intriguing, and made a good basis for a film. Most of the chemistry between actors was solid, and the locations were well chosen. This film was an example of how good films can still be made without engaging all of the materials to propel the story. However, when the entire movie is the story, down to the sound effects and camera speed, I believe it leads to a deeper, more powerful story line. A lot of this depth appears to have been lost thanks to a spike in the interest of money, stars and culture's current interests.
