Why Are Films Based On Real Events Only Done So Loosely?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, I was watching "Chicken Little" yesterday, and I remember close to the end of it how a remark was made about how Chicken Little hoped they stayed true to what really happened with the whole invasion thing, his dad said "This is Hollywood, the one thing they never do is mess with a good story.", and that got me thinking about how untrue that statement is. Because, 90% of the time, they DO mess with a good story, especially those based on real life events. They generally change most of it and/or leave important things out and replace them with things that never happened, don't get me wrong, there are films out there that actually STICK to the real thing, but those are rare. Most films that are based on true stories usually have one review or comment either by critics or regular viewers that either explicitly or implicitly makes the statement "Don't go expecting one hundred percent accuracy."

hm.. to me it sorta seems a basic fact of life that not many people record events the same way as anyone else. for example if i was in a convenience store with my GF and a man robbed the store, i might mention he had a red shirt, was my height and was holding a revolver in his left hand (indicating handedness) - she might mention that he had a moustache and blonde hair and got into a blue suv. if only her side of the story was told, the director might fill in a shorter actor in a blue shirt with an automatic in his right hand, simply because he was missing some of the data. if my side was told and not hers, the director might have a dark haired man climb into a red minivan.

inaccurate, but not out of malice or laziness. perhaps logistics came into play, like the events took place on a sunny day in texas but the equipment/permits ended up forcing them to film on a rainy washington day? by extension this can add up to pretty big inaccuracies... well, that's how the process of storytelling goes since time began. fun, anyway

fiction is more interesting than fact, most of the time.

ruveyn

Having watched "Mozart and the Whale" and having read the book, I wondered the same thing. The original plans for the film got re-written and watered down so much they couldn't call it a biography any more.

There are also time constraints, financial constraints, "creative vision" and probably uncounted little things that interfere with how accurate the film is.

Dramatic licence. Real life doesn't always act like narrative causality.

Because real events are actually quite slow paced, and from the perspective of most modern viewers, boring.

Take Mission Impossible or James Bond for example. If real secret agents went around making big scenes like that they wouldn't be a very good job of being covert, now would they? And then someone is going to notice, and when that happens, it isn't an exciting chase scene, it's a diplomatic crisis.

Hollywood has to hold the viewers attention from anywhere between 30 minutes to about 2 hours. To do this, everything has to be amplified, overdramatized, and condensed.

If you'd like to see how overdramatic Hollywood actually is, stop by a movie set sometime. Don't just watch the main characters, but watch the extras as well. Everything will be over stated. I promise.

If real life were as overstated as a movie, none of us would have this trouble reading people.

Because real life is boring...

There is a structure that screenplays are written to that has been time tested, over the years, to hook the viewer and get them as emotionally invested as possible. For example:

Catalyst - story begins, life is in balance. Main character is introduced and the theme is set.
Big Event - a major happening that will give the main character a problem to solve, a goal to chase, a desire.
Rising Conflict - complications in the story that will hold setbacks, small triumphs, breakthroughs.
Pinch - major event where the main character becomes fully aware/ clear of things, stakes are raised, no turning back, fully committed.
Crisis - conflict strengthens to reveal a crisis. The worst thing that could happen happens: all seems lost.
Climax - everything is on the line and facts finally come together to answer collecting questions. We see what people are really made of.
Resolution - the story ends for better or worse and the main character has reached some kind of resolve.

When a true story comes along, what is noticed is the great concept that will look good on screen. Along with this great concept also comes the rest of the story. The rest of the story, when laid alongside screenplay structure, could work (and stay 100% true to the story), but would it be enough to entertain and hold interest throughout?

IMHO, things have to be fictionalized in order to hook and hold the attention of a wide variety of viewers. More appeal = increased revenue.

From 'the Invention of Lying:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfMmWOF_H88&feature=related[/youtube]

(I couldn't find the clip showing 'honest' films, but this may give an idea...)

I think Chicken Little may have been too depressing (they all get eaten by the fox in the end in the real story, don't they?). Same with the little mermaid. The original Grimm's Sleeping Beauty would have gotten an 18 rating.

