Based on True Events?
You're sat in the Cinema. You may have had to sit through 20 minutes of trailers and adverts, or you may have timed you're arrival to avoid that but not to miss the start of the film. The lights dim, the opening logos roll... and then in the first image: "Based on True Events".
The stakes are higher now, right? You're not about to witness the imagined characters of a screenwriter or author; real people lived through what you're about to see. I mean sure, this is cinema; things might have been exaggerated for dramatic effect - maybe even character names were changed to protect identities - but the basic story happened. These are real people.
But are they though?
Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to do a film review? I mean, how can I start a film blog at this time in our history and not mention Avengers: Infinity War?* Well, it has a running time of over two and a half hours and I've gone to see it twice. Some have gone to see it seven times. Pretty much the only review you need. It's on to my list of "Top 10 films of 2018" and I doubt it will be usurped. But it does play a minor role in the inspiration for this post. Because you see, I had a choice of going to see it for a third time - tempting - or taking in another film. More on that in a moment.
* This rather betrays when I started writing this piece. I was a bit slow in publishing.
So this comes as a culmination of over a year spent going back and forth to the cinema. I decided at the end of 2016 I would frequent the cinema, and try to keep my average attendance above once-per-week. Which I do, as long as it is correct to two decimal places. I'm no film critic (generally speaking I'm too nice about films for that - I enjoy films that get panned by critics and "real people" alike - also I don't as-much enjoy some films that get rave reviews), but I do consider myself a frequent enough visitor to observe certain trends.
One such trend is what I perceive to be an upsurge in films that are "based on true events". I may not be right about that; films have always documented dramatic re-tellings of real life events - some more historically accurate than others. But since I made this cinema resolution, I've seen four true-story films set in the Second World War, two of which were focused on Winston Churchill, a biopic, two films about terrorist attacks, a real-life comedy drama, a true kidnapping story, a comic re-telling of the real death of a head of state, even a musical that's (very loosely) based on a real person/story and the list does not end there. So, in my somewhat new and limited experience, films that tell a story based on something that actually happened have something of a vogue right about now.
I can suggest a couple of reasons for this. The first is that of Life imitating Art, in the sense that the world is not short of true dramatic events, the stories of which translate well to the big screen. Hollywood is not done with major historical events, whether showing them fictitiously or not. Then other events get added to the list, and that's not including the events that hadn't been covered due to the lack of technology, funding or will to tell the story. Therefore, the pool of events that can be made into films is an ever-widening one.
Secondly, it may be that Hollywood is running out of ideas. Over 300 films are released annually; original ideas are hard to come by and now almost everything that is made will bear some resemblance to something previous. The upcoming film Skyscraper would be the best current example, as it is hard to watch the trailer and conclude it is anything other than a rehash of the classic Christmas Film Die Hard. (And now I will switch gears to avoid the inevitable argument).
Every year we get remakes (some of which are more worthy of being made than others). Again, this is a tangent worthy of a posting of its own, but I think there's a consensus that lack of original ideas is contributing to the frequency. I mean, Death Wish got a remake this year. Why? Not that it wasn't good or anything, but it seems rather unnecessary.
A cynic might argue that writers are losing the art of character identification. The audience needs to care about the protagonist(s), and there's a case to be made that such a job is easier with real people. The Jury might still be out on whether that case is correct, but then why tell us "the following is based on a true story" - or whatever exact wording an individual film uses? It is useless information unless it in some way alters the stakes for the viewer.
I don't wish to dwell on this (he says eight paragraphs in and barely having touched the main point), but as far as I'm concerned it does. As a viewer, my analysis of a character's decision making and ultimate relatability is influenced by the knowledge of whether this is a real person that was actually in that situation, or the imagination of a character produced by an author or screenwriter. It's not that I don't care about fictional characters - I do - but how real a story is affects why I care.
To illustrate my point a bit better, let's take the 2017 film Dunkirk. Now, I haven't seen the original, but my understanding is this is not a remake, but a different film of the same name. I doubt Christopher Nolan set out to tell the same story as the original. Now, I don't remember that film opening with "based on true events" - the viewer is assumed to already know that.
