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'.
Look it up on IMDB just to make sure.
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.
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."
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'.
Look it up on IMDB just to make sure.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment