Friday, September 28, 2012
Friday Song #12 - Dave Edmunds
"I Hear You Knocking" - Dave Edmunds, from the album 'Rockpile'.
Released: 1972
Monday, September 24, 2012
Truth of "True" Movies
If you've been following along, you might be distrustful of movies that claim to be "based on a true story". And with good reason. In case you aren't convinced by now, here's a few specific examples.
1. "The Pursuit of Happyness" - This movie is based on the book of the same name, which was the truth story of Chris Gardner in his attempt to be a good father and provide for his son, but at the same time try to break into the stock broker business. Overcoming homelessness and personal trials, he succeeds. But is this the real story?
Not entirely. The theme is correct, but real life isn't always that kind. For example, Chris Gardner's son was actually two, not five as portrayed in the movie. For the first four months of the training program, he didn't even know where his son was. In the movie, he was paid nothing while training, but in reality he was paid $1000 a month. In the movie, his wife's name is Linda, but that character is based on two real life people: Sherry and Jackie. One was the mother of his child, and the other was who he moved on to. His son was actually birthed while he was having affairs. He was known to do cocaine in the late 70's with his woman, but did give it up. The movie also implies that only the top person would be hired, but in reality anyone that passed the exam would be hired; Chris's 88% was a good score for the test. He also has a daughter that wasn't shown in the film.
Here is a link to more information about what's similar and what's different between the movie and Chris Gardner's biography. If you want the true story, which is much more candid and less "Hollywood", just read the book. You'll actually get the story.
2. "21" - This is a typical story of math genius who goes to Harvard and joins a group who want to learn the art of card counting in blackjack. The teacher then takes them to Vegas to put the lessons into practice. After a beating, the math genius heads back to Harvard and goes into medical school. What can be fictional here?
Well, there was an infamous group of card counters from Harvard that infiltrated Vegas, but the biggest difference was that most of the team was actually Asian American. Even the teacher (Kevin Spacey's character) was Asian American. In fact, of the five main people, only one wasn't Asian. In fact, there are very few details in the movie that are based on fact. They are mostly based on elements that would make a good movie. Typical of Hollywood.
Here is a link to more information about the differences between the movie and the actual team. Very interesting differences here.
3. "The Hurricane" - This is a movie notoriously plays with the facts. It's about promising boxer Rubin "Hurricane" Carter who was convicted of a triple homicide. After twenty years in prison, and after overcoming racist system after racist system, he is found innocent when three Canadians find missing evidence that sets him free. It's a nice story, but what issues could there?
Many. The movie shows a fight between Carter and a white boxer named Joey Giardello where Carter obviously wins the fight but loses when the racist judges award Giardello the victory. In real life, Carter lost the fight badly, and the real Giardello sued the filmmakers over the scene and won. As far as Carter's background, he had been arrested by age 14 for assault and armed robbery, and by age 22 he'd been in jail twice for brutal street muggings. As far as the legal side of it, there was enough evidence against Carter to convict him twice (in 1967 and 1976). He failed a lie detector test miserably. At his second trial, people who'd been witnesses in his first trial admitted that they'd been asked to lie for him. As far as the Canadians who found the piece of evidence to set him free... that was fiction. The only reason he was freed was because of procedural errors on the prosecution's side, and the case was thrown out by the court of appeals. After 22 years, the prosecution had no interest in starting the trial from scratch since some of the key members were dead.
4. "300" - This is a historical movie about the Battle of Thermopylae between the grossly outnumbered 300 Spartans and the might of the Persian Empire. The story tells the tale of how a meager force of 300 held off the thousands of Persians long enough to save Athens. Sounds too good to be true right?
The Battle of Thermopylae is a well-documented historical event in the sense that tactics and numbers have been recorded, but the fighting styles were not saved. The movie changes certain historical truths that seem to distort people's views on what to believe. This viewpoint comes from Herodotus who wrote about the battle and who also wrote scathing viewpoints about Persia's slavery and Athenian democracy. In fact, Persia wasn't documented to have slaves (unlike Greek society which survived because of it). The slaves of Egypt, Greece, and other societies would flee to Persia because they could be free there. Herodotus wrote against the Persian Empire and how horrible it was, many points were then used as inspiration for movies like 300 and Alexander. But the truth is that he roamed freely through the empire and writing against it. Why? Because he could. Because Persia was a much more free society than Greece. So, if one actually looks closer at the Persian/Greek war, it actually looks more like present-day America and the war on terror. The Greeks would attack Persia in small, calculated terrorist attacks, and Persia finally had enough and decided to invade. So if you know your history, then you'd realized that the movie is bachwards and we the viewers are actually cheering for the wrong side: a terrorist society that promotes inequality and slavery, instead of the larger, benevolent, peaceful society. The other great missing truth is the fact that the Spartans didn't fight the Persians alone: it's the first time Sparta and Athens worked together (a unified Greek force). The movie also neglects to mention the Battle of Salamis, the naval battle that was the turning point for the war which happened at the same point. Also, the elephants and rhinos in the movie were to add fantasy elements to it; there was no historical fact in it. Here is a link to help you learn more about why our perceptions are wrong.