Briefly: I enjoyed this film. The tension was high throughout; it tied the various threads intricately and accurately portrayed the against-the-odds nature of the retreat. I appreciated it somewhat more than YouTube movie critic Jeremy Jahns, who lamented the lack of character development. It would have been better, he argues in his review, for us to see if the men have families at home etc, so we know what the stakes are and care about them more. I disagree. These were real people. We, the viewers, stay with the characters through every minute of their ordeal and that is more than enough to get me to root for them. Save the stake-raising for flicks like Avengers: Infinity War where the interplay and relationships of the characters serve the purpose of immersing us in the world that has been built. Take Thanos for example - he is given plenty screen time to explain what his history with some of the characters are, and why he is doing what he's doling. Because his goals, although ultimately evil, are based on a realistic and possibly even relatable point of view, he is a compelling and believable character and the movie is a lot stronger for it. Although we still want the Avengers to win, we understand why the fight is taking place and our viewing experience is a fulfilling one.
Oops, sorry, I wasn't doing a review, right.
So, back on topic, instead of going to see Infinity War for a third time, I decided to go to a screening of The Strangers: Prey at Night. I have a bone to pick with this film, which is a pity, because if I was doing a review I would be praising it for its chill/ creep factor, characters and serving as proof that a good horror movie does not require jump scares. It is a decent film; I'll give it that. (Disclaimer: Opinions vary). But my issue is with the opening crawl: "Based on True Events".
Now, I don't think any of us read that and think that everything we are about to see happened exactly as it is shown. But we expect a correspondence with reality. I even ran a poll on twitter: "When you see "based on true events", what do you generally assume that to mean?" The result was unanimous: events dramatised. The other 3 options were "This literally happened", "It wasn't like that" and "none of this is real".
So let's do an almost spoiler-free run-through of what happens in The Strangers: Prey at Night. Kinzie is an anti-social problem child who smokes, gives her parents and her brother attitude and generally shows no intention of becoming an upstanding member of society - otherwise known as "a teenager". She is hurt that as a result of this, her parents have decided to send her away to boarding school where they won't have to deal with her crap and she'll hopefully learn to behave. For some reason this involves stopping off in a backwater forested holiday park full of chalets and caravans, ran by their relatives. Unfortunately for them, but fortunately for the plot, it is the middle of the night by the time they arrive, so the owners leave out the key to the chalet for them to find, and off they go to settle in. While they do, a girl comes and knocks on their door and asks "Is Tamara home?" They tell the girl that she has the wrong address and off she goes, only for her to return later and do the same thing. By this time Kinzie and her brother have wandered off to discover the terrifying truth - their relatives have been murdered and the only other people in the complex are masked murderers coming to stab them to death. Et voila, we have our slasher movie recipe. So begins a cat-and-mouse game as the family are pursued by the killers, who always have the upper hand as they have cars. And means of communication. And common sense. And they generally don't suck in hand-to-hand combat. I don't want to be glib about this family's trials, tribulations and ultimately genuine fear; I'm just saying that if the killers had picked on the Everdeen family, this would have been a very different movie. Our heroes'/innocent victims' decision-making at times made Casey Becker look like a survival expert.
Anyway, who am I to criticise? A real family went through this, right? I weren't there man, I weren't there! The events have probably been altered slightly to make them more dramatic. By the end it is quite clear that they can't have happened exactly like portrayed. But, the family's decisions are not for me to judge, because this is based on real events, so I just care about the characters' well-being. And my thinking Oh no, that's stupid, don't do that! actually means I am emotionally invested in the character - and I need to be in order for the film to be any good.
So what, from the movie, really happened? The setting? No. That was made up. Cars? Well, cars exist, but nothing that they were used for in the film actually happened. The characters? Nope. There was no Kinzie; there was no family. The masked killers - got to be real, right? Er... nope. Absolutely nothing - and I mean nothing - that you see in the movie actually happened.
So what of the Based on True Events? Right, well, the "Is Tamara home?" thing is based on a burglary scam that thieves used. They'd ring the bell of a house, and wait to see if there was an answer. If not, the house was empty and they could rob it. If they did get an answer, they'd ask for an obscure name and get told they had the wrong address, able to abort without revealing their true intentions. And the murders? Well, the killers are based on the Manson Cult that carried out the highly-documented Tate murders, so there's a parallel with people breaking into someone's home and killing with no real motive.
