Sunday, November 3, 2013

Can the Words “Based on a True Story” Ruin a Film?

When Paul Greengrass’ Captain Phillips was released last month, it was quickly accompanied with allegations that much of the film was made up. A handful of the men from Phillips’ own crew claimed that Greengrass’ film glamorized the real Captain Richard Phillips. In real life, the crewmen say, Phillips “wasn’t the big leader,” and was “real arrogant,” bordering on dangerous. Soon after these allegations were reported in major media outlets, film enthusiasts began penning essays asking readers the very question I’m asking in the headline of this post.

Did “Based on a True Story” ruin Captain Phillips for me? Not at all. I didn’t think the film portrayed Phillips as a hero. I thought Tom Hanks played an ornery, working man trying to get a job done. When that job was jeopardized, he did what he was told as a means of staying alive. Sure, there are grandiose moments of Hanks bellowing, “If you’re going to shoot somebody, shoot me!” at the Somali pirates who have just hijacked his ship. Maybe Phillips said that in real life. Maybe not. Doesn’t matter. Because it’s the heart of the thing that matters. Captain Phillips is a great film, and whether or not the real Phillips was more of a coward than Hanks and Greengrass let on, the impressive, emotive quality of the film was not cheapened.
But I can see that I’m digging myself into a bit of a hole here. One of this year’s films with an undeniably massive heart is Lee Daniels’ The Butler. It’s a story of a man who dedicated his life to serving others for love of country, and love for family. I enjoyed the film. It had its faults, but I was going to focus my review on highlighting its strong performances. But I never wrote that review. Why? Because shortly after seeing the film, I did a little research and discovered much of The Butler was complete bullshit. I looked into the accusations of the film’s many falsities via several different sources. It was the same everywhere. The Butler lied to manipulate its audience into caring. And upon discovering these lies, I found myself immediately against the film.

I’m digging myself deeper. “Manipulation” is a term I hate when used in film criticism. The film medium, as defined, is manipulative. Its aim is to manipulate our emotions for a response. An editing cut is manipulative. Musical score is manipulative. An actor’s facial expression is manipulative. And so on. Manipulation itself isn’t the problem, because every film (including, or especially, documentaries) manipulates us. But The Butler was different.
(Note: This paragraph contains spoilers for The Butler. Jump to the next graph if you don’t want aspects of the movie ruined.) In the opening scene of Daniels’ film, a young Cecil Gaines (who would later become The Butler), watches a plantation owner rape Cecil’s mother then kill his father in cold blood. It’s a truly startling sequence, that is entirely made up. Later in the film, Gaines’ wife (played by Oprah Winfrey) is shown as a drunk floozy who sleeps around. Nope, not true. Remember when the Gaines’ learn that their youngest son was killed in Vietnam? Didn’t happen. Remember the oldest Gaines boy, who becomes a Freedom Rider, then a Black Panther, before running for national office? Completely false. In real life, Eugene Allen (as that is his real name) and his wife, Helene, only had one son, who served in and survived Vietnam. He never joined the civil rights movement or ran for office. (Spoilers done.)

These claims for The Butler go on and on, I only pointed out the most egregious ones. But if you saw the film, you know the scenes (or whole characters) I just mentioned existed solely for the audience to gain sympathy for its title character. I’m certainly not trying to take anything away from Eugene Allen or the service he gave to his country, but it’s obvious that his real life wasn’t unique enough to merit a film (at least in the eyes of The Butler’s producer, Harvey Weinstein), so it was embellished to the point of absurdity, and I loathe the film for it.
But am I right to detest the film? One could argue that practically every film based on a true story alters the truth to make for a more cinematically pleasing experience. Sports biopics are a chief offender. Rudy never made a game-closing sack, The Permian Panthers didn’t make it to the championship as depicted in Friday Night Lights, Philip Seymour Hoffman admitted to turning Art Howe into a complete asshole as a means of giving Moneyball a villain. These claims are endless. Hell, Antwone Fisher, one of my favorite films based on a true story, is a wildly Hollywoodized version of Fisher’s actual post-teenage life. Yet I still utterly adore that film.