5. "The Amityville Horror" - This is one of two kings of the "true" horror genres (the other being the highly embellished "Exorcist"). Following a family murder in a house, the story follows a family that moves into the same house when supernatural events wreak havoc on the family. Sounds like a good haunted house movie, but that's all.
The truth is a lot less creepy. The Lutz family (who went through the "ordeal") worked with a man on the writing of the book. However, an independent researcher found a hundred things that couldn't have been true in the book (book claims snow prints but there wasn't any snow at that time, police were called but no records show the police being called or visiting the house, Indians mentioned in the book to have used that ground never were recorded in that vicinity, etc.). George Lutz wanted several times for paranormal researchers to visit the house, but when he was told that if nothing was found that it would make big headlines. Lutz declined to have the investigators because he didn't want to create a media sensation. Oddly, not long after, he had a seance take place at the house with the local news crews to film it. (Didn't want attention, huh...) Supposedly a priest came to the house to bless it and a malevolent spirit followed him and attacked him with sores. The priest himself denied this ever happening. Lutz himself thought he was portrayed in a negative way in the movie, so he sued. The judge ruled against him because it was viewed as a work of fiction and protected under the 1st Amendment, as well as the fact that because of the book and movie, millions of people have watched it and he himself has benefited financially from it. It finally came out that the lawyer for the original murderer and the Lutz family made up the whole haunting story over some wine. Why? The Lutz family were paid well, the writer was hailed (even though he further embellished the story, which was further embellished for the screen), and the lawyer hoped to get a new trial for his client. It is widely believed that the embellishment of the Exorcist movie was a contributor in the Amityville Horror creation. Unfortunately, anyone who's lived in the house since has been harassed by fans. And sadly, the real murder of the DeFeo family has been marginalized. When in doubt, check out Snopes for the real story.
So in conclusion, don't believe that a movie is true no matter how sad, happy, scary, far fetched, resonable, or believeable. Do your research! Without it, we do nothing more than spread the falsehoods that keep Hollywood giving us cheap nonsense.
1. "The Pursuit of Happyness" - This movie is based on the book of the same name, which was the truth story of Chris Gardner in his attempt to be a good father and provide for his son, but at the same time try to break into the stock broker business. Overcoming homelessness and personal trials, he succeeds. But is this the real story?
Not entirely. The theme is correct, but real life isn't always that kind. For example, Chris Gardner's son was actually two, not five as portrayed in the movie. For the first four months of the training program, he didn't even know where his son was. In the movie, he was paid nothing while training, but in reality he was paid $1000 a month. In the movie, his wife's name is Linda, but that character is based on two real life people: Sherry and Jackie. One was the mother of his child, and the other was who he moved on to. His son was actually birthed while he was having affairs. He was known to do cocaine in the late 70's with his woman, but did give it up. The movie also implies that only the top person would be hired, but in reality anyone that passed the exam would be hired; Chris's 88% was a good score for the test. He also has a daughter that wasn't shown in the film.
Here is a link to more information about what's similar and what's different between the movie and Chris Gardner's biography. If you want the true story, which is much more candid and less "Hollywood", just read the book. You'll actually get the story.
2. "21" - This is a typical story of math genius who goes to Harvard and joins a group who want to learn the art of card counting in blackjack. The teacher then takes them to Vegas to put the lessons into practice. After a beating, the math genius heads back to Harvard and goes into medical school. What can be fictional here?
Well, there was an infamous group of card counters from Harvard that infiltrated Vegas, but the biggest difference was that most of the team was actually Asian American. Even the teacher (Kevin Spacey's character) was Asian American. In fact, of the five main people, only one wasn't Asian. In fact, there are very few details in the movie that are based on fact. They are mostly based on elements that would make a good movie. Typical of Hollywood.
Here is a link to more information about the differences between the movie and the actual team. Very interesting differences here.
