I was watching Argo on my Chinese IPTV streaming service in Shenzhen with my Chinese roommate and my roommate was blown away by the idea that the movie was based on a true story. He said that the Chinese government would never take such extreme steps to rescue its citizens from any such situation. I never really thought about his comment and his shock (it was a lot of shock) until reading this just now. Wow, interesting.
Argo is a deeply troubling film. From the one-dimensionality of the Iranians to the complete lack of historical context ignoring prior US meddling and interfering in internal Iranian affairs[1]. The involvement of the CIA in the production[2]. The historical inaccuracies of the film[3]. The timing of the release of the film given Iranian-Western relations over its nuclear program.
For me Argo is basically unwatchable US patriotic screen-fodder bordering on propaganda.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Unite...
[2] https://www.amazon.de/CIA-Hollywood-Agency-Shapes-Television...
“Argo and Zero Dark Thirty are only the latest film productions the CIA has influenced in the 15 years since the Agency opened its official liaison office to Hollywood […]”
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(2012_film)#Historical_in...
Essentially it extrapolates from an (apparently genuine) GIA document produced during the 1990s, laying out a rough 'recipe' for turning a country towards western democracy by cultural, institutional, and political influence (or subversion, depending on your point of view) - essentially the 'soft power' approach of American diplomacy, backed up by the 90s-era conviction that we'd entered the 'end of history' following the fall of the USSR and that it was only a matter of time before every country switched to democracy and free markets because That's What Works. So this film is 50% a review of history from the Chinese and communist perspectives (worth remembering that Chinese history goes back ~5000 years so they see Marxism as a political technology rather than an identity), and 50% a how-to guide on spotting insidious Western cultural viruses.
Amusingly enough some of their complaints overlap with the complaints of western conservatives about 'cultural Marxism' which alleges that the entertainment industry is bent on unmaking national social consenses and replacing them with one world globalist tyranny. I wouldn't be surprised to find some films are considered objectionable by both communists and conservatives.
Red Dawn, a remake of a 1980s action movie about a Soviet invasion of the United States, was originally shot featuring China as the antagonist invading the United States. According to Mr. Shiao, however, the Chinese are “not interested in their country being perceived as a violent military threat to the lives of average Americans.”
and
A 'Captain Phillips' executive identified the tone of the film as a source of discomfort for censors, particularly “the big Military machine of the U.S. saving one U.S. citizen. China would never do the same and in no way would want to promote this idea.”
While I think censorship an unwise and ultimately self-defeating policy, and also agree with the basic premise that a good many of the rules are just dressed up protectionism, I can't really blame China for declining to import overt propaganda. China makes lots of propagandistic films, but the propaganda is mainly about what China should be like. It'll be some time before they produce an overtly anti-American film like Brother 2 or Valley of the Wolves (as opposed to striaght-up propaganda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_8lSjcoSW8) and I doubt whether it would be well-received here if they did.