Here individual members of the PDX Men's Film Group can post essays regarding films and the film industry.
To submit your opinion piece:
1. Make sure you are logged in to your Google account so that the website recognizes you as one of our group's members.
2. Type the piece into the "Enter your comment" box at the bottom of the page,
OR,
compose your piece in a text editor elsewhere, then cut and paste its text into this box.
3. Click the Preview and/or Publish button.
Lights, camera, ...HISTORY!!!
ReplyDeleteThe other night Sharon and I went to see Selma, a dramatic reenactment of Dr. Martin Luther King's march through Alabama to Montgomery, its capital. A finely made movie which took great lengths to claim its veracity. And a really great performance by David Oyelowo as Dr. King--I'm surprised he didn't take home the 2014 Oscar for best actor.
Yet the movie has a major flaw: it implies that President Lyndon Johnson didn't care about the civil rights cause, and that he even turned FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover loose to discredit Dr. King. For more on this misrepresentation, go to a credible source--for example, the interview with Bill Moyers (Johnson's press secretary at the time) at his website.
We've seen and discussed a lot of films lately that claim to be based on historic "true stories": The Hurt Locker, U-571, The Imitation Game and so on. And those awful Oliver Stone movies such as JFK. The list goes on and on.
These are clearly dramatic histories, not documentaries. All were put together as popular entertainment, but were also inspired, if not directly based upon, stories of historical import. So far, so good.
The problem is they often go far beyond invented dialog and scenes to play fast and loose with important historical facts, and then often wrap up by showing photos of the "real-life" events and characters, running profound captions to tell us what became of each character. In doing so they are trying to trick film-goers who don't know or research the "other" side of the story. The "other history."
History is subjective, obviously. But there's a bright line, I believe, that we should maintain between historical perspective and flat-out fiction.
So what is a film-maker's obligation with regards to historical accuracy, convenience, and "creative re-telling" in these dramatic histories? We've debated this in our film group meetings, but with no resolution that satisfies me. I don't agree that audiences know that it's just fiction, especially when the films do everything they can to convince us otherwise. These breaches of trust are insulting to avid and casual film-goers. Rather than learning from history, we are presented with a series of memorable but insidious substitutes.
My sense is this: if film-makers imply their film is based on true stories or events, then they should say so, and stick to the important known facts rather than replace them with stretchers for the sake of audience appeal or a convenient production. If that can't be done, then they should explicitly tell the audience that facts and personalities have been changed for dramatic purposes. Easy to do.
And if a film crosses the line? Expose the sham. Write articles like this one. Tell your friends. Post criticisms on social media sites. Withhold your ticket dollars. Stay home and read a well-written history....
The job of telling a big story in two hours of film time is always going to require trade-offs, but competent filmmakers get the big facts right and use poetic license to give the viewer an accurate sense of the people and dilemmas involved in the story without inserting their own personal or political agendas.
ReplyDeleteExamples of some really well (IMNSHO) done films about historical events and people (besides "Theory of Everything") where the screenwriters, directors, and actors struck the right balance:
Backbeat: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106339/
Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032413/
The Queen: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0436697/
Elvis (TV Movie): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079103/
Mrs Brown: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119280/
I Shot Andy Warhol: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116594/
Thirteen Days: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0146309/
There are lots more - it's possible to do it well - extremely well in some cases - and make a great, evocative film while staying true to life.