3. "The Hurricane" - This is a movie notoriously plays with the facts. It's about promising boxer Rubin "Hurricane" Carter who was convicted of a triple homicide. After twenty years in prison, and after overcoming racist system after racist system, he is found innocent when three Canadians find missing evidence that sets him free. It's a nice story, but what issues could there?
Many. The movie shows a fight between Carter and a white boxer named Joey Giardello where Carter obviously wins the fight but loses when the racist judges award Giardello the victory. In real life, Carter lost the fight badly, and the real Giardello sued the filmmakers over the scene and won. As far as Carter's background, he had been arrested by age 14 for assault and armed robbery, and by age 22 he'd been in jail twice for brutal street muggings. As far as the legal side of it, there was enough evidence against Carter to convict him twice (in 1967 and 1976). He failed a lie detector test miserably. At his second trial, people who'd been witnesses in his first trial admitted that they'd been asked to lie for him. As far as the Canadians who found the piece of evidence to set him free... that was fiction. The only reason he was freed was because of procedural errors on the prosecution's side, and the case was thrown out by the court of appeals. After 22 years, the prosecution had no interest in starting the trial from scratch since some of the key members were dead.
4. "300" - This is a historical movie about the Battle of Thermopylae between the grossly outnumbered 300 Spartans and the might of the Persian Empire. The story tells the tale of how a meager force of 300 held off the thousands of Persians long enough to save Athens. Sounds too good to be true right?
The Battle of Thermopylae is a well-documented historical event in the sense that tactics and numbers have been recorded, but the fighting styles were not saved. The movie changes certain historical truths that seem to distort people's views on what to believe. This viewpoint comes from Herodotus who wrote about the battle and who also wrote scathing viewpoints about Persia's slavery and Athenian democracy. In fact, Persia wasn't documented to have slaves (unlike Greek society which survived because of it). The slaves of Egypt, Greece, and other societies would flee to Persia because they could be free there. Herodotus wrote against the Persian Empire and how horrible it was, many points were then used as inspiration for movies like 300 and Alexander. But the truth is that he roamed freely through the empire and writing against it. Why? Because he could. Because Persia was a much more free society than Greece. So, if one actually looks closer at the Persian/Greek war, it actually looks more like present-day America and the war on terror. The Greeks would attack Persia in small, calculated terrorist attacks, and Persia finally had enough and decided to invade. So if you know your history, then you'd realized that the movie is bachwards and we the viewers are actually cheering for the wrong side: a terrorist society that promotes inequality and slavery, instead of the larger, benevolent, peaceful society. The other great missing truth is the fact that the Spartans didn't fight the Persians alone: it's the first time Sparta and Athens worked together (a unified Greek force). The movie also neglects to mention the Battle of Salamis, the naval battle that was the turning point for the war which happened at the same point. Also, the elephants and rhinos in the movie were to add fantasy elements to it; there was no historical fact in it. Here is a link to help you learn more about why our perceptions are wrong.
5. "The Amityville Horror" - This is one of two kings of the "true" horror genres (the other being the highly embellished "Exorcist"). Following a family murder in a house, the story follows a family that moves into the same house when supernatural events wreak havoc on the family. Sounds like a good haunted house movie, but that's all.
The truth is a lot less creepy. The Lutz family (who went through the "ordeal") worked with a man on the writing of the book. However, an independent researcher found a hundred things that couldn't have been true in the book (book claims snow prints but there wasn't any snow at that time, police were called but no records show the police being called or visiting the house, Indians mentioned in the book to have used that ground never were recorded in that vicinity, etc.). George Lutz wanted several times for paranormal researchers to visit the house, but when he was told that if nothing was found that it would make big headlines. Lutz declined to have the investigators because he didn't want to create a media sensation. Oddly, not long after, he had a seance take place at the house with the local news crews to film it. (Didn't want attention, huh...) Supposedly a priest came to the house to bless it and a malevolent spirit followed him and attacked him with sores. The priest himself denied this ever happening. Lutz himself thought he was portrayed in a negative way in the movie, so he sued. The judge ruled against him because it was viewed as a work of fiction and protected under the 1st Amendment, as well as the fact that because of the book and movie, millions of people have watched it and he himself has benefited financially from it. It finally came out that the lawyer for the original murderer and the Lutz family made up the whole haunting story over some wine. Why? The Lutz family were paid well, the writer was hailed (even though he further embellished the story, which was further embellished for the screen), and the lawyer hoped to get a new trial for his client. It is widely believed that the embellishment of the Exorcist movie was a contributor in the Amityville Horror creation. Unfortunately, anyone who's lived in the house since has been harassed by fans. And sadly, the real murder of the DeFeo family has been marginalized. When in doubt, check out Snopes for the real story.