We all know the reasoning behind these cinematic face-lifts. “It’s impossible to fit an entire life into a two hour movie,” “We had to adjust the time frame to move things along,” “A composite character was made to articulate points more clearly.” Yes, okay, fine. But raping and killing people as a means of manipulating my emotions goes way beyond slight Hollywood touch-ups. It’s a cheap ploy to fill seats and shed tears, so that word of mouth will spread, thereby filling more seats and earning more money.
The more I thought about the notion of “Based on a True Story” as a problem, the more I tried to think of films that actually dumbed their story down to be believable. Films that chopped considerably, as opposed to adding gratuitously. Raging Bull was the first to come to mind. If you’ve read Jake LaMotta’s autobiography, or listened to first hand accounts of people who knew and loved him, you know Martin Scorsese and his writers left out a great deal from their film. Jake LaMotta did indeed do everything depicted in Raging Bull, but in reality, he was a far more abusive monster than Robert De Niro portrayed him as. Scorsese was aware of this, and he knew that if he told LaMotta’s life as it happened, too much horror would be crammed into two hours, to the point that it would be unrealistic.

Now, does that make Jake LaMotta’s life more cinematically pleasing than Eugene Allen’s? Possibly, but that’s not the point. I’ve always managed to brush “Based on a True Story” off and buy into whatever excuses were fed to me. But The Butler, despite having its heart cemented firmly in the right place, was ruined for me because it lied so blatantly. Should we let “Based on a True Story” affect our feelings toward a film so drastically, or should we accept that liberties will always be taken in “True Story” movies? After all, they are just movies, right? You tell me.

41 comments:

  1. I agree with you about Captain Phillips not being presented as a hero and just a guy trying to do his job/survive. People need to realize that just because a movie centers around one character doesn't mean you need to look at him as a hero. You talking about Raging Bull and how it toned down the content reminded me about how I felt of 12 Years a Slave. There was obviously alot more brutality that could have been included but for a 2 hour film I thought they had a healthy balance.
    -Dan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, I was going to mention 12 Years a Slave in that Raging Bull paragraph, but I figured one film was enough. 12 Years a Slave could've so easily hammed up the sentimentality of Northup's ordeal. I was so pleased by the ending scene when he was reconnected with his family. There was no falling to his knees while blubbering through tears of joy. They toned it down to considerable effect. I loved it.

      You're so right, just because there is a likable actor in the lead role doesn't mean he's automatically playing a hero.

      Delete
  2. My rule about BOATS films is this: if you say to me it's "based on" a true story, it damn well better be as close to accurate as possible.

    If you say "inspired by" a true story, then that gives you lattitude for creative fiction. Don't sell it as something it's not, I say!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "BOATS films," ha, I like that.

      I agree, there is a fine line between based on and inspired by. And yeah, I suppose I'll give more leeway if inspired by is used. Good point there.

      Thanks so much for stopping by and commenting!

      Delete
  3. Those words only harm a film if/when I find out afterwards that a substantial portion of it was all bullshit. Examples are The Last King of Scotland (the friggin' lead character whose story this supposedly was didn't even exist), The Guns of Navarone (100% fake), and even Fargo, although I didn't learn until years later that the Coens completely made it up.

    A movie like Titanic doesn't have the "based on a true story" tag and it's more accurate than a number of movies that have come out since then WITH that tag. It's studios just out and out lying to us in order to generate more interest in their films. Sometimes they try to weasel out of it by claiming they said "inspired by", not "based on" - as if that should clearly indicate to ticket buyers that they made it all up.

    And then sometimes you've got the reverse where films with clear depictions of real people still have the disclaimer at the end that no resemblance to any person, living or dead, or company, should be inferred. So in the film Almost Famous, written by former 15 year old Rolling Stone reporter Cameron Crowe, the 15 year old reporter for Rolling Stone character is completely fictional? And the magazine Rolling Stone in the movie, and it's founder Jann Wenner in the movie, just coincidentally happen to have the same names as the real Rolling Stone magazine and its real founder Jann Wenner? Right. Good thing they had that disclaimer or I might have thought these people and companies were based on the real ones.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with your first paragraph. That was my overall point with The Butler. When it was done, I thought it was a decent little film. But after I learned of its lies, my feelings on the film were forever harmed.