As well as that, to bulk the story up to make it last an hour, writers try to give the characters 'background', 'personality' and add in a few extra characters for 'humour' (and marketing; more loveable characters: more collectibles). These tend to be set stereotypes, so kidding that it makes the character more rounded is a bit of a joke.

What else.... hm, more marketing.. prettiness.... usually a modern day moral about 'acceptance' and 'friendship'.. Nevermind that many of these stories already had morals if you left them in their original form (ie. being a gullible fool will get you killed)...

And once you start changing something, I imagine it becomes very hard to stop. A slight tweak here, a few sub plots there...

I'm guessing by the way, so if someone's done a degree in this/worked in the industry, feel free to get refute all this.

I've worked on many documentaries and made a few films myself, so don't expect the truth from me!

I once worked on a documentary on the 1918 Influenza where the editor wanted photoshop a photograph to show more people wearing protective masks than were in the image. I argued that it seemed a bit against the whole point of documentary. Ultimately a producer told him he couldn't do it, but the problem here was the editor wanted to make sure the audience KNEW how fearful people were of the flu. In his attempt to communicate the story, he tried to change the "documents" of the story.

I think a lot of film makers are afraid the audience won't quite understand or won't have the patience to watch a film that is strictly accurate. My feeling is that it is the failure of the film maker if they cannot find a way to tell the story well.

As mentioned above, there is the issue of interpretation. I might see events playing out one way and you might see them another. You might see my version as playing fast and loose with the facts. This is much the point of "Rashomon" Another good film that looks at different ways of seeing the same events is "Reversal of Fortune"

There are some films, such as "Amadeus" that perhaps diverge significantly from actual events but are none the less very good films for the human truth they reveal. A strictly accurate bio-pic on Mozart may not have been a very good story about jealousy and the ability to recognize good work but not be able to create it yourself.

I never saw the original Frost Nixon interviews, but I hear that the big reveal where Nixon admitted to committing a crime occurred early in the interviews, not at the end. But from a dramatic perspective, it "plays" better if it occurs a the end. This way it feels as if everything is building to that point. Maybe it would have been better to try to structure the story so that it ends at the point that Nixon actually admitted to a crime, but making that story work might have been more difficult.

Also the simple act of starting at one point and ending at another creates an artificial structure to a story. It ignores what has come before and what will happen after the story ends. All stories, and this includes documentaries, are artifical constructs. The only question is how FAR you deviate from the truth.

I don't have a problem with lying in film, so long as you are honest about it.

Well, I'll be the contrarian.
It's because most directors and writers are complete hacks.
There, I said it.
They think their ideas are better than the real story. Patton and Lawrence of Arabia are both very close to the true stories of both characters. I honestly don't think anyone can say they are boring.
On the other hand, Annie Get Your Gun turns the real story upside down in almost every detail. It's fun to watch, but even as you do you know this couldn't have happened like this ....

I remember one Australian horror movie (sorry, I forgot the title) about three college aged kids in the outback who were victimized by a psychotic hunter, which was supposed to be based on a true story. I read later how the movie makers, who after their film was complete, heard about two different serial killers in Australia. So, they got the idea they'd claim their movie was based on a true story, even though they never had any previous knowledge of these two murderers.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

A combination of:

and



and I'd also say that filmmakers feel obliged to change things, that a direct transcription (whatever) has to be wrong

and a hefty dose of blind nationalism (the most obvious example being Hollywood's reassignment of characters, discoveries, inventions and triumphs of any kind to the good ol' US of A; but it's done everywhere)

Here's a good example, wiki has this to say about the movie U-571

Though the film was generally well received[1] and won an Academy Award, the plot attracted criticism for two reasons: firstly, it was British personnel from HMS Bulldog who first captured a naval Enigma machine, from U-110 in the North Atlantic May 1941, before the United States entered the war. Secondly, German U-boat crews were portrayed in a negative light.
The real U-571 was never involved in any such events, was not captured, and was in fact sunk in January 1944, off Ireland, by a Short Sunderland flying boat from No. 461 Squadron, Royal Australian Air Force. The real U-570 was captured by the Royal Navy, although not before the crew had destroyed almost all the secret materials on board.

Whoops, killed another thread .....