No. of evening meetings: 1 (it's half term - yay!)
Films watched: 1.5
Healthy eating: Poor (it's half term - doh!)
Mental health: OK
What is it with Sunday nights? More poor sleep so another bad start to the week for me (thanks mainly to the spicy food I had in the evening which were churning my guts all the time). At least it was half term so things were a bit quieter.
No 2 son woke up on Monday poorly with a high temperature which was probably just a virus - thankfully it didn’t affect plans for half term too much and we were able to go to the beach on Wednesday with the rest of church / parent and toddler group.
I went into church on Thursday to help do a bit of a clear out / tidy in the bolier room cupboard. Felt good to throw stuff out - lots of crap that had been abandoned (for probably years) went to the tip and gave way to a bit more useful space which is a bonus.
Friday was a trip to St Fagan's with my brother's family and the old folks. It was freeeeezing, so we didn't stay long after lunch. They've renovated a lot of the place and it's looking pretty swanky. Nice one, SF.
Saturday involved my leadership training course, a trip to Ikea (which we were successful at resisting buying all sorts of useless crap but did get some much needed crockery) then a visit to Cardiff Bay to view the brick safari and have an ice cream.
Sunday was a kid's party for No 2 son, picking up the others from church then chilling at home.
Here’s a new thing I’m going to try and do on my blog: summing up my week in a few paragraphs. It’s going to be a sort of pseudo-diary which will help me to capture the everyday stuff of my life, so it doesn’t get lost in the mists of time. Or something.
Week beginning: 12/02/18
No. of evening meetings: 3 (all church-related)
Films watched: 1.5
Healthy eating: Poor (it was Valentines and Pancake day this week!)
Mental health: OK
My week started off with extreme tiredness after a poor night’s sleep (which repeated the following night as well), but was a mainly quiet one work-wise apart from filming Monday and Tuesday afternoon for a local charity. It involved working with children, which is always a challenge, but I think we got what we needed.
The rest of the week was spent writing up a business plan, alongside working on CGI shots for my short film 'Hey Mal!' which is very slowly getting there.
I was saddened to hear about another shooting in the US - this time in a Florida high school. Yet again, no lessons will be learned and nothing will be done to address this uniquely American problem. Tragically, it will no doubt happen again in the not-too-distant future.
We are facing a battle of wills with no. 2 son at the moment, who is resolutely stubborn and disobedient with frustrating frequency. His older brother wasn't much different at his age – and he has largely grown out of it – but then his older brother didn't have a sibling when he was six which adds further complication to things.
We had a fairly quiet weekend. Wifey was out all day for an elder's meeting so I had the boys (I took them to the cinema and chilled at home). Then it was a low key Sunday (church in the morning then more chilling in the afternoon), although we did spend Sunday evening saying goodbye to the Phillipino missionaries (lots of yummy food!).
Real events are often the subject of films we see in the cinema or on television. Some films are 'true stories' while others are 'inspired' by them. Art is a reflection of real life after all, and there are countless stories of heroism, adventure, horror and inspiration to be mined from history, current events and people's lives. More often than not, film producers don't need to make stuff up because it's happened in the past or is happening right now. In fact, even if you think you've come up with a story or idea that's never happened, chances are it probably has (in some form or another).
As they say, there's no such thing as an original idea.
I don't think there's anything wrong with making 'true story' films per se, but unfortunately these films often take artistic licence with the truth - and I think that can be dangerous. Many people don't realise this (or at least, that's my inkling), and just assume that the events unfolding on screen in front of them actually happened the way they did. Now, I'm not saying everyone is so stupid to think that they believe it's a literal account (i.e. everything on screen is a perfect reproduction of the story, from the words characters say to the props in the background), but I wouldn't be surprised if some cinemagoers equated 'true story' films with fly-on-the-wall documentaries (of course, fly-on-the-wall documentaries can be far from innocent when it comes to the truth - but that's another discussion).
I'm a great believer in the authentic filmmaker's mantra: story is king. You can have the greatest actors, most eye-popping CGI, sumpuous sets and stunningly elaborate action scenes – but if you don't have a decent story it's all a waste of time (and results in a poor movie). If you have a good story, the other stuff (no matter how dodgy) isn't as important.
Most good stories follow the standard structure of the 'monomyth' (see video above), or a variation of it. When true stories are committed to celluloid, they will often follow a similar pattern – typically in the form of an underdog story.
You have the protagonist: underappreciated, dismissed or downtrodden but with a special gift, ability or character trait. They are up against the antagonist: arrogant, powerful and determined to maintain the status quo. It doesn't have to be a person, though – it can be a company, the government or even just the culture or circumstance (such as the unforgiving arctic wilderness, for example). Through a series of trials the protagonist learns to harness their inner will or powers – despire a setback or two – and ultimately win the day against the odds. A new order is established and everyone lives happily ever after.