When I found this out in an article (due credit), I felt cheated. I was invested in characters that never existed, in peril that never existed, suffering events that didn't happen. I mean, if THAT'S the bar for being "based on true events", then Harry Potter could claim to be based on a true story, because there once was a boy who had to live with his fat cousin, and there really is a King's Cross Station in London.
So, what IS the bar? There are rules, right? Right?
Well, I've done some research (the claim that I have "done some research" is based on true events - I spent a few minutes googling) - and it doesn't seem that there is. I mean, who would regulate that? Another job for the British Board of Film Classification? What if different boards from different countries came to different conclusions? Would different versions of the film have to be released?
This is ridiculous. As far as I can tell, there was absolutely nothing stopping Disney opening Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi with "Based on True Events a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..." - And that would clearly be absurd. Because no Admiral would tell absolutely none of her subordinates what her plan was. (Oops, spoiler alert).
Look, I know Donald Trump is leader of the free world, but I'm still clinging to that old-fashioned belief that truth matters. If you say your film is "based on true events", I know not everything is true. But please only use that phrase if the events of the movie are somewhat a reconstruction of something that actually happened. This is a general appeal to film-makers, because the contract will, I think continue to be an unwritten one.
The deception made me think that The Strangers: Prey at Night was a better film than it was. If I'd known the victims were fictional, I'd have cared a lot less, because in my view they made poor decisions throughout, leading me to conclude that if they die, they kind-of deserve it. I mean, I still have some compassion, because I'm aware that stress can trigger poor decision making, but I would want them to survive with a feeling of "well, it's your own fault" if they don't.
There is one defence that might be made of film makers. That is to say I am too insensitive. I should enjoy a film for the piece of art that it is, and identify with characters whether they are real or not.
Naturally, I disagree. As stated above, I can care for fictional characters as well as factual, but my reasons differ. Besides which, film-makers themselves acknowledge that viewers DO determine their sympathy for a character based on whether they are real or not. If they didn't, they wouldn't feel any need to plaster "Based on True Events" on a work of fiction.
Thus concludes the first of what I hope will be many film blog posts. A post in which I have raised questions and found no answers. All I have achieved is an outlet to vent my frustrations - and if I'm lucky, an entertaining read. I shall try to be more upbeat in my next post.
Better skip a post about the Solo movie, then.
The stakes are higher now, right? You're not about to witness the imagined characters of a screenwriter or author; real people lived through what you're about to see. I mean sure, this is cinema; things might have been exaggerated for dramatic effect - maybe even character names were changed to protect identities - but the basic story happened. These are real people.
But are they though?
Oh, I'm sorry, am I supposed to do a film review? I mean, how can I start a film blog at this time in our history and not mention Avengers: Infinity War?* Well, it has a running time of over two and a half hours and I've gone to see it twice. Some have gone to see it seven times. Pretty much the only review you need. It's on to my list of "Top 10 films of 2018" and I doubt it will be usurped. But it does play a minor role in the inspiration for this post. Because you see, I had a choice of going to see it for a third time - tempting - or taking in another film. More on that in a moment.
* This rather betrays when I started writing this piece. I was a bit slow in publishing.
So this comes as a culmination of over a year spent going back and forth to the cinema. I decided at the end of 2016 I would frequent the cinema, and try to keep my average attendance above once-per-week. Which I do, as long as it is correct to two decimal places. I'm no film critic (generally speaking I'm too nice about films for that - I enjoy films that get panned by critics and "real people" alike - also I don't as-much enjoy some films that get rave reviews), but I do consider myself a frequent enough visitor to observe certain trends.
One such trend is what I perceive to be an upsurge in films that are "based on true events". I may not be right about that; films have always documented dramatic re-tellings of real life events - some more historically accurate than others. But since I made this cinema resolution, I've seen four true-story films set in the Second World War, two of which were focused on Winston Churchill, a biopic, two films about terrorist attacks, a real-life comedy drama, a true kidnapping story, a comic re-telling of the real death of a head of state, even a musical that's (very loosely) based on a real person/story and the list does not end there. So, in my somewhat new and limited experience, films that tell a story based on something that actually happened have something of a vogue right about now.