      That's a funny comment about Almost Famous. It's so amusing to me how that one sentence (which appears at the end of damn near every movie) is the legal fail safe for avoiding prosecution.

      Delete
  4. I'm often wary of films that are "based on a true story" but if it is close to what happened. I can deal with that. If there are some dramatic liberties done but manages to make it important to the story. I'm fine w/ that. 12 Years a Slave and Captain Phillips are prime examples of how to tell the stories the right way. I've been avoiding The Butler because of its sentimental aspects as well as the fact that it looked like an Oscar-bait movie. The stuff you revealed showcased the reasons why I tend to hate movies like this.

    I cite some of those VH1-made for TV bio-pics as examples into how not to do a bio-pic. If you ever seen the movie about MC Hammer. You will notice things that you realized where you will say "wait a minute, that didn't happen". It's one of the reasons why I fucking loathed The Doors movie because I felt it exaggerated too many things and made Jim Morrison into a complete drunken buffoon posing as a poet. And he never exposed himself. He probably just put his finger between the fly in his pants that night in Miami.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sometimes I'm afraid to dive deeper into how truthful a "Based on a True Story" movie is, in fear that I will grow to seriously dislike a film I otherwised enjoy. I do know you hate The Doors, and it's interesting to hear why. I honestly don't know much about Morrison's personal life, but I'm certainly not surprised that Stone took liberties in his film. I'm not saying that's okay by any means... it's just a shame that some movies can't depict a life accurately.

      Delete
  5. Sometimes I feel "Based on a True Story" serves as a disclaimer by the studios to manipulate the story to the best success they can get. Biopics that cut out huge chunks of people's more boring, or even more poignant, moments are much like book adaptations; everything isn't going to be told or it's going to be changed to fit the construct of someone's vision.

    I think we can allow loose to non-existent adaptations affect our viewing of movies. Because at some point there is artistic choices that are made and mildly acceptable; and at other times it just gets to plain exploitation and deceit.

    My biggest issue with entirely fabricated biopics is that sometimes audiences don't have the passion to seek out what is the truth. It's very easy to watch something and believe what you are seeing/being told, is real. I've done it countless times before until I looked something up and felt like a chump. If movies had little differences from the original stories that's one thing. You can catch up on the small details. But when films are largely created from scratch, huge proportions of history are fabricated and misconstrued. And to the viewers who don't investigate further, and the people's lives serving as "inspiration", that's a sad thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your last paragraph is spot on. I can use The Butler as a prime example. My dad really enjoyed the film, and was, I suppose, inspired by it. But when I told him how false much of the movie was, I could hear the enthusiasm drain from his voice. He was really let down, and I kind of felt bad. And then I was like, "No, wait, I didn't ruin this film for you, REAL LIFE did."

      I've seen so many interviews with the cast/crew from The Butler, and these reporters are asking them softball questions. I would love for someone to go, "So, uhhh, why'd you'd make that all up again?" But sadly, few people do.

      Research is an all too valuable commodity.

      Delete
    2. I've been there! I have a hard time digesting Johnny Cash & June biopics because most of what is made is told from the point of view of their son who always serves as a producer. Walk The Line is extraordinarily popular and it makes me cringe. It really misrepresented Vivian Cash and his dad, and a whole slew of other moments that were fabricated.

      Some journalists are afraid to step on people's toes, especially when it comes to history. If you ask the wrong question today, everyone goes up in arms.

      Delete
    3. Oh Walk the Line... yeah, talk about creating a "villain" purely for the sake of creating a villain. Music biopics are notorious offenders of botching real life as well. Like sports movies, I guess I kind of got used to the "realness" of those as well.

