Authenticity in Movies About Real-Life Events (1 Viewer)

[Eric Paddon]

"3. Murdoch taking bribes. Now why put this in a movie and slander a man to the point where you have to apologize to his family? Was this really necessary? Did this add ANYTHING to the telling of "Titanic"?"

Indeed it added nothing. What is so laughable about the scene is that Murdoch was the Titanic officer who frequently allowed men into the lifeboats if there was room, whereas Second Officer Lightoller on the port side did not let men into the boats. Anyone asking Murdoch for a spot in the boat would have been told, "Sure jump in," (as Murdoch said to Sir Cosmo Duff Gordon in Boat #1).

 

[Michael Reuben]

This thread makes me want to sit down and rewatch The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

"This is the west, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

M.

 

[SteveGon]

Good topic. I also find misrepresentation of the facts bothersome. On the other hand, I must admit to enjoying movies like Braveheart and Tombstone though I'm aware that they are historically inaccurate. :b

And I'm still waiting for a movie about the war between the U.S. and Mexico...

 

[Eric Bass]

* Real life is boring 99% of the time, even in the lives of famous people.
* Real life doesn't follow a three-act story structure.
* In real life, the "goodies" and the "baddies" aren't always crystal clear.

And as a matter of fact, lots of people do take these so-called true stories seriously. It doesn't help when during the Oscars Jennifer Connelly stands up there and says what an inspiration Mrs. Nash is, as if her role in the movie had any truth to it. It's a perfect example of Hollywood taking a story, changing it around, and then sending out the signal that it's a true story and the people involved were heroes or villians when in fact they may not have been at all.

 

[David Rogers]

There's nothing anyone can say to you on this subject; you are clearly taking ANY deviation, however minor or however well intentioned for purposes of the needs of the movie as a personal affront.

I don’t take movies as gospel, never have. I go research things from movies that intrigue me if something does. I don't assume since this or that film showed something that's how it is.

As regards the specific example you offer repeatedly (the Wyatt Earp events) … there's a reason that particular western story has stuck so much. Things about it are appealing and interesting. It presents a view of the West that's a bit romanticized, a bit stylized, and shows us a world different from our own. In that a man "was a man" and you put up or shut up, to use vast oversimplifications on two points. Then you take Wyatt and Doc Holiday, who are molds for western hero figures with the tremendous impact and resonance they've had on the entire genre, and the result is a tremendously appealing story.

I echo the comments made previously in this thread. If you want the actual events, check out a good book or a documentary. A movie is done for entertainment purposes. Actually, a movie is done for financial purposes; they want to make bank off it. They do this by convincing you its entertaining to pay for a ticket (or for a dvd) to watch it.

Tombstone is one of my favorite westerns due to the acting and how the story is told and unfolds. Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer are tremendous in their roles, and with Sam Elliot and Michael Biehn turning in awesome performances as well. The narrative used for the story works well and draws the viewer in, and the movie is ultimately a great story about heroes and villains, and a few loose questions about when a hero is slipping past hero into vigilante. I never assumed it was an accurate portrayal of the story of the Earps; nor did it vex me that it probably wasn't. I have a book somewhere that tells from proper historical research this same story; but I watch Tombstone far more often than I read the book. Why? Because I watch the film for fun, I don't research for fun typically. The goal in watching the film is for me to relax and enjoy myself; the movie accomplishes this task quite well.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Eric, That is tricky ground you are covering. As far as I know
There is no evidence that he ever thought he was involved in a spy plot at all. He thought, and told this to many of his students and faculty, that aliens were communicating with him through the front pages of newspapers and that the aliens were responsible for all of his difficulties in life and love. The spy subplot was a complete fabrication made to create a good narrative, that of the seemingly real spy setting that is later shown to be in his mind.

How is one fabrication more acceptable than another. Both were made to create a better narrative, which (IMO) enhanced the story and made for a better movie. The movie would have necessarily had to have been very different in structure if they stuck to the facts, and I doubt it would have been as likely to win the Oscar.