I can suggest a couple of reasons for this. The first is that of Life imitating Art, in the sense that the world is not short of true dramatic events, the stories of which translate well to the big screen. Hollywood is not done with major historical events, whether showing them fictitiously or not. Then other events get added to the list, and that's not including the events that hadn't been covered due to the lack of technology, funding or will to tell the story. Therefore, the pool of events that can be made into films is an ever-widening one.
Secondly, it may be that Hollywood is running out of ideas. Over 300 films are released annually; original ideas are hard to come by and now almost everything that is made will bear some resemblance to something previous. The upcoming film Skyscraper would be the best current example, as it is hard to watch the trailer and conclude it is anything other than a rehash of the classic Christmas Film Die Hard. (And now I will switch gears to avoid the inevitable argument).
Every year we get remakes (some of which are more worthy of being made than others). Again, this is a tangent worthy of a posting of its own, but I think there's a consensus that lack of original ideas is contributing to the frequency. I mean, Death Wish got a remake this year. Why? Not that it wasn't good or anything, but it seems rather unnecessary.
A cynic might argue that writers are losing the art of character identification. The audience needs to care about the protagonist(s), and there's a case to be made that such a job is easier with real people. The Jury might still be out on whether that case is correct, but then why tell us "the following is based on a true story" - or whatever exact wording an individual film uses? It is useless information unless it in some way alters the stakes for the viewer.
I don't wish to dwell on this (he says eight paragraphs in and barely having touched the main point), but as far as I'm concerned it does. As a viewer, my analysis of a character's decision making and ultimate relatability is influenced by the knowledge of whether this is a real person that was actually in that situation, or the imagination of a character produced by an author or screenwriter. It's not that I don't care about fictional characters - I do - but how real a story is affects why I care.
To illustrate my point a bit better, let's take the 2017 film Dunkirk. Now, I haven't seen the original, but my understanding is this is not a remake, but a different film of the same name. I doubt Christopher Nolan set out to tell the same story as the original. Now, I don't remember that film opening with "based on true events" - the viewer is assumed to already know that.
Briefly: I enjoyed this film. The tension was high throughout; it tied the various threads intricately and accurately portrayed the against-the-odds nature of the retreat. I appreciated it somewhat more than YouTube movie critic Jeremy Jahns, who lamented the lack of character development. It would have been better, he argues in his review, for us to see if the men have families at home etc, so we know what the stakes are and care about them more. I disagree. These were real people. We, the viewers, stay with the characters through every minute of their ordeal and that is more than enough to get me to root for them. Save the stake-raising for flicks like Avengers: Infinity War where the interplay and relationships of the characters serve the purpose of immersing us in the world that has been built. Take Thanos for example - he is given plenty screen time to explain what his history with some of the characters are, and why he is doing what he's doling. Because his goals, although ultimately evil, are based on a realistic and possibly even relatable point of view, he is a compelling and believable character and the movie is a lot stronger for it. Although we still want the Avengers to win, we understand why the fight is taking place and our viewing experience is a fulfilling one.
Oops, sorry, I wasn't doing a review, right.
So, back on topic, instead of going to see Infinity War for a third time, I decided to go to a screening of The Strangers: Prey at Night. I have a bone to pick with this film, which is a pity, because if I was doing a review I would be praising it for its chill/ creep factor, characters and serving as proof that a good horror movie does not require jump scares. It is a decent film; I'll give it that. (Disclaimer: Opinions vary). But my issue is with the opening crawl: "Based on True Events".
Now, I don't think any of us read that and think that everything we are about to see happened exactly as it is shown. But we expect a correspondence with reality. I even ran a poll on twitter: "When you see "based on true events", what do you generally assume that to mean?" The result was unanimous: events dramatised. The other 3 options were "This literally happened", "It wasn't like that" and "none of this is real".