      Delete
  6. I've never put much stock in the whole "based on a true story" thing. Yes, films like the ones mentioned above are definitely influenced and/or based on actual events but the whole phrase that is "based on a true story" is just stupid to me. I could go outside and throw a rock at the fence and then go and make a short film about a dog and say it was "based on a true story" even though it had nothing to do with anything. Biopics have a certain level I think they need to be at so I can respect them using it, but that phrase pops up in plenty of films that seem like it being there is just pointless.
    I had no idea how much of The Butler was just exaggerated until reading this. Granted I never thought it was an amazing film but there were some solid performances in it (Whitaker better than he's been in a while and some nice supporting turns from several involved as well). I don't think it alters my perception of the movie all that much because it's just that, a movie. I know there will be liberties taken, whether big or small, even if it's mostly based on facts, there needs to be at least a little bit of dramatic invention in order to keep the audience involved (some films more than others, obviously). There's always going to be changes, even if they're minuscule in size. Perhaps it's stupid of me to think so, but if I want facts, I'll read a book or do the research or god forbid watch a documentary (which like you said, still manages to take dramatic licences and can be manipulative). I watch a movie to be engaged with the story or be entertained. I thought Lee Daniels made a solid film (overhyped for sure) but I don't think it'll go down as anything more than an Opera produced film. It's not going to be a 12 Years, a Captain Philips, or a Behind the Candelabra - or a Diana in terms of how badly these can be done. Nevertheless, this was a good read and was very informative!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks man. It's interesting to hear your perspective, that the lies in The Butler don't really sway you because, after all, it is just a movie. And, in regards to that specific film, I'm in agreement with you. Now, if I found out, for example, that there really was no Edwin Epps, and Solomon Northup actually didn't hang from a tree for a day, and that he actually wasn't forced to whip a slave at gun point, then I would be heartbroken. I'd be heartbroken because 12 Years a Slave is a masterful film. The Butler is not. So yeah, it's all about scale.

      Thing is, some people actually think The Butler is a masterful film, and that is their right. But I'd be curious to know if those people are aware that the movie is mostly fabricated.

      Delete
  7. On the topic of whether or not Captain Phillips was presented as a hero... I think it is fair that those who actually worked with him can find flaws in his fictional representation because for me Phillips is the hero of the piece. That it is based on a true story matters little to - it certainly didn't ruin my enjoyment of what is a terrific film. But I feel Greengrass had to take liberties with Phillip's character in order to firstly present the film from his perspective and then to dramatize it for an audience that in many respects is crying out for the hero to emerge. Because Phillips ends up being the man who puts his life on the line, where his efforts to protect the crew are emphasized, and his bravery during the final third is magnified by the huge military effort organized to bring the event to an end, it makes him the "hero". Tom Hanks' character and performance was a highlight of a terrific film.

    That said, I can understand the criticisms aimed at the film from those that witnessed the actual event. However, that shouldn't detract from the movie as, at the end of the day, it is a representation of the story which dramatizes elements of the situation for cinematic effect. With this film, the real Captain Phillips' stock probably rises but I doubt anyone will take Tom Hanks' representation of him as anything other than an adaptation underpinned by creative license.

    Based on a true story has, to me, come to mean very little. I take it with a pinch of salt and almost always read up on the real life events after seeing such a film. Nowadays I tend to think of "based on" meaning "inspired by" and acknowledge this could be anything from a single moment dramatized into mostly fiction to an entire event recreated with creative license. Either way, they are a long way from the truth (which will almost always have a number of variations depending on who you speak to and their recollections).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "With this film, the real Captain Phillips' stock probably rises but I doubt anyone will take Tom Hanks' representation of him as anything other than an adaptation underpinned by creative license."

      Yep, I agree fully with that. Very well put. (Everything you said was well put, but that line in particular stood out to me.)

      "Based on a True Story" means little to me as well. I'm far more annoyed by the fact that those five words drive so many people to a movie (like The Butler), even though those words are blatantly false. It's just a marketing tactic, I suppose.

      Delete
  8. Alex, I think you need to read this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/you-are-being-lied-to-abo_b_155147.html

    I've read it (and others like it) years before I saw Captain Phillips, and though I expected it, I was still shocked how CP still blatantly lied (or covered the whole truth) for the sake of action! heart-pounding thriller! tom hanks! What's your thoughts on it?

