Controversial directors

Actually, it is a matter of following the evidence and using the facts gleaned from that evidence to show that Jim Garrison made up the things that he made up in the film. Why ignore the evidence that makes up the informed opinion? Jim Garrison did it all the time and that has been proven as fact.

It appears that your opinion of Garrison is based solely on the movie's presentation of him rather than the way he really was. Does the way he really was not matter? Why not present the truth in a story about truth? If one is going to use fake events, why not use fake people? Why do the people (some of them) have to be real and the facts have to not be real? Why are the names important but the truth not? If facts have no basis in the film, why use any?

You keep saying that facts have no place in the film, then why is it necessary to use Jim Garrison's misguided attack on innocent people? It is a fact that Garrison went after these people? If facts have no place, why use them sometimes and not other times. The movie is not complete fiction, it's just mostly fiction. If facts have no place, why put any of them in at all?

A film can present itself however it wants. Braveheart presents itself as fact from what we can tell, but no one made Mel Gibson get on tv and defend himself. The point is, movies are about emotions. JFK is a film full of emotion. It can be marketed however, but what's in the film is completely truthful on the level that it raises questions upon. Oliver Stone defended his film on that level. Who are they to question his right as an artist, however pretentious he is? His film makes statements that conservatives don't want to hear, so shoot him. Movies are the wrong medium for fact.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

So to boil it down, your position is that facts have no place in this film, but it was important that Oliver Stone use facts in the film.

That's quite the contradiction there, Gunga Din. On the one hand, you insist that facts have no place in this movie. And then you talk about how important it was to put facts (names, etc.) in the movie.

It's hard to argue with someone who's arguing both sides at the same time, so I'm not going to play anymore. When you make a decision one way or another, let me know (actually don't because I don't care anymore).

No one made Oliver Stone go on TV, but he did go on TV and defend his fiction as fact.

It DOESN'T matter how Garrison really was, because the film isnt' about truth. IT'S ABOUT THE SEARCH FOR IT.

Oliver Stone doesn't use facts, he uses whims, speculations, theories, and imaginings to bring across the emotion, and raise the questions. On that level, the use is important. That's what I'm saying. If i referred to this as using fact, then I apologize. But what I'm also saying is that cold hard facts shouldn't shape your perception of a film.

And facts have no place in any film, as far as I'm concerned. Films can use facts, but what I'm concerned with is emotion and how the feelings grow from the story. If the facts help this, then more power to the director for using them.

I hate to butt in here, but Steve, honestly: do you believe for a second that Oliver Stone considers his movie a work of fiction and emotion? Hell no. Stone wants to push some political agenda. Stone probably believes all that crap.

If you're going to make a movie about a major historical event, and NOT tell people specifically before the film begins that there's a lot of fiction within it, then you have no place making the movie. It's the same with Titanic, which slandered many sailors and crew members.

Braveheart, by the way, is very historically accurate in comparison to most movies.

I have no idea what Oliver Stone thinks, besides that he agrees with 95% of the rest of the American population that the Warren commision report isn't entirely truthful. What Oliver Stone thinks personally is irrelevant anyway, because no reasonable person could believe everything in the movie is true. But who knows?

THAT'S what his goal was. To get us to say "who knows? what's true? what isn't?"

I don't have a set opinion on the factual accuracy of the movie, because that isn't the point. Whatever Oliver Stone thinks about the Kennedy assasination, is his own business. But he doesn't want the American people to "sin by silence." That's his political agenda for the film. Nothing else. He doesn't concern himself with issues like how Garrison was in real life, because it would contribute nothing to what he's trying to show us. It's the same reason he doesn't use the more "plausible" theories. He just throws it all at the wall and hopes some of it will stick.

I'd like to take issue with Steve N over his comments regarding the relationship between fact and film. Steve, you live in a idyllic fantasy land if you really believe that fact has no part to play in film. Sometimes film has a responsability to educate as well as entertain, take Schindler's list for example. like Ryan I believe that if a film presents itself as being factual then it must adhere to that claim. When you see that a film is based on a true story it adds plausability and drama surely this is adding to the emotional content of the movie?

These two directors mentioned at the start (Oliver Stone, Spike Lee) are controversial in the mainstream, why not start mentioning more subversive directors such as Takashi Miike, Scott Mcgehee and Todd Solendz. I'm sure some of you could even go a few steps further than these directors...

__________________
Personality goes a long way...

If I was going to educate my children by allowing them to watch film---it wouldn't be any pictures by Oliver Stone or Spike Lee or Mel Gibson. . . I would probably have them watch public tv documentaries.

I would class the films: TITANIC, BRAVEHEART and SCHINDLER'S LIST as historical fiction. They were some elements of fact in each picture but most of it was romanticized (such as the villians, the red coat . . . ) to make them palatable to a movie-going audience.

OLiver Stone--however, is a different kettle of fish. He's concerned about what he believes to be the truth and since its his picture and he has the bucks to make the film, he just did! I don't think he feels any responsibility to anyone but himself. (I'm aware that this isn't a sophisticated world view of film-making.)

I mean, how many of us, if we had the investors--wouldn't make a picture of something we believed in . . . no matter how crazy other people think we are.