 

[Derek Miner]

my concern is the dumbing down of America and how we obtain our history lessons. If it is going to be through TV and movies, I mildly suggest that the producers and directors at least point out to the viewers what is and is not accurate in the movie.

It is true that the majority of viewers of films like Tombstone or A Beautiful Mind are going to glean their knowledge of those people and events from the dramatizations, but many of them will never think about or reference those "facts" again. For those whose interest is sparked, however, there are resources to find the truth of these stories. What greater good is served by pushing accuracy on people who aren't going to need it? There are television programs and audio commentary tracks that do as you suggest - pointing out the discrepancies between the real and the dramatized. Only a fraction of the audience who saw the original film see or hear them.

 

[TheLongshot]

The problem comes in when you are very familiar with the history in question and your ability to enjoy the movie is hindered by this. A good example is my girlfriend and "Elisabeth". Now, my girlfriend is very well read in that time period. While she thought the movie was pretty good for the most part, she thought their portrayal of Queen Elisabeth was way off. There is no way in her mind that Elisabeth could have been that naive and lived that long. I personally don't know.

I have friends who refuse to see "Braveheart", due to the numerous historical inaccuracies.

Course, historical inaccuraces are nothing new in entertainment. Shakespere's Richard III is purely Tudor propaganda and has nothing to do with the real Richard III, yet people still think of him as an evil hunchbacked usurper.

I think the danger comes when we direct these type of films to children. I think Pocahontas is the worst piece of crap that Disney could have foised onto children. It is not even close to being historically accurate, and kids for years will believe that John Smith and Pocahontas were lovers. (For goodness sake, she was a kid..)

That being said, I don't know if I agree as much with the author of this thread about Tombstone. It sounds like the minor changes to make the story a little more interesting and to make it work in a movie context. What I have a problem with is stories that portray a historical figure totally wrong.

Jason

 

[Richard WWW]

Movies are works of art, and as such are expected to engage the subjectivity of the artists involved, as well as the subjectivity of the viewer. If people want to know the bare facts about a subject, they should read a well-documented biography or non-fiction book. But anyone who buys a dvd or a ticket and walks into a theater ought to know that an insistence on objectivity is going to get in the way. Directors are not historians, nor are screenwriters. And if films were made by the dry academic standards of history teachers we've all known and been put to sleep by, the motion picture industry would not exist as we know it today.

I see no reason to require screenwriters and directors to hold a slavish loyalty to the truth in making films based on actual events, unless a form of libel or slander is being perpetrated in the telling of the story. A lot of times a screenwriter fixes on an idea that came to his mind when he heard or read a story about an actual event, and then the movie that results is about that idea, rather than about the actual events. The screenwriter of A Beautiful Mind and Ron Howard were more interested in the redemptive power of love than they were in the fact that John Nash's wife divorced him. Good for them, I say. If someone wants to know the details of Nash's life, read the book. If someone wants to know all the historical details of the gunfight at the OK corral, let them read a book about that, as well. Because once we start holding motion picture makers to our ideas of objectivity, we kill the creative process within them that transforms historical events into films that inspire and entertain us.

 

[Chris Lock]

> If I were a director given a decent budget, I'd try to make a historically accurate film about the great Zeppelins
Like The Song Remains the Same?

 

[Sam R. Aucoin]

Those who have disagreed with me, seemed to have misread both my wording and my intent.

I do NOT object to subjective portrayals of real-life figures on the screen.

I do NOT object to artistic license when it comes to combining some events for the sake of time constraints, or to adding love interests to make what would otherwise be "dry" movies more entertaining.

But I find the intentional MIS-portrayal (as with Officer Murdoch) of people committing crimes, not only unethical, but probably libelous (depending on the degree to which the misportrayal occurred).

One poster said: "But anyone who buys a dvd or a ticket and walks into a theater ought to know that an insistence on objectivity is going to get in the way. Directors are not historians, nor are screenwriters." I beg to differ, especially when the subject matter of the movie is an actual, historial event.

Logically, only SUBJECTIVITY can "get in the way". Objectivity can never "get in the way" because objectivity is the recognition of fact, and no one can change a fact. Facts are neither good nor bad - they simply "are". The connotations we put on them are another matter.

