An Australian TOP reader, Paul Byrnes, wrote a brief and somewhat belated comment to Sunday's "Open Mike" post about truthfulness in movies, mentioning an article he wrote not long ago for The Sydney Morning Herald on the same topic. Since his article is much better than mine, I thought it deserved a link of its own. Paul finds the right tone, breezy and somewhere between bemused and cynical, with less hand-wringing about a misinformed public and greater understanding of the insection between art and truth in movies.
A sample:
It is too early to know whether Lincoln will be accused of accuracy, but there are encouraging signs. [Screenwriter] Kushner, quoted in Smithsonian magazine, said: ''The rule was that we wouldn't alter anything in a meaningful way from what happened.'' Most films never even attempt that. Australian audiences will soon see The Impossible (opening January 24) with Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor playing an English family separated from each other by the Asian tsunami. It is based on a true story, but the original family was Spanish, which illustrates one of the key points about the relationship between the film business and any true story: anything factual that gets in the way of a film's marketability is no longer true. Making the couple Spanish would have severely reduced the film's reach.
As you can see, there are several nice turns just in that short paragraph, especially "Anything factual that gets in the way of a film's marketability is no longer true." Heh!
Paul's opening lines are wonderful: "Hollywood loves a true story. A cynic might say it gives them something to lie about...."
Zing.
He gets a lot right, I think. Anyway, I admire good writing, and seek it out, and prize it where I find it. If the issues interest you, Paul's short article is worthy of your time.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
A book of interest today:
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Clay Olmstead: "I heard this story one time; I don't remember the details, but it went something like this: When Michelangelo carved the statue of Giuliano de' Medici for his tomb, someone pointed out that the deceased's neck was not as long as Michelangelo had carved it; to which Michelangelo replied, 'It is now.'"
Rod S.: "Paul, I enjoyed your article both times—in the printed SMH and again here. Thanks, and keep up the good work. I also thought your review of Lincoln was spot-on.
"Mike, I like accuracy—or at least realism—in films, too. What's so wrong with the truth? Does it reveal that filmmakers and audiences have difficulty telling and accepting the truth? As in 'Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story.' Does science get a bad rap for the same reason? I enjoyed Lincoln last weekend because it highlighted Lincoln's urge to end slavery despite the immediate difficulties and personal costs, and the political conundrum created by the Civil War coming to an end. Perhaps it wasn't the entire truth. But it certainly seems a part of the whole that is worth holding up and celebrating. And the film also gave me a taste of the events surrounding a famous period of U.S. history, which, as a busy working Australian, I am unlikely to spend a lot of time delving into through books. Hopefully I wasn't deceived."
I think my favorite section on IMDB is the goofs area where all the screw up's in anachronisms, facts, and audio/video are laid out in excruciating detail. The Buddy Holly story was of particular interest when I was younger. Even as a youngster in the 80's (when I first saw it) I noticed all the 70's guitars. Not one or two - but several. My faith in movies has never recovered. At least not until I discovered Errol Morris ....
Posted by: Chad Thompson | Monday, 18 February 2013 at 11:51 AM
Where you refer to "truthfulness in movies," I wonder whether "truthiness" might be more apt.
Posted by: latent_image | Monday, 18 February 2013 at 12:55 PM
Really enjoyed Apollo 13 but of course even with that movie events were compressed and left out to fit the running time. It was reported that Gene Kranz never said "Failure is not an option" but he did say "...let's not make it worse by guessing". And, the spacecraft engineers probably knew early on what problems they were going to run into stretching the LM's life support way past it's nominal lifetime.
Posted by: John Robison | Monday, 18 February 2013 at 05:01 PM
I read somewhere re: Lincoln that the roll call vote at the end used some names that were deliberately changed from the historic facts in order to not put a stigma on living descendants of the Congress (presumably only those who voted to sustain slavery). I found that an odd choice for Spielberg/Kushner to make.
FWIW, I thought the movie was only OK, nothing special save for Daniel Day-Lewis' performance, which may be the most impressive film performance I've ever seen, and certainly on the short list. In fact, I found the photography particularly off. There were scenes with changing color palette intra-scene. I was severely disappointed that the movie I thought had the best cinematography, The Master, didn't even get a nomination.
Patrick
Posted by: Patrick Perez | Monday, 18 February 2013 at 06:14 PM
> "Hollywood loves a true story. A cynic might say it gives them
> something to lie about...."
This reminded me of a quote from Marcel Proust:
"A photograph acquires something of the dignity which it ordinarily lacks when it ceases to be a reproduction of reality and shows us things that no longer exist."
;-)
Posted by: Bruno Masset | Monday, 18 February 2013 at 06:22 PM
The Hollywood credo, I believe, is: Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story.
It's not wise to look for factual accuracy in fiction, but since movies have become one of the primary gateways to history and current issues, critics still need to point out glaring inaccuracies.
All the same, all consumers of fiction would be better off knowing that the only truth that art should be held accountable to is beauty and the commonality of the human experience. The proviso, of course, is that not all movies qualify as art.
Posted by: thor | Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 04:43 AM
Thor,
Again, I'm not looking for factual accuracy in fiction, I'm looking for factual accuracy in movies that claim to be true stories and are presented to audiences as if they portray the best, most accurate version of the truth that can be known--but that are actually fiction. Or substantially inaccurate. Oliver Stone's "JFK" or the recent "Zero Dark Thirty" are good examples.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 07:50 AM
At one point since its initial release, James Cameron updated one scene in Titanic to reflect the proper night sky (well, celestial; I don't think he changed the light cloud cover, and he did present the calm clear sea). I just wish it were better written.
Patrick
Posted by: Patrick Perez | Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 06:51 PM
What about the movie "Good Night and Good Luck"? I think George Clooney tried his best to portray the principals accurately in that film. Anyhow, I really liked it.
Posted by: John Robison | Tuesday, 19 February 2013 at 07:16 PM
Hi Mike,
I know what you mean. "Zero Dark Thirty" certainly is a problematic movie. But I think it's important to point out that "true stories" are really just a marketing gimmick.
If it's not a documentary, then it's fiction. It's as simple as that. You can't have it both ways. (Of course, there are works that seek to blur the line between reality and fiction, but that's a different story altogether.)
I think what is more important is what the moviemakers are trying to say, whether consciously or not. I haven't watched "Zero Dark", but from what I've read, and from my viewing of "The Hurt Locker", it looks very much a cheerleader of the war effort.
I'd argue that "The Hurt Locker" is one of the most political non-political movie you'll see. It eschews context and debates about the war on terror, but then it puts you completely in the soldiers' shoes. This is the reality. Bullets flying. Kill or be killed. Human agency is diminished into mere acts of surviving. Needless to say, ideals and convictions fly out the window. Contrast that to "Three Kings". What a contrast, eh?
Anyway, I'd like to submit that movies based on facts are really a cultural way for us to process what's happening in society. And movies about the past are really, in the final analysis, about the present. Just like how Miller's "The Crucible" is not really about the Salem witchhunt but about McCarthyism.
Posted by: thor | Wednesday, 20 February 2013 at 02:56 AM