So let's do an almost spoiler-free run-through of what happens in The Strangers: Prey at Night. Kinzie is an anti-social problem child who smokes, gives her parents and her brother attitude and generally shows no intention of becoming an upstanding member of society - otherwise known as "a teenager". She is hurt that as a result of this, her parents have decided to send her away to boarding school where they won't have to deal with her crap and she'll hopefully learn to behave. For some reason this involves stopping off in a backwater forested holiday park full of chalets and caravans, ran by their relatives. Unfortunately for them, but fortunately for the plot, it is the middle of the night by the time they arrive, so the owners leave out the key to the chalet for them to find, and off they go to settle in. While they do, a girl comes and knocks on their door and asks "Is Tamara home?" They tell the girl that she has the wrong address and off she goes, only for her to return later and do the same thing. By this time Kinzie and her brother have wandered off to discover the terrifying truth - their relatives have been murdered and the only other people in the complex are masked murderers coming to stab them to death. Et voila, we have our slasher movie recipe. So begins a cat-and-mouse game as the family are pursued by the killers, who always have the upper hand as they have cars. And means of communication. And common sense. And they generally don't suck in hand-to-hand combat. I don't want to be glib about this family's trials, tribulations and ultimately genuine fear; I'm just saying that if the killers had picked on the Everdeen family, this would have been a very different movie. Our heroes'/innocent victims' decision-making at times made Casey Becker look like a survival expert.
Anyway, who am I to criticise? A real family went through this, right? I weren't there man, I weren't there! The events have probably been altered slightly to make them more dramatic. By the end it is quite clear that they can't have happened exactly like portrayed. But, the family's decisions are not for me to judge, because this is based on real events, so I just care about the characters' well-being. And my thinking Oh no, that's stupid, don't do that! actually means I am emotionally invested in the character - and I need to be in order for the film to be any good.
So what, from the movie, really happened? The setting? No. That was made up. Cars? Well, cars exist, but nothing that they were used for in the film actually happened. The characters? Nope. There was no Kinzie; there was no family. The masked killers - got to be real, right? Er... nope. Absolutely nothing - and I mean nothing - that you see in the movie actually happened.
So what of the Based on True Events? Right, well, the "Is Tamara home?" thing is based on a burglary scam that thieves used. They'd ring the bell of a house, and wait to see if there was an answer. If not, the house was empty and they could rob it. If they did get an answer, they'd ask for an obscure name and get told they had the wrong address, able to abort without revealing their true intentions. And the murders? Well, the killers are based on the Manson Cult that carried out the highly-documented Tate murders, so there's a parallel with people breaking into someone's home and killing with no real motive.
When I found this out in an article (due credit), I felt cheated. I was invested in characters that never existed, in peril that never existed, suffering events that didn't happen. I mean, if THAT'S the bar for being "based on true events", then Harry Potter could claim to be based on a true story, because there once was a boy who had to live with his fat cousin, and there really is a King's Cross Station in London.
So, what IS the bar? There are rules, right? Right?
Well, I've done some research (the claim that I have "done some research" is based on true events - I spent a few minutes googling) - and it doesn't seem that there is. I mean, who would regulate that? Another job for the British Board of Film Classification? What if different boards from different countries came to different conclusions? Would different versions of the film have to be released?
This is ridiculous. As far as I can tell, there was absolutely nothing stopping Disney opening Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi with "Based on True Events a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..." - And that would clearly be absurd. Because no Admiral would tell absolutely none of her subordinates what her plan was. (Oops, spoiler alert).
Look, I know Donald Trump is leader of the free world, but I'm still clinging to that old-fashioned belief that truth matters. If you say your film is "based on true events", I know not everything is true. But please only use that phrase if the events of the movie are somewhat a reconstruction of something that actually happened. This is a general appeal to film-makers, because the contract will, I think continue to be an unwritten one.
The deception made me think that The Strangers: Prey at Night was a better film than it was. If I'd known the victims were fictional, I'd have cared a lot less, because in my view they made poor decisions throughout, leading me to conclude that if they die, they kind-of deserve it. I mean, I still have some compassion, because I'm aware that stress can trigger poor decision making, but I would want them to survive with a feeling of "well, it's your own fault" if they don't.
There is one defence that might be made of film makers. That is to say I am too insensitive. I should enjoy a film for the piece of art that it is, and identify with characters whether they are real or not.
Naturally, I disagree. As stated above, I can care for fictional characters as well as factual, but my reasons differ. Besides which, film-makers themselves acknowledge that viewers DO determine their sympathy for a character based on whether they are real or not. If they didn't, they wouldn't feel any need to plaster "Based on True Events" on a work of fiction.
Thus concludes the first of what I hope will be many film blog posts. A post in which I have raised questions and found no answers. All I have achieved is an outlet to vent my frustrations - and if I'm lucky, an entertaining read. I shall try to be more upbeat in my next post.
Better skip a post about the Solo movie, then.
Comments
Post a Comment