Stil is right. Realizing that you are watching a fictional account of real events and, more importantly, being able to recognize fact from fiction is about education. People who complain about historical inaccuracies in movies really should take a look at previous classics. Do you complain about inaccuracies in "Cleopatra"? How about "Tombstone"? I love that Western, however, I also read several books about the era and the people in it. Doc Holiday was not as cool and suave in life as he is portrayed by Val Kilmer, nor was he a faster-than-his-own-shadow quick draw. No, according to contemporary sources, he was drunk off his gourd most times. His gunfighter reputation stems from the fact that he had no qualms about drawing his gun and shooting at people which was actually not as common as one might think. Knowing this, I still enjoy "Tombstone" because I am not watching a true representation of Holiday or Earp or even the events surrounding the O.K.Corral, I am watching a romantized version.
Narrative is not based on nothing, it is based on theme, character, political issues, symbolism, entertainment value but not historical correctness. Did you watch "300"? I did and found it highly entertaining, albeit I know that the Spartans did not go to war wearing leather speedos and Xerxes, by all accounts, did not employ mutants to decapitate his failed generals. Let us look at "Argo" and what the narrative presents us with: a patriotic story of a flawed, semi-broken man who works for the CIA, an agency whose very remit and actions are shrouded in secrecy and which a large part of the population looks upon with distrust. This man, along with Hollywood, risks life and limb to save innocent Americans hiding in a civil-uprising torn Middle Eastern country where the people, notice their nationality, are eager to string these poor, scared Americans up by the nearest lamp-post. Overcoming all odds, doing the impossible, our intrepid hero saves the hostages, returns home, ends up in the suburban house of the wife who greets him as a hero triumphant and what is his reward? A parade? A huge ceremony? No, he gets to read his son a goodnight story. A hero unsung, whose act of bravery gives him a secret medal and peace of mind. Then, we can leave the theatre feeling good about the government, somewhat ambivalent about our feelings about the CIA and wonder how many unacknowledged heroes are walking around us. Que Souza music. Then we can, if we want to, explore what was missing in the movie, what it exaggerated and what it did not.
Did you ever watch "Braveheart"? A movie so riddled with historical inaccuracies it would make anyone with a faint knowledge of British and Scottish history snigger but, from a narratological point of view, a great story about public defiance at unjust laws, of the power of the ordinary people, of sacrificing all, even your life, for ideals, for making rhe world a better, nicer, more just and equal place. That, as I see it, is what any good narrative does. It does not aim to present us with dry, academic facts, those we should be enlightened enough to seek out ourselves.
Poll