Can any of you who have generally disagreed with my view, actually sit there with a straight face, and say that it is merely "artistic license" and "okay" for Oliver Stone to digitally insert a bullet into the Zapruder film in the movie "JFK" in an effort to advance his theory that Kennedy was shot from the front? If you don't believe me, pull out your JFK DVD and advance the Zapruder film, frame by frame, just before the head shot, and you will see a small "missile" that was digitally inserted JUST IN FRONT OF KENNEDY'S HEAD into the Zapruder copy used by Stone in making JFK. Stone even ADMITS to doing this. How can anyone legitimately claim that Stone was merely making "art" when he was clearly manipulating an actual piece of historical evidence? Again, I submit that young people will see this movie, with some coming away thinking that almost the entire military industrial complex had a hand in shooting Kennedy.

I am not attempting to start a debate about who shot Kennedy. I am simply saying that it is, at the very least, highly unethical to alter real-life films to advance a theory or cause, and then portray that as having actually occurred.

And finally, to the poster who said to me: "There's nothing anyone can say to you on this subject; you are clearly taking ANY deviation, however minor or however well intentioned for purposes of the needs of the movie as a personal affront", you either do not understand English (which is forgiveable if you are from another country), or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I have said in this thread. I have NEVER said that I object to "ANY deviation, however minor". On the contrary, I specifically said that I understood and accepted deviation for the sake of artistic license or time constraints in some instances.

But to show a man walking away from a shootout as not having been shot, when clearly he was, is simply beyond my idea of artistic license. It is a fraudulent misrepresenation of history - no more, no less.

Respectfully,

Sam

(pardon spelling and grammatical errors - I did not have time to proof before posting this thread)

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Sam, I agree. They should (at the least) put up a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie stating that they warped the truth to make it better.

What can happen that I haven't seen mentioned here is that if Sam gets into a conversation with another person that just loves all of the Tombstone movies, and has memorized them, the two of them could get into quite a heated argument. I've done that myself, and it is quite frustrating.

Also, children watching these with no other basis for what really happened will remember what they saw in the movie as being the truth. I know it might sound silly, but since they are in school, it would be nice if their teachers would let them know where the movie deviated from the truth.

Glenn

 

[Chuck Anstey]

I have to agree complete with Sam on this one and I might actually require a even stronger adherence to the facts, especially war movies about a specific event such as "Midway", "A Bridge Too Far", "Patton", etc. I think that any movie that starts showing subtitled dates, actual people from the event, and details of the actual events, they should be very close to what actually happened. How can you have a biopic and then make up half of the events?

If a filmmaker wants to make a movie loosely based upon actual events then they should be not named after the event and not use real people from the event except maybe major figures in vague references and short screen time such as General MacArthur or FDR. Examples would be pretty much every John Wayne war movie or "Command Decision" with Clarke Gable, "The Bridges at Toko-Ri" or any other generic war movie.

Chuck Anstey

 

[Tino]

Regarding First Officer Murdoch's actions in James Cameron's Titanic.
There are numerous accounts and eyewitnesses from passengers stating that Mr. Murdoch did in fact commit suicide and perhapd even shoot passengers. Some books where this is mentioned is Walter Lord's The Night Lives On, The Complete Titanic and James Cameron's Titanic.
Also James Cameron DID NOT apologize for anything. 20th Century Fox made a donation to the high school in Mr. Murdochs home town in Scotland to help "appease distress" caused by the scene.
And regardig the bribe, remember Mr. Murdoch ultimately does NOT accept it and throws it back in Cal's face. I believe that it is perfectly possible that some officers may have been offered bribes by many of the wealthy passengers. Who knows?
What really happened will never be known, however the point is that Mr. Cameron did not just "make up" that scene.
Individual opinions of the film vary, but IMO, of all the Titanic films, Cameron's is the most historically accurate depiction of the disaster, (fictional characters aside of course), down to the smallest detail.

 

[Sam R. Aucoin]

Tino:

I stand corrected - Cameron himself did not apologize (at least publically - I had read that he "regretted" having filmed Murdoch in the manner that he did, but that was about as far as it went).