    And oh yeah, I hated The Butler, too. Among other reasons, like the reasons you hated The Help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I think that article, while well written and clearly well researched, is an opinion-driven blogpost that bases its facts on very old history. The writer makes several good points about the type of people pirates are and what drives many of them to do what they do, but I don't feel that that necessarily defines the specific motivations of the four pirates depicted in Captain Phillips. If anything, I thought the film did a good job of showing how the pirates were under tremendous pressure from the leaders of their village. That on top of simply trying to provide for their families. I thought the film portrayed only one pirate as a blood thirsty thug, while the other three (including the leader) were clearly out of their element and motivated by greed, not bloodshed.

      I haven't heard any claims against the film that it portrayed those four pirates inaccurately, so I guess my overall point is, while that post you linked to was informative, I didn't see it having anything to do with Captain Phillips at all.

      Delete
  9. For me, it's pretty simple: a film is not a documentary nor a news story. Even when one claims that it is "based" on a true story (as opposed to "inspired"), it just means that it took a real life situation as a conducting thread for the film. It's perfectly legitimate to change/cut/add to what really happened, in order to better capture the director's vision and message.

    Like I said, it's not a news story, it's not a documentary -- it's a movie. And that's exactly what I expect going in. I too saw Captain Phillips and loved it, and it doesn't bother me one bit if some of what it depicts didn't happen exactly like that. As for the Butler, I'd have the same issue with it wether it was based on a true story or not -- the overly dramatic/blatant glorification style is just not my thing.

    My point being: people shouldn't waste time being bothered about films that change the truth. I'd be far more concerned when journalists do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very interesting take here. My frustration with The Butler is that I really felt for the two main characters involved. I've known people who have lost children, and I've seen it ruin lives. And that is exactly the intention of the filmmakers: to provoke emotion because, you know, this "really" happened. Which, of course, it did not.

      I've been devastated by countless movies in which parents lose their children, that are in no way based in fact. The Butler's impact wouldn't have been lessened for me if they NEVER said the movie was based in fact. But they were going for the cheap and easy way to pull at heart strings, and that is shameful.

      Just my opinion though! I agree, filmmakers lying about the truth is in no way as bad as when journalists and other news outlets do. Which, regrettably, happens all the time.

      Delete
  10. I agree with a lot of the comments above regarding "Based On" as opposed to "Inspired by". I guess I always looked at it from more of a legal 'covering their asses' standpoint than as a teaser for the movie itself. Though the phrase "willing suspension of disbelief" was coined in 1817, well before movies, and meant in regard to works of fiction, it seems appropriate for movies in general. Even in the verbal retelling of a story we embellish, we edit, we alter. That is generally for the entertainment of a very small audience, probably just the people within the sound of our voice. How much more must be done to entertain millions and justify a budget of multimillions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, very good point. Like I said, I never had a problem with "Based On" or "Inspired By" until The Butler. That one just irked me.

      Delete
    2. A very bothersome one, for sure!

      Delete
  11. Personally, I think the affect that based on a true story or even inspired by a true story is entirely affected by the person viewing. Maybe i'm coming at it from the perspective of a person who has written both fiction and non-fiction stories and aspires to eventually write memoir and novel alike. To me by saying based on a true story, as opposed to making it a documentary it gives whatever creative license to the creators and in a way allows them a general blanket to an extent. Additionally a biopic, is the halfway point between the two.

    I think the best way to explain my thoughts would be a comparison of 61* and Moneyball. 61* is a biopic that has been dramatized to where much of the truth remains there and there is a larger emphasis to be truer to the story, where with Moneyball, while many of the facts are the same, the creative license gives a leniency to the creators and does not promise anything to the audience other than that, this is our retelling in a way that we think it'll captivate you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All very good points. To the best of my knowledge, Moneyball didn't tout itself as "Based on a True Story." I could be wrong there, but I don't believe that was part of their marketing. Whereas with The Butler, they banked on the fact that people would go to the movie, solely because it was Based on a True Story.

      Still though, I'm not out to pick on The Butler. The first sentence of your comment is spot on.