So in conclusion, don't believe that a movie is true no matter how sad, happy, scary, far fetched, resonable, or believeable. Do your research! Without it, we do nothing more than spread the falsehoods that keep Hollywood giving us cheap nonsense.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Friday Song #11 - Heads Hands & Feet
"Song for Suzie" - Heads Hands & Feet, released on the album "Heads Hands & Feet"
Released: 1971
Monday, September 17, 2012
"Based on a True Story" Part 3
In last week's post, we explored two of the reasons why movie studios use the term "Based on a True Story" when the story shown on the screen may not really be true. However, the third reason is the biggest reason why these movies aren't always true.
3. The scriptwriting process
This really boils down to the unwritten rules of scriptwriting. When you write a script, you have to keep in mind that if you don't write it the way the studio wants, then they won't even read it. There is little-to-no room for personalization in scripts. A major studio hires script readers who read through scripts and if you don't show promise in the first five to ten pages, then they will throw it away. If you aren't following the accepted structure, it will be thrown away also. The problem is that structure is looked at much higher than story, so it could be an awful story but a perfect structure, so it might get made.
The structure that I'm talking about is the 3 Act Structure. Here is a picture of what a 3 Act Structure drawn out would look like:
What this means is the first act is roughly the first 1/4 of the movie, the third act is roughly the last 1/4 of the movie, and the second act is approximately the middle and is 1/2 of the movie. Act I sets up the plot and sets the protagonist on their journey. Act II is where things change and things become more intense and bring conflict for the protagonist. Act III is where the movie's pacing is the fastest and the movie climaxes to whatever the situation is before the story ends. Just before each act break is a plot point where something happens to create a twist in the story.
You might wonder why this matters. Well, real life stories don't adhere to this structure, so when you write a script from a real story, then you have to mold the story into this structure. When you mold it into the structure, you end up changing things to make the story fit. A notorious trait for screenwriters with this are including myth or legend moments as opposed to things that are documented as happening (such as including a part of a script with a "someone once said the person did this", but no one really knows if the person did that or not).
The other notorious trait that screenwriters resort to (and this happens when adapting novels into screenplays also) is combining characters. Sometimes one character is instrumental in the first half and then disappears about the time someone else shows up. The screenwriter will probably combine both characters into one for the script. One reason is so that you have one character to go through the movie instead of having to remember two. The other reason is scriptwriters know that two characters with speaking parts means two salaries for the filmmaker, but one role will be cheaper, so it's more concise in a budgetary sense to have one. A third reason is simply that it's easier for the moviegoer to follow less characters. With less characters (but characters that are all throughout the movie), the viewer won't wonder what happened to some characters and where other characters came from.
The whole 3 Act Structure is a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because it makes writing a script easier in the sense that in your 100-120 pages, you'll have to include certain waypoints and you just fill in the story in between. The curse is that there is no originality and if you deviate from that structure, your movie won't be made. The script readers from above just don't understand anything beyond the 3 Act Structure, so you could write the most brilliant story ever, and no one will make it because the readers won't approve it.
The simple fact is that because of this careful structure and apprehension of the readers, very few scripts actually become movies. Less than 10% of scripts that are submitted actually get made, and less than that actually turn out to be successful movies. Sometimes one can blame the writer for having a bad story, but sometimes it's everyone else's fault after the script has been written (the producer, the director, the editor, etc.). Sometimes the story is great, but the director has a different vision and literally makes a different movie. Many scripts go through numerous drafts, each one being printed on different color paper, which is why the final script (usually the shooting script) is called the "rainbow script": they take out parts of all the previous drafts to make the final copy. It's not unheard of for a script to have 30+ drafts in a year. Common unusual color choices for the draft pages include salmon (a pink), gold (a yellow-orange), and tan.
The movie industry is a tough world, but when you say that you're going to release a movie that's "based on a true story", it probably isn't for the reasons that have been explained. When you see a movie with that tagline, it's best to do some research to find out what really happened. Check back in the next post where we look at some movies that have been "based on a true story" and some movies that didn't use the tagline, but were just as "based on actual events" as the ones that claimed to be so.
3. The scriptwriting process
This really boils down to the unwritten rules of scriptwriting. When you write a script, you have to keep in mind that if you don't write it the way the studio wants, then they won't even read it. There is little-to-no room for personalization in scripts. A major studio hires script readers who read through scripts and if you don't show promise in the first five to ten pages, then they will throw it away. If you aren't following the accepted structure, it will be thrown away also. The problem is that structure is looked at much higher than story, so it could be an awful story but a perfect structure, so it might get made.
