I'll get things started with two observations. First, the script begins with an action opening. No build-up to the takeover of the embassy, rather begin in media res. This has the effect of immediately pulling us into the plot. Second, once Mendez decides to go against orders and get the 6 out [P. 93-94], the rest of Act Three is like one big action sequence with lots and lots of cross cuts. Just check out each of the scenes described in the breakdown from 93 on, several of them include shots from numerous subplot perspectives. If you download the PDF version of the breakdown by Nora, you can REALLY see this. This illustrates in a literal form the traditional ending of most mainstream movies: They build to a big finale. Here it is the escape from Tehran. And we can see through each of the scenes as described from 93 on the pace picking up with all of the intercuts. Other observations?

Great breakdown, Nora. The first thing that stood out to me is the obstacles. It seemed as if it was setback after setback, especially that last sequence Scott mentioned in his comments. Stuff like the never-ending shoot with the phone ringing, being stopped at the gate with checkpoints, the 6 finally past the checkpoint and onto the bus but it stalls, and then they finally get on the plane but a delay is announced...etc. Even though I knew the outcome because it's based on reality, I remember holding my breath during those last couple sequences. Loved the use of the shredded photos as a ticking clock. Set up on page 17 and really ratchets up the tension during that last act. Other things I liked -- the use of Bob and his zero to hero moment. At first he's whiny and dismissive, throwing a monkey wrench into the escape plan. But the way he comes through for the group at the airport is funny and surprising. Perfect blend of tension and humor. I was watching Raiders of the Lost Ark not too long ago, and I think that had a similar feel/tone. And oh yeah, "Argo fuck yourself" might have been the most memorable element of the the movie for me. The weakest part of the story for me was the Protagonist. Mendez was maybe the most uninteresting character and to me felt like he was just along for the ride, so to speak.

Scott, I'd like to break down Barney's Version if it's not taken yet.

John, thanks for those comments. Your point about obstacles is a good one and a solid writing takeaway. Audiences LIKE to see Protagonist(s) forced to overcome complications, roadblocks and reversals. It makes for more interesting drama and creates a story where we feel by the end, they've really had to push themselves to succeed. The shredded photos as a ticking clock: Agreed, that was a small, but inspired touch. Your point about Mendez is an interesting one and in a way, you are right: He isn't terribly interesting. His whole backstory, such as it is, is extremely limited, surprising for a Ben Affleck lead character in a traditional hero role. But I wonder if that's kind of the point: To sell the idea that this relatively anonymous mid-level CIA operative could concoct this plan to save the lives of the six hostages. No big catharsis for the character. No major transformation arc. There's a bit of business about the relationship with his wife and son, but even that is pretty small in terms of page count. I'd be curious to see how others reacted in that regard, something we can continue to explore throughout the week. Re Barney's Version: Sure! I've yet to see it, so will be a great excuse to read the script and watch the movie. Thanks!

Yes, it kicks right into high gear. And even tho I'd seen it already, my heart was pounding as I was reading the last 20 pages. What I noticed as I wrote it all down was the way the writer planted small elements early on, which them grew to be important. So there were continuous threads that grew on size and became important. Certainly, the "argo pick yourself", but also the line Méndez gives Siegel, telling him to wait for the phone call. That pays off so beautifully at the end when Siegel and Cameron hear the phone but are caught in a filming. It's a beautifully constructed script.

If Mendez was the most "uninteresting" character then he was an ideal agent, someone he got the job done without drawing attention to himself. The mission was more important than the man. I liked the fact that the script did not try to juice up the character with a flamboyant personality, riddle him with a "character flaw" that might jeopardize the entire rescue effort.

Excellent point, Paul. In line with my point about his relative anonymity, Mendez was, in some respects, the ideal character to pull off the mission. A bureaucrat thrust into a global event, a sort of anti-James Bond. On a pragmatic level, this speaks to Affleck as actor-director. There's that line by Michael Caine who, when asked how he decides on which roles to take, said, "I open the script to the first page, then the last page. If my character is on both pages, I take the part." In other words, if my role is THAT important. Affleck -- The Actor -- could have insisted on bulking up the role of Mendez, laying in more backstory re his wife, perhaps one of the Canadian women having romantic feelings for him, etc. But he didn't. His role is central to the story, but on an emotional level, subservient to the experiences of the Canadian six.

Nora, those setups & payoffs, or callbacks as with the line "argo fuck yourself" are often signs of a well-written script. First off, they are secondary in importance to everything else, so if they're there, it suggests the writer has done their job on all the other fronts, then had the time to add those grace notes. Second, setups & payoffs as well as callbacks can add to the experience of the script reader in that they involve us in the read. We recall the setup when we see the payoff, and that gives the payoff a bigger emotional oomph. Finally, setups & payoffs are a great way to indicate passage of time and change. We remember the setup - where the narrative was at the time - then can compare to the payoff. 'Ah, so this character has really gone through a transformation because back at the setup they were in that state of being.' Honestly, those bits of business are some of my favorite things in scripts, not only enjoyable in and of themselves, but also because they reflect so well -- when done well -- on the writer. Thanks again for the scene-by-scene breakdown!

Well, his specialty is ex-filtration and I think the low key personality ties onto that. But more than that, I see a thread between the "time off" he's taking with his wife, and his decision at dawn in the hotel room to take the 6 out anyway. He calls his boss and says, "someone has to take responsibility". He is that someone. Then at the end he goes back to his wife and I think that ties together the taking responsibility theme.