      Delete
  12. Interesting post. In terms of 'The Butler', I don't have too many problems with those manipulations because they've been using the term "inspired by" rather than "based on", so I give them a pass. Even for the Oscars, the film has been accepted as an original screenplay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've seen and heard The Butler used Inspired By and Based On interchangeably. I also feel like a story based on fact is nominated for an Original Screenplay Oscar nearly every year. Zero Dark Thirty, The Fighter, The King's Speech, Milk, The Queen, Good Night and Good Luck and on and on. But either way, it's funny how much the argument changes if a film only uses Inspired By.

      Delete
  13. Very interesting post. I had no idea so much of The Butler was made up. That kind of changes my opinion on this too. I wish they'd use "inspired" by a true story more than "based" it gives the audience that wiggle room for interpretation. Because like another person pointed out, sometimes you don't have the time or passion to look something up, and you just take the movie for what it's worth.

    The first film that came to mind when I read this was An American Crime. For someone that doesn't know Sylvia Likens' story, that would've been a very well made, dramatic movie. However for those of us that know the facts, not only did they lighten everything up but they made certain characters more sympathetic when the real person showed no sympathy to poor Sylvia. It's actually kind of insulting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh wow, so I taught you something about The Butler, and you taught me something about An American Crime. I had no idea the real events of that story were much more disturbing than they are in the movie. That's fucked up. I agree, a tad insulting.

      Delete
  14. I fully understand everyone's comments on "based on" vs. "inspired by" a true story. In principle, I agree with most everyone here on the difference between the two. However, especially over the last few years, the two have become interchangeable terms. Movies using both take so many liberties with the actual truth that I can no longer take either one seriously. Just going through sports movies you'll come across films people love, but have sizable portions that were made up just for the screen: Rudy, Remember the Titans, Friday Night Lights, etc. Don't even get me started on what happens in the horror genre (The Amityville Horror, anyone?). Basically, I go into these movies with the mindset that it is an artistic interpretation of a true story and try to judge these films as standalones and ignore its adherence, or lack thereof, to the facts. I'll admit it's often easier said than done, particularly if I have a decent amount of knowledge on the subject, but it usually keeps me from getting too bent out of shape because this part of the story or that, or even the whole thing is inaccurate. That is what works for me.

    Oh, and I have to give you a hard time for this: you can't be much of a baseball fan if you didn't know that Moneyball was "based" on a true story, lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, you basically have to sacrifice any belief that what you're seeing is "real" despite the fact that it is "based" on a true story. I didn't even touch on the horror genre, because they have abused the "Based on a True Story" bit to death. It's all bullshit with horror.

      I'm confused by your last paragraph. I'm not a fan of baseball at all, but I knew much of Moneyball was fiction.

      Delete
    2. Sorry 'bout that. Totally misread a previous statement you made about Moneyball.

      Delete
    3. It's all good. I was just a bit confused.

      Delete
  15. I don't know how familiar you are with David Thomson's writing on film but I read his book "The Big Screen" earlier this year and he had a line that absolutely blew me away. It was about documentaries, but I think it could apply to all film. It was this: “’Victory of the Faith’ was a rehearsal, as well as a lesson that ‘documentary’ was a myth. The screen could not tell fact from fiction, and it was hell-bent (or heaven-bent, if you prefer) on ending the distinction.”

    That line has really made me think. It’s kind of in line with what Maria is saying above, that once it’s on the screen, it ceases to be beholden to the facts of real life. Like, Thomson's ongoing thesis, book to book, article to article, is that the movies should be treated primarily as fantasy, regardless of being based on facts or not.

    Not that I’m saying your view on this wrong. Not at all. In a lot of ways I agree with you. I’ve long felt that if the filmmaker has to alter crucial facts in order to properly convey his/her intended theme, it’s crossing the line.

    But, Thomson makes me wonder... Frankly, I don't know if I'll ever settle this in my mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You always leave such insightful comments, my friend. I love what Thomson said about the subject. For me personally, I know part of my issue with The Butler isn't that it made stuff up, because as I mentioned, most all BOATS movies do that. But it's that it made up such drastic stuff, like the death of a child. They made shit up to cause viewers to have a profound emotional connection with the movie, so that they will tell their friends, who will pay money to see it. It just feels very cheap to me, but I also fully understand that much of the movie business is morally cheap and shady anyway.