If nothing else, Oliver Stone pictures (and all of the above) did make me go out to the bookstore and read up on the events I just saw on the big screen. So in that respect, I did educate myself.

__________________
Blonde Klingons: Because it was a good day to dye!

Of course, if you read most of the books about the Kennedy Assassination out there, you just got a lot more misinformation rather than any grounding in fact.

But that's just the nature of that particular topic. There is far more untruth out there about the Kennedy Assassination than there is truth.

But it just bugs me to sit through a movie that lends creedence to such outlandish theories and paints such a distorted picture of real events. I don't mind liberties being taken, but there are limits to what I think is proper.

Clearly Mr. Stone and Steve N. disagree with me on that point, and that's their business. Just rest assured when I make "The Oliver Stone Story", I'm not going to bother with facts, either.

Looking forward to that one, Ryan.

If fact adds something to the emotional content of a story, then I'm all for it. But if facts are disregarded in favor of the emotions themselves, then it's idiotic to criticize the lack of "accuracy" or "realism". If facts aren't addressed, then why are they fair game for criticism? No one says "that could never happen" when the characters in Crouching Tiger walk up walls and across water. In JFK, the events are presented no more, or less factually than in that movie.

Wart already broke down the "facts" in movies like Braveheart and Schindler's List. They're watered down with emotions, as to enhance the experience for the viewer. I doubt anyone would have called foul play if Longshanks was made into a sadistic murderer as well as a twit, because it just exemplifies to the audience how evil he is. Liberties are taken to get the emotional point across.



And kudos to Wart for backing me up. Thanks.

Liberties are not the same as ridiculous, slanderous (at times) lies...which is what Titanic was/is guilty of. A court of law likely would have said so anyway. At the very least, the producers didn't want to risk it.

Crouching Tiger is not pretending to be real. Titanic is. If you're going to pretend to be real, then you'd better get your facts straight.

I think I've asked this before, but here goes again: what if someone make a movie about the holocaust (that claimed to be "based" on actual events) that depicted the Jews as the cruel murderers, and the Nazis as the victims. Would it be idiotic to criticize that, too? Because I wouldn't hesitate to do so...it'd be a horrible lie.

Damn good last point there Commish.

Sounds like U-571 is a good example to back that facts do play an important part in films. The film shows the Americans as being the heros for finding the Enigma Code machine when in fact it was the good old British Royal Navy. I'm all for films based on real events just as long as there is a certain element of truth in the facts presented.

What slanderous lies are in THE TITANIC? Isn't it just a love story with the TITANIC as a historical backdrop? Its nothing more than that, isn't it?

How exactly does a film claim to be "based" on actual events anyway?

Firstly, men were not cowardly and constantly sneaking onto the life boats. The ratio of women/children to men was overwhelming.

Secondly, specific officers, basically, are depicted as shooting people and being horribly unreasonable. The makers of the film were sued by one former sailor's family, and ended up settling out of court.

Thirdly, lower-class citizens were not intentionally held below deck. If I remember correctly, they were not held below deck at all.

Fourthly, it was not chaotic like that. It was surprisingly orderly in comparison. It's not a matter of liberties (exaggerated chaos), it's a matter of things being completely 100% made up.

Well, if a movie called Titanic tells the story of a boat called the Titanic that set sail in the same year as the Titanic and hit an iceberg like the Titanic, then it's safe to assume it's about THE TITANIC. Aside from that, Cameron readily admits it was based on the actual events. He's gone on in the past about how he and his team spent time researching various details of the ship to try to duplicate it. I guess getting the right kind of wood was more important than getting the basic story right.

Let me ask you more directly: what would you say to that hypothetical Nazi-related film if it were the backdrop of two young people in love? Are you actually telling me you'd be just fine with it's historically inaccuracies, simply because it's a movie?

How can you be 100% sure that all this DIDN'T HAPPEN???? If you were on a sinking ocean liner, do you expect people to behave reasonably?? How can you claim that it was "orderly!" None of us was there!

Yeah--more women & children survived the sinking but it doesn't mean there were no men who forced their way into the boats at the expense of other women/children.

It would be a safe assumption if I actually learned my HISTORY from sitting in a theater watching a CAMERON movie.

No, I wouldn't be fine with it but then--one would think that the HOLOCAUST would have been better documented than THE TITANIC was. I don't believe there are any ambiguities as to who put who in the gas chambers!

Um, there were many survival stories. They have been documented in several books. I happened to read one of them. The sinking has more than enough documentation to let us know what did and did not happen.

No one is saying that it didn't happen, but Cameron's picture of the sinking is one of chaos, treachery, and murder. Nothing could be further from the truth...and that sickens me. It makes light of the entire thing. It makes the men and sailors look like cowards, when they were actually very brave. That is very upsetting.

Um, what I said was that it was based on actual events. Whether or not you take it as fact is irrelevant, because a lot of people believe what they see on the screen. Cameron does not deny it is based on a true story -- NO ONE does, really. That's a non-issue.

Actually, the sinking has plenty of documentation. And besides, are you implying that it's okay to make things up concerning a horrific event if the event doesn't have too much documentation? That doesn't sound very reasonable.