The structure that I'm talking about is the 3 Act Structure. Here is a picture of what a 3 Act Structure drawn out would look like:
What this means is the first act is roughly the first 1/4 of the movie, the third act is roughly the last 1/4 of the movie, and the second act is approximately the middle and is 1/2 of the movie. Act I sets up the plot and sets the protagonist on their journey. Act II is where things change and things become more intense and bring conflict for the protagonist. Act III is where the movie's pacing is the fastest and the movie climaxes to whatever the situation is before the story ends. Just before each act break is a plot point where something happens to create a twist in the story.
You might wonder why this matters. Well, real life stories don't adhere to this structure, so when you write a script from a real story, then you have to mold the story into this structure. When you mold it into the structure, you end up changing things to make the story fit. A notorious trait for screenwriters with this are including myth or legend moments as opposed to things that are documented as happening (such as including a part of a script with a "someone once said the person did this", but no one really knows if the person did that or not).
The other notorious trait that screenwriters resort to (and this happens when adapting novels into screenplays also) is combining characters. Sometimes one character is instrumental in the first half and then disappears about the time someone else shows up. The screenwriter will probably combine both characters into one for the script. One reason is so that you have one character to go through the movie instead of having to remember two. The other reason is scriptwriters know that two characters with speaking parts means two salaries for the filmmaker, but one role will be cheaper, so it's more concise in a budgetary sense to have one. A third reason is simply that it's easier for the moviegoer to follow less characters. With less characters (but characters that are all throughout the movie), the viewer won't wonder what happened to some characters and where other characters came from.
The whole 3 Act Structure is a blessing and a curse. It's a blessing because it makes writing a script easier in the sense that in your 100-120 pages, you'll have to include certain waypoints and you just fill in the story in between. The curse is that there is no originality and if you deviate from that structure, your movie won't be made. The script readers from above just don't understand anything beyond the 3 Act Structure, so you could write the most brilliant story ever, and no one will make it because the readers won't approve it.
The simple fact is that because of this careful structure and apprehension of the readers, very few scripts actually become movies. Less than 10% of scripts that are submitted actually get made, and less than that actually turn out to be successful movies. Sometimes one can blame the writer for having a bad story, but sometimes it's everyone else's fault after the script has been written (the producer, the director, the editor, etc.). Sometimes the story is great, but the director has a different vision and literally makes a different movie. Many scripts go through numerous drafts, each one being printed on different color paper, which is why the final script (usually the shooting script) is called the "rainbow script": they take out parts of all the previous drafts to make the final copy. It's not unheard of for a script to have 30+ drafts in a year. Common unusual color choices for the draft pages include salmon (a pink), gold (a yellow-orange), and tan.
 |
| An example of a rainbow draft's scenes in a modern scriptwriting program. |
Friday, September 14, 2012
Friday Song #10 - Blackfoot
"Highway Song" - Blackfoot, released on the album "Strikes"
Released: 1979
Monday, September 10, 2012
"Based on a True Story" Part 2
If you read last week's post, you'll note that we've determined that movies that are supposedly "based on a true story" are either drama, horror, or historical (with sports fitting into either drama or historical). You will also remember that I am extremely critical of movies that use the tagline "based on a true story" or some version of it. Why? Many reasons, some of the main ones will be shared here.
1. It sells tickets!
What's the best way to sell a ticket to an awful movie? Say that it's a true story! I'm not saying that all "true story" movies are awful. In fact, most of them are really good movies, and some are great movies. But in the end, the industry cares more about selling tickets to the average movie viewer than they are at telling a factual story. If you have a movie about a down on his luck father who's trying to provide for his child, it may be a good small movie that gets good reviews and some go to see it, but it isn't a huge movie. However, you slap the "inspired by actual events" sticker on it and suddenly everyone has to see it. Once you put reality on a movie (no matter how ludicrous), people will pay to see it. But don't be fooled into thinking that the movie industry has your history textbooks in mind when they make a movie. After all, I think we can all agree that Abraham Lincoln didn't really fight vampires or zombies or any other supernatural creatures.