I do, however, take issue with the following statement you make: "I believe that it is perfectly possible that some officers may have been offered bribes by many of the wealthy passengers. Who knows? What really happened will never be known, however the point is that Mr. Cameron did not just 'make up' that scene."

Tino - if no one KNOWS what happened (in terms of bribery), how can you say that Cameron did not "make it up"? If filming bribery, where no evidence exists that bribery occurred, does not constitute fabrication, I don't know what else would . . . Are you really willing to stand behind the proposition that because something COULD have happened (based solely on speculation and our understanding of human nature), then filming such a thing does not mean it is made up?

P.S.- Tino, you also said: "There are numerous accounts and eyewitnesses from passengers stating that Mr. Murdoch did in fact commit suicide and perhapd even shoot passengers. Some books where this is mentioned is Walter Lord's The Night Lives On, The Complete Titanic and James Cameron's Titanic."

I re-read this entire thread and I NEVER said anything regarding Murdoch shooting himself or other people. My sole mention of Murdoch was in the context of him accepting a bribe.

 

[Tino]

Sam
FWIW, Cameron is quoted as saying how much of a hero Mr Murdoch actually was in the book James Cameron's Titanic. And about him regretting" that scene, as far as I know, he doesn't. I'd like to see a quote from him stating such.
Also, I never said you mentioned Mr. Murdoch's possible suicide. I brought it up simply because it is almost always mentioned as a James Cameron fabrication. This is the scene I was referring to that was not "made up".
And regarding my statement about possible bribes on the Titanic, I stand by that statement. Can you say unequivically that there were none? And since it was possible, I have no problem with a bit of dramatic license. Again as depicted, Mr. Murdoch ultimately does NOT accept the bribe.
Hope that answers your questions.

 

[Eric Paddon]

"I believe that it is perfectly possible that some officers may have been offered bribes by many of the wealthy passengers."

1-There is not a single documented instance of something like that happening aboard the Titanic and it never even stemmed from some of the fanciful rumors that emerged following the sinking (and we had plenty like multiple tales of men supposedly getting off dressed as women). The only accusation involving a wealthy passenger offering a bribe was Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon allegedly bribing the crew of Boat #1 not to row back to pick up survivors, but Sir Cosmo was exonerated of this accusation. The story arose from a misinterpretation of his offer to provide the crew of his boat five pounds to cover the fact that their pay had stopped when the Titanic went under. Saying that I should try to prove a negative as you attempt to do on "how do I know there wasn't a bribe" isn't how the historical process works. You might as well be asking "How do I know Murdoch wasn't part of a conspiracy to sink the Titanic?"

2-In the case of Murdoch, the scene is ludicrous from any historical standpoint because Murdoch was the officer in charge of lowering boats on the starboard side and he repeatedly and frequently allowed men into the boats if there was room. He did this consistently. Any male asking for a space in a boat would have been told by Murdoch, as he did in the case of Sir Cosmo, "Sure, jump in." Now if the bribe had involved Second Officer Lightoller, who refused to allow men into the boats he was loading on the port side, it would have had some partial basis in reality since Cal would be more apt to try to bribe the officer who was not loading men into the boats. Then, if Lightoller immediately threw it back and told him to go to hell, we would have achieved the same (and redundant point beaten over our heads with a sledghammer throughout the movie) about how evil Cal is, and we could have been spared the senseless controversy Cameron chose to create regarding Murdoch (and he *does* accept the bribe for a very long period of screen time, which is not a flattering look at his character).

Had to get my say on this point in, because today I suffered through the movie for the first time in four and a half years and every bad thing I remembered about the movie was now a million times worse. Then I watched my Criterion ANTR to get my sanity back and see a Titanic movie the way they should always be done (the uncut "SOS Titanic" rates a respectable second overall. Pity that Image chose to release the edited theatrical version).

 

[Tino]

FWIW again, While I believe James Cameron's Titanic is the best, most accurate Titanic film made, with ANTR a close second, I agree that the "bribery" scene would have worked better with Lightoller instead of Murdoch.