Show me a true story that doesn't fit this sequence and I will show you dozens that do.
Unfortunately, real life doesn't really look like that. Admittedly it does when you distil the story down to a few sentences – but looking at the details you will find something far more chaotic (or mundane).
What filmmakers do is merge real people into one or more new characters, alter places and names, change the timing of happenings, skip over or ignore key events entirely – all to help contort the narrative into a film-friendly format.
It's obvious why this is done. Film has to be exciting and interesting. There has to be a struggle and a goal to achieve with moments of despair and failure along the way. That's where the drama comes from.
The trouble is, real life is duller than film. Films are life with all the boring bits taken out (as Alfred Hitchcock is often quoted as saying). It's waiting around for things to happen. Sitting in cars driving for hours to get to a destination. Washing the dishes. Going to the loo.
Film, on the other hand, ignores those bits most of the time (have you ever seen James Bond go to the toilet?). It cuts to the chase and focuses solely on the action, with stuff moving the drama forward. Which is fine, but then you aren't telling the whole story. Just the highlights. You're cutting bits out.
And people don't realise. They see 'based on a true story' and assume it all happened as it did on screen. But that's rarely the reality. Thus, people are (potentially) tricked into thinking things happened a certain way. Their understanding of historical events is distorted. And that is where the danger lies.
The film Hidden Figures (2016) is based on the true story of black female mathematicians working at NASA during the sixties and the space race to land a man on the moon. These women faced prejudice not just because of the colour of their skin but because of their gender. They are shown struggling against a society that doesn't think black women have brains or anything useful to contribute. It's a great film with brilliant acting and is a moving insight into the civil rights struggle of the time.
What I find difficult is that it suffers from the points I made above - namely, that the story has been shoehorned into a filmic narrative which warps the truth.
There is one scene where Kevin Costner's character pulls down a 'colored ladies only' bathroom sign after discovering his black employee is forced to walk half a mile to use a bathroom designated for black employess. This is a powerful and poignant scene, showing a turning point in the story as the struggle against prejudice finally begins to pay off.
Trouble is, this never happened.
According to IMDB: "The issue with the bathrooms was not something Katherine Johnson
personally experienced. It was actually encountered by Mary Jackson
instead. In fact, it was this incident, as a result of Jackson ranting
to a colleague, which got her moved to the wind tunnel team. Johnson was
initially unaware that the East Side bathrooms were even segregated,
and used the unlabeled "whites-only" bathrooms for years before anyone
complained. When she simply ignored the complaint, the issue was dropped
completely."
Eddie the Eagle (2015) is another example. Eddie Edwards' story of triumph over adversity as he competes in the 1988 Winter Olympics is the stuff of legend. What makes this story weird is that Eddie ultimately failed (coming last in two different ski jumping events), but his tenacity and drive to take part and pursue his dreams made him a national hero.
The film about his rise to Olympic fame is a great film. A true underdog story, Taron Egerton portrays Eddie perfectly and is joined by Hugh Jackman who plays Bronson Peary - an American manly man who becomes Eddie's coach and friend.
Peary is a former ski jumper with various personal demons to confront as he relutantly helps Eddie get ready for the games. His gruff, hardened character is the perfect foil for the innocent, geeky Brit trying to make it in an Olympic category untouched by anyone from his nation for decades.
Which makes for a great story ... except for the fact that Peary never existed.
Hugh Jackman's character was fabricated precisely to serve the story, to provide someone for Eddie to interact with and help move the story along. I also suspect he was written so that a famous actor (i.e. Jackman) could be star in the film, thus increasing the chance of the film actually getting made (and turning a profit).
IMDB says this about the film: "On June 6, 2015, the real-life Eddie 'The Eagle' Edwards
told BBC news that the movie will be ninety percent made up. Edwards
said, "I've been warned only ten to fifteen percent of it is based on my
life.
Sooo, ninety percent of the film is made up. Ninety percent ... NINETY PERCENT?!?!
Did I hear anyone say that dreaded Trumpian phrase: 'Fake News'?
And therein lies the problem with true stories on film. Dramatic effect often takes precedent over truth, and that harms the preception of the reality of events in a way that – while minor – could ultimately distort the story so much that the general public have a completely wrong view of what actually happened in the past.
I wonder if future archeologists and historians will look back on films of this era and assume that they portray historical events as the way they happened, or perhaps they'll be clever enough (or informed enough) to know that when they read 'inspired by a true story' or 'based on real events' they will take those statements with a fairly big pinch of salt.
So remember kids: not everything you see on film is 'true' or 'factual'.
Posts