2. The words themselves
The words themselves say it all: based on a true story. It implies that the movie you are going to watch is not necessarily true, but it is based on something that is. That is a very broad (and sly) way of saying that the movie isn't factual but its basis is. However, don't confuse this statement with the movie itself being factual. It usually means that the screenwriter saw or read something and they thought of an idea that became a script. What they read or saw is usually a factual event or scenario, and what they write isn't always the same. Look at the numerous versions of a Titanic movie. Since no one is alive who experienced the actual sinking, we can't know for 100% certainty everything that happened on the ship, and even if there was, it would only be from that person's perspective, as opposed to everything that actually happened. Not only that, but the sinking of the ship is literally just that. There have been three major movies made about the Titanic sinking: the one from 1997 that everyone knows about, the 1958 movie 'A Night to Remember', and the 1943 German movie 'Titanic'. Each one is a historical film about the sinking of the Titanic, but each one has similar elements: drama and action, two people having a discussion (with differing viewpoints) on the ship's ability to sink or be unsinkable, and fictional characters. The fictional characters is where these historical movies really come into conflict with the history of the subject matter. Do any of these three versions claim to be based on a true story? No. However, they are based on an event that actually occurred: the Titanic's sinking. It's the same principle as 'Saving Private Ryan' is based in part on the D-Day invasion, which is a real event. With smaller stories (usually horror and drama movies), it's harder to investigate the real circumstances that inspired the film. Since these are harder to research, most accept them as truth. Unfortunately, most people mistake a film that was inspired by true events and a film that actually happened. If you want a film that actually happened, look for documentaries (even though you can't trust all of them either now).
Check back in Part 3 for an in depth look at the third and most important reason why 'Based on a True Story' isn't always so.
1. It sells tickets!
What's the best way to sell a ticket to an awful movie? Say that it's a true story! I'm not saying that all "true story" movies are awful. In fact, most of them are really good movies, and some are great movies. But in the end, the industry cares more about selling tickets to the average movie viewer than they are at telling a factual story. If you have a movie about a down on his luck father who's trying to provide for his child, it may be a good small movie that gets good reviews and some go to see it, but it isn't a huge movie. However, you slap the "inspired by actual events" sticker on it and suddenly everyone has to see it. Once you put reality on a movie (no matter how ludicrous), people will pay to see it. But don't be fooled into thinking that the movie industry has your history textbooks in mind when they make a movie. After all, I think we can all agree that Abraham Lincoln didn't really fight vampires or zombies or any other supernatural creatures.
2. The words themselves
The words themselves say it all: based on a true story. It implies that the movie you are going to watch is not necessarily true, but it is based on something that is. That is a very broad (and sly) way of saying that the movie isn't factual but its basis is. However, don't confuse this statement with the movie itself being factual. It usually means that the screenwriter saw or read something and they thought of an idea that became a script. What they read or saw is usually a factual event or scenario, and what they write isn't always the same. Look at the numerous versions of a Titanic movie. Since no one is alive who experienced the actual sinking, we can't know for 100% certainty everything that happened on the ship, and even if there was, it would only be from that person's perspective, as opposed to everything that actually happened. Not only that, but the sinking of the ship is literally just that. There have been three major movies made about the Titanic sinking: the one from 1997 that everyone knows about, the 1958 movie 'A Night to Remember', and the 1943 German movie 'Titanic'. Each one is a historical film about the sinking of the Titanic, but each one has similar elements: drama and action, two people having a discussion (with differing viewpoints) on the ship's ability to sink or be unsinkable, and fictional characters. The fictional characters is where these historical movies really come into conflict with the history of the subject matter. Do any of these three versions claim to be based on a true story? No. However, they are based on an event that actually occurred: the Titanic's sinking. It's the same principle as 'Saving Private Ryan' is based in part on the D-Day invasion, which is a real event. With smaller stories (usually horror and drama movies), it's harder to investigate the real circumstances that inspired the film. Since these are harder to research, most accept them as truth. Unfortunately, most people mistake a film that was inspired by true events and a film that actually happened. If you want a film that actually happened, look for documentaries (even though you can't trust all of them either now).
Check back in Part 3 for an in depth look at the third and most important reason why 'Based on a True Story' isn't always so.
Friday, September 7, 2012
Friday Song #9 - Steve Earle
"Copperhead Road" - Steve Earle, from the album "Copperhead Road"
Released: 1988
Monday, September 3, 2012
"Based on a True Story" Part 1
One of my biggest pet peeves is the tagline on movies that says "Based on a True Story". There are variations of this, such as "Inspired by Actual Events" or even "A True Story". People can argue the finer points of these phrases, but in the end, they basically mean the same thing because of one simple reason: the movie industry.