      I don't think I'll ever fully settle on it either. A tricky subject.

      Delete
  16. Hmm, very interesting question and implications here. On one hand film is as you said supposed to be manipulative in some way, trying to register an emotional response. But on the other hand if it goes over the line in it's coaxing, then you are reminded that you are watching a made-up fabricated piece you know you are being fooled. I think though the simplest way to boil it down is this: if I can say "So what?" at the changes made for the adaption to screen than the film holds. If it doesn't change the heart of the story told than who cares? For those that say it dilutes and distorts 'history', well 'history' isn't etched in stone either, nothing is.
    Recently, an egregious example is "Fruitvale Station" being criticized by some in this Frobes article as playing fast and loose with the facts in order to elicit outrage. (By the way, scroll down the comments section to a Catherine Handley's response, it is one of the best reasoned opposing views I've read anywhere)

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2013/07/25/fruitvale-station-is-loose-with-the-facts-in-an-effort-to-elicit-sympathy-for-oscar-grant/

    I found myself perplexed at Mr. Smith's taking offense at the certain scenes made up for the film; the dog scene, dancing in the subway, and that it omitted the fact that Grant was in jail for illegal gun possession, to which I can only say "So what"? Does that change the story of a life cut far too short? Does it change the fact that an unarmed 22-year-old kid is gunned down by people sworn to protect him, just because he was taunting them? Yeah, those added scenes probably showed that Oscar had much more caring and charisma than the real guy, the filmmakers needed to make sure the audience understood, in under two hours, what everyone in Grant's life potentially saw in him, to be a better man.
    The best example I always think of when this question comes up is with Schindler's List, with Schindler's last scene with the people he saved from slaughter, ok fine that never happened in real life? Is it manipulative? Yes. Does it matter? No. The people that criticized Spielberg for portraying the people that lived rather than honoring the dead must've missed that scene, because it's Spielberg acknowledging that Schindler statistically speaking didn't accomplish much. 1,100 vs 6 million isn't even close. It should be a moment of triumph for him a pat on the back and all, but all he can do is weep because he finally understands in that moment the true horror of what his own country and people had done and, in his eyes, he didn't do enough. He is playing as an audience surrogate as well, because for the length of the story's running time it's true we have seen only the survivors, the ones that made it out. But in the end, just like Schindler, we know the extent of the holocaust. Unlike him, though we know that he did more than most any other man, country and army. "He who saves one life, saves the world entire" he did it over thousand times over.
    Nothing in Stone's 'JFK' really happened like it is presented in the film, does it change that it one of the most thrilling FICTIONAL dramas ever constructed? The tarmac chase in Argo was made up, does it change the fact that they succeeded? So I guess long story shortened, if the touch-up and manipulations fundamentally alter the story and the message being told, people have a right to gripe. Otherwise try to understand WHY the filmmakers are making these changes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That Forbes article is insulting. Catherine's comment was spot on. I'm literally at a loss for words that Forbes would print such a malicious piece. If Kyle Smith is able to call himself a "journalist," then the meaning of that word is cheapened.

      Anyway. "If I can say 'So what?' at the changes made for the adaption to screen than the film holds." I think that is very well put. A great rule of thumb to go by.

      I agree that much of JFK is fabricated yet ceaselessly thrilling. But, despite Stone's convictions, I don't recall that film being marketed as Based on a True Story. More like, "The story you've never heard..." or the like. Either way, that's semantics. Like you say: if you can say So What, then that should be enough.

      Delete
  17. dont even bring rudy into this that worthless pile of shit.....

    ReplyDelete
  18. Excellent post! I've always accepted that "based on a true story" doesn't guarantee 100% accuracy. A BOATS film is adapted from a true story. That said, those changes to The Butler are outrageous. I was lukewarm on the film anyway, but those inaccuracies just don't sit well at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks man. I was the same way with the film, lukewarm at first, now I just dismiss it. A shame, because I really value Lee Daniels as an artist. But oh well.

      Delete