Formula or Fact?

So many of the movies we see are predictable and cliched. How many times have you sat in the theater and thought, "Okay, I know what's gonna happen next." Or the always disappointing thought, "I figured out the end!"

But what of the movies that are based on real life events?

If you critisize a movie for being too cliched, isn't it forgivable if the film is based on true events?

I'm sure plenty of screenplays are rejected because they are considered predictable and cliched, but some real-life movies are filled with such formulas.

Do you critisize a fact-based picture differently than you do one of pure fiction? What are the differences you make?

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

Just because it's based on a true story doesn't mean that the movie isn't done after a formula. It's very easy to shorten or lenghten or even delete or add episodes in a true story - without being gulity of distorting the truth. And I think there are more scripts that are being rejected because they don't fit in well enough to the formula than films that are being rejected because they are predictable. Even in the most successful action- or horror pics you pretty much know exactly what's going to happen. It's very little things that they vary from movie to movie and there are strict rules set up for what and when in a film something's supposed to happen. Nowadays it's more about "a different twist". Which means shooting the same film but in a different setting or with a different cast, ethnically or culturally speaking, and so on. (I'm talking of course about the films within mainstream Hollywood).

But it's actually quite interesting how the fact that a film is based on a true story changes the way people percept a movie. I have a friend who says he automatically likes a film twice as much if it's based on a true story, no matter what the quality of the film really is. It's so funny that the Coens wrote "Based on a true story" in "Fargo" when it's 100% fiction. They knew very well what they were doing there. And the hype around "The Blair Witch Project" I suppose had a lot to do with the wondering whether it's true or not and the "documentary" about the filmteam. Not to mention the cult around "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". And the success of all the docu-soaps (do you say that in USA too?) is another evidence of our fascination for "real" or "true" pictures.

I don't pay to much attention to If it says "based on a true story" in a film. It depends more on who did the film and what it's actually about. It doesn't take much to base something on a true story. It's often used to higher the level of credibility in a otherwise crappy film.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

last year sometime a friend of mine recommended that i see boys dont cry, mentioning as an aside to it's no doubt substantial virtues, that it was "based on a true story".
my immediate reaction was a sarcastic "whatever that's supposed to mean..."

so apparently, the words "based on a true story" dont mean a whole lot to me. i think it's mostly a case of desensitization. you see "based on a true story" attached to every other movie, no matter how cogent it will actually be to the relevance of the film, or your enjoyment of it enough, and just learn to ignore it out of habit.

True. Also, there are plenty of movies like The Amityville Horror that are based on a true story.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Slay... for grins check out Ric Osuna's SITE about Amityville. Take some time and read what he has to say... it's really very good. I sent him some questions via e-mail and he responded to all of them. Very nice guy and he has a wealth of knowledge about Amityville...


R66

You are correct. I never thought about your point before, but it is very valid. I suppose I do cut slack if I know the film is based on truth. What makes something cliche to begin with? Familiarity? I think so... life can be pretty mundane and predictable.

A movie based on a true story is less likely to get a "that's so unrealistic" groan outta me. Fiction, as Tom Clancy put it, has to make sense; but real life does not. I hold fact-based films to a higher standard, though. For example: I still hold a bit of a grudge against Titanic for misrepresenting the event so horribly while also proclaiming the accuracy of the film.

How so?

The facts of the incident were pretty much in order...

The whole love triangle was an artistic embellishment, is that what you object to?

Same triangle in "Pearl Harbor"... must be a trend

They portrayed the men as being mostly cowardly and the entire scene as ridiculously chaotic. A free-for-all, basically. The Sinking of the Titanic and Other Great Sea Disasters details the sinking through numerous accounts, most of which depict a surprisingly orderly sinking whereas very, very few men stepped out of line and deprived women and children of their rightful place ahead of them. If memory serves, at one point, most of the men were even lined up like soldiers on deck by the boat's officers, standing at attention. My recollection may be a little off in that matter, though; I read the book years ago.

I do recall, however, the family of one of the sailors slandered in the film cutting some kind of deal/settlement with Cameron for his depiction of their now-deceased relative. This while Cameron raves about the pinpoint accuracy of the whole thing. They put a lot more time into getting the architecture right, than they did the actual facts.

Liberties are inevitable, but I think they cross the line when taken this far. Especially whereas this kind of event is concerned, as I feel it does the seriousness of the matter a bit of a disservice to sensationalize and fabricate parts of it when relaying the story.

Ah, I see...

The part I missed was about Cameron claiming accuracy. The actual facts of the sinking were pretty much there but he did take a LOT of liberties and creative freedoms.

I would support "loosely based on true events" for that film as well as for "Pearl Harbor".

I guess what gets me is that they went way out of their way to get every detail right when it came to superficial things, while simultaneously going beyond liberty with the basic atmosphere of the sinking. They didn't just stretch it; they flipped it. It's not as if it was chaotic and they made it more so. It was orderly and they made it into a frenzy. I merely find it disrespectful to such a serious event to COMPLETELY misrepresent it that way while devoting endless hours towards the precision of the molding in the replica bedrooms.

I realize it's partially just a pet peeve of my own, though.

So you're referring specifically to the behavior of the officers? I'm not familiar with your source... or any scientific study for that matter... I'm just speaking off the cuff here. There had to be a pretty fair amount of chaos (if you can quantify chaos) when the ship was sinking. I was on board a boat in the Caymans (warm water) in the summer, in 20' of water and it hit a reef and blew out the bottom of the boat. There was no chance of anyone dying but you should have seen how these people freaked!

That film definitely played as a love story with the history of the shipwreck in the background... you're right about that for sure.

When a film says it's based on a true story we can never demand that it should in fact be exactly as the true story. It is what it says it is: based on a true story. That's why I don't pay the "based on a true story" tag much attention. However, if a film is about a historical person (or event) and set out to depict the person's life or a period of that person's life, then I think it starts to get a bit more justified to demand accuracy when it comes to details. But even then it depends on what or who the movie is about. Like "Braveheart". I'm pretty sure that Mel Gibson didn't intend to tell us "the real true story" about Wallace, and I don't think there's enough good sources around to do so. And nobody really care, do they? The same goes for "Gladiator". But when it comes to movies like "Malcolm X" by Spike Lee or "NIxon" by Oliver Stone, then it gets more interesting.

there are no such thing as a 100% true story (i believe)

hmmm you would likely to know what's gonna happen if it was adapted from a book. and a very famous one

__________________