There are three main types of films that seem to be lumped into the "true story" bandwagon: historical, horror, and drama. You don't see many comedy or sci-fi movies that supposedly happened. You will, however, see movies based on the racehorse Seabiscuit, an exorcism that people debate at which hospital in St. Louis it took place, and a man trying to be a good father but also trying to be hired. One (the historical) typically makes one feel amazed at some event that occurred, another (the horror) makes one feel scared that an event could actually take place to them, and the other (the drama) tries to pull on your emotional strings. It just wouldn't work so much with a straight comedy since it's just something to amuse you and we all experience good times. It wouldn't work so much with sci-fi either. I mean, let's face it, no one is arguing whether Star Wars really happened, and if it did, how accurate it was. There's no room in the fantasy genre for true stories since I think we can all agree that Lord of the Rings wasn't historical. One could argue that sports movies deserve to be put in here, but I put them under the definition of drama since the only "true story" sports movies you will find seem to be dramas, even if they are historical. So, let's take a closer look at the three categories of what can be called "true stories".
Historical
The historical movies are ones that obviously take place in the past, but usually when I say 'historical', I'm talking about movies that would require "period piece design and costumes". The biggest example of this would be movies set during wars previous to the 1980's and stretching back to ancient Rome or Greece. The reason I put the 1980's is because before the 1980's, costumes and design for places are radically different than they are today. Even Vietnam movies have different styles of hair, glasses, and clothing than one set in the Persian Gulf from 1991. Typically, every decade from the 1940's forward have had their own identity, but it seems to have blended in the last ten years where styles of before are more accepted than they used to be. So, it's easier to make a movie in 2012 about 1995 (hide the cell phones though!) than it would about 1975. If you are looking at specifically war movies, then we're talking completely period piece design. If we're doing the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, or even the war between Greeks and Trojans, then it's going to require a very careful reconstruction of life at that time; no modern technology of any kind (even con trails in the sky) should be seen. Making sure that a historical movie is historically accurate is an immense job on its own, and no matter how careful people are, something always makes it through the editing (even something insignificant, like a 1946 Ford being shown on screen of a movie that takes place in 1944). Historical movies tend to be very expensive because of the attention to detail and the sets, which is why you almost never see a low budget historical movie.
Horror
The horror movies are ones that love to have taglines saying that their movie is real or really happened. The whole appeal of these movies is to scare you into thinking that the event that is being shown on film can actually happen to you. Maybe it's a killer on the loose or maybe it's a haunted house or maybe it's some other supernatural force. Either way, the whole line that the horror genre rides on in this case is making you believe that this "true" story happened once, and it can happen again. Don't answer the phone, don't go into the basement, don't open the door, don't trust strange people, etc. etc. etc. The line that the horror genre walks on is a fine line though because if you don't believe the story being told, then you won't be afraid. The ones that succeed are the ones that have the characters doing things that the viewer would do. There's nothing worse than watching a horror movie and thinking "I wouldn't have done that", because that takes you out of the plot. Sometimes this works in "true" horror movies since the events supposedly happened, and even though they weren't things you would've done, it's the choices that the "real" people made, so you are just along for the ride.
Drama
The drama category is the one that seems to be the most muddled of all three. There are quite a few people who won't believe a horror movie that's "true", and there are quite a few who won't believe that a historical movie that's "true" is quite as slick as it seems on screen. On the other hand, these same people will believe a drama that is based on a true story. Dramas are more believable than horror because of the content of horror. Not everyone will believe in a strange moth creature that appeared before a bridge collapse or in ghosts haunting a couple's new house, but they will believe in a down on his luck father trying to provide for his child. Dramas are more believable than historical movies because the historical movies are usually about events that can easily be searched for in history books or the most basic of searches, but dramas are usually within the previous fifty years and are harder to research since they deal with a much smaller and less publicized story. These movies, above the other two, are the easiest to say "based on a true story" and have few questions asked. The one thing that this category has above the others is that it will tug on the emotional strings of the viewer, and because of this, people will give their hearts to the movie and defend it to the end without actually ever looking to see how much of it was real.
And in the end, that's the problem with any movie that's "based on a true story": people don't question the truth. There have been some movies that have been based on a trust story that were rather factual, and then there were others that have been complete fiction. The worst part is when the "based on a true story" tagline is added, suddenly there is legitimacy that has been added to the film and the viewers become experts on the subject by what they saw in the movie. A teacher told me once that he had a class back in the early 90's when the movie JFK came out, and he spoke of students who came in to class asking if he watched the biography of JFK. There's a big difference between a biopic and something like JFK.
So, now that we know what types of movies we are dealing with, next we will look at the industry and the way movies are made. Check back in the next post to learn more!
There are three main types of films that seem to be lumped into the "true story" bandwagon: historical, horror, and drama. You don't see many comedy or sci-fi movies that supposedly happened. You will, however, see movies based on the racehorse Seabiscuit, an exorcism that people debate at which hospital in St. Louis it took place, and a man trying to be a good father but also trying to be hired. One (the historical) typically makes one feel amazed at some event that occurred, another (the horror) makes one feel scared that an event could actually take place to them, and the other (the drama) tries to pull on your emotional strings. It just wouldn't work so much with a straight comedy since it's just something to amuse you and we all experience good times. It wouldn't work so much with sci-fi either. I mean, let's face it, no one is arguing whether Star Wars really happened, and if it did, how accurate it was. There's no room in the fantasy genre for true stories since I think we can all agree that Lord of the Rings wasn't historical. One could argue that sports movies deserve to be put in here, but I put them under the definition of drama since the only "true story" sports movies you will find seem to be dramas, even if they are historical. So, let's take a closer look at the three categories of what can be called "true stories".
Historical
The historical movies are ones that obviously take place in the past, but usually when I say 'historical', I'm talking about movies that would require "period piece design and costumes". The biggest example of this would be movies set during wars previous to the 1980's and stretching back to ancient Rome or Greece. The reason I put the 1980's is because before the 1980's, costumes and design for places are radically different than they are today. Even Vietnam movies have different styles of hair, glasses, and clothing than one set in the Persian Gulf from 1991. Typically, every decade from the 1940's forward have had their own identity, but it seems to have blended in the last ten years where styles of before are more accepted than they used to be. So, it's easier to make a movie in 2012 about 1995 (hide the cell phones though!) than it would about 1975. If you are looking at specifically war movies, then we're talking completely period piece design. If we're doing the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, or even the war between Greeks and Trojans, then it's going to require a very careful reconstruction of life at that time; no modern technology of any kind (even con trails in the sky) should be seen. Making sure that a historical movie is historically accurate is an immense job on its own, and no matter how careful people are, something always makes it through the editing (even something insignificant, like a 1946 Ford being shown on screen of a movie that takes place in 1944). Historical movies tend to be very expensive because of the attention to detail and the sets, which is why you almost never see a low budget historical movie.
Horror
The horror movies are ones that love to have taglines saying that their movie is real or really happened. The whole appeal of these movies is to scare you into thinking that the event that is being shown on film can actually happen to you. Maybe it's a killer on the loose or maybe it's a haunted house or maybe it's some other supernatural force. Either way, the whole line that the horror genre rides on in this case is making you believe that this "true" story happened once, and it can happen again. Don't answer the phone, don't go into the basement, don't open the door, don't trust strange people, etc. etc. etc. The line that the horror genre walks on is a fine line though because if you don't believe the story being told, then you won't be afraid. The ones that succeed are the ones that have the characters doing things that the viewer would do. There's nothing worse than watching a horror movie and thinking "I wouldn't have done that", because that takes you out of the plot. Sometimes this works in "true" horror movies since the events supposedly happened, and even though they weren't things you would've done, it's the choices that the "real" people made, so you are just along for the ride.
Drama
The drama category is the one that seems to be the most muddled of all three. There are quite a few people who won't believe a horror movie that's "true", and there are quite a few who won't believe that a historical movie that's "true" is quite as slick as it seems on screen. On the other hand, these same people will believe a drama that is based on a true story. Dramas are more believable than horror because of the content of horror. Not everyone will believe in a strange moth creature that appeared before a bridge collapse or in ghosts haunting a couple's new house, but they will believe in a down on his luck father trying to provide for his child. Dramas are more believable than historical movies because the historical movies are usually about events that can easily be searched for in history books or the most basic of searches, but dramas are usually within the previous fifty years and are harder to research since they deal with a much smaller and less publicized story. These movies, above the other two, are the easiest to say "based on a true story" and have few questions asked. The one thing that this category has above the others is that it will tug on the emotional strings of the viewer, and because of this, people will give their hearts to the movie and defend it to the end without actually ever looking to see how much of it was real.
And in the end, that's the problem with any movie that's "based on a true story": people don't question the truth. There have been some movies that have been based on a trust story that were rather factual, and then there were others that have been complete fiction. The worst part is when the "based on a true story" tagline is added, suddenly there is legitimacy that has been added to the film and the viewers become experts on the subject by what they saw in the movie. A teacher told me once that he had a class back in the early 90's when the movie JFK came out, and he spoke of students who came in to class asking if he watched the biography of JFK. There's a big difference between a biopic and something like JFK.
So, now that we know what types of movies we are dealing with, next we will look at the industry and the way movies are made. Check back in the next post to learn more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)