Based on a true story!

[Myxo]

What is with all of the films lately which bill themselves as,

"Based on a true story.."
"Based on real events.."

For me it just seems stupid.

There are documentaries and then there are films. It's one thing to bill something as "Based on a true story.." and have it be a documentary. Anything else is fiction. No matter how close to the real story it is, it won't be even close to what actually happened. Filmmakers will always take artistic freedom and sensationalize something to make the story more entertaining or to simply make it a "film" and less of a documentary.

There is a new film coming out soon called "Ray" about the life of Ray Charles. I realize everyone here probably is aware of this but does anyone actually believe that it will be totally truthful and full of "real events"? When I saw "The Hurricane" I heard for days afterward that Norman Jewison never really told us about the side of Rubin Carter that would have made the film less effective. Apparently the man was quite a hood despite how he was treated by the white man.

I'm sure alot of "Ray" will be accurate but you can bet your ass they won't be telling the whole story or at least a few events will be altered slightly to create a positive image of a legend. Nothing is wrong with that of course, but it annoys me that they will bill the story as non-fiction when it's obviously fiction.  

Is it just me or doesn't it annoy anyone when they see that statement on a trailer?

[MacGuffin]

There are stories of coincidence and chance, of intersections and strange things told, and which is which and nobody knows; and we generally say, "Well, if that was in a movie, I wouldn't believe it."

This is the reason that films based on a true story state that claim. It's not a work of complete imagination. There is some root of truth in the story told, however bizzare or unbelieveable it may seem. And even though artistic liberties are taken, the fact remains, there was a Henry Hill who was part of the mob; there was a Frank Abignale that passed fraudulent checks; there was a Rudy that played for Notre Dame; there was a US hockey team that beat the Russians, and so on. "Based On" doesn't mean "Complete Truth."

It's the same when a novel is adapted; the screen title says Based On The Book By...

Chapters will be condensed or even omitted, 'scenes' will be made up, and you will not see the whole story. But the essence will (should) still be there.

[Myxo]

Another good example of this would be, "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story". There are several moments of sensationalism in that film. One of them is obviously his back injury.

In the book "Bruce Lee: They Died too Young", the writer Jon Lewis tells us that Bruce injured his back during a weight-lifting session. It was in this time that Lee wrote his "Tao of Jeet Kune Do". Yet, in the previously mentioned film we are led to believe that he was involved in a challenge match which would allow him to continue teaching kung fu to round eyes.

This is only one obvious error. Some of the other stuff I can overlook. Yes, I realize Lee probably never battled with a demon either but I can at least see the allegory in that one. I wasn't as bothered by it because it was simply a different way to give us insight into his inner demons and the possible existence of a "family curse" which would eventually lead to his son's death. I got it. No biggie at all.

However, when a filmmaker leads his viewers to believe that something dramatic happened in the life of his subject which never actually occurred, I have a problem with him billing it as "Based on a true story". The audience can see through Lee battling a demon. We know it's fiction, but most people have no idea that Bruce actually hurt his back a completely different way. It wouldn't make for exciting filmmaking if we saw him injuring his back while lifting weights though, would it?

In conclusion I believe this.

It's all fiction. There are some stories which come close to telling us the truth. In the end all of them fail to live up to the real thing, which is the history itself. There is no grading system for films which blatently change the facts of a "true story". We can't go,

"Well, that Bruce Lee movie is only 68% based on a true story. Now, I think this new movie Ray will be more like 88% based on a true story." Who gives a crap, ya know? Like Mac said, none of it will ever be completely true so why bother branding a film with a label? If I wasn't such a huge fan of Bruce Lee I might actually believe the fantastic story that he injured his back in a spectacular fight.

But he didn't.

[MacGuffin]

What you want is a literal translation of a true story. It's never gonna happen. Which is what "Based On" means; the true story was a basis for this film.

This is why films of this type end with the disclaimer: "While this picture is based on a true story, many characters are composities or inventions, and a number of incidents fictionalized."

[pete]

then there are stories so outrageous that you HAVE to claim that they're based on true events or people will think that the premise is stupid.  take Catch Me If You Can for example, it can very easily be dismissed as "a ripoff of Pretenders (which is also based on the same story presumably)" or whatever.
Or this upcoming movie about FBI staging a sting operation through a fake movie production, it sounds like a totally cheesy Get Short type movie, so they have to state that the movie is based on a true event.

[Myxo]

Who cares if it's based on a true story?

Make the movie and hold it's feet to the fire. See if the film can stand on it's own two feet without a label.

[pete]

hold its feet to fire?  dude, it's a MOVIE, not a third-world European orphan.

[MacGuffin]

Is it just me or doesn't it annoy anyone when they see that statement on a trailer?

Obviously it's just you then.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Or this upcoming movie about FBI staging a sting operation through a fake movie production, it sounds like a totally cheesy Get Short type movie, so they have to state that the movie is based on a true event.

I heard that on "This American Life," so it must be true. Listen to act 3 of this episode.

[Ghostboy]

Just about every single episode of This American Life would make a great movie.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Amen to that. Especially the reimagining of the Adam & Eve story.

[Myxo]

Branding a film, "Based on a true story" is a marketing tool.

Let's say we tell a story of our main character who is wrongly accused of a crime. He lives in a small American town filled with corrupt officials. We shoot the film and release it without a label branding it as,

"Based on a true story."

Clearly we tried our best to capture the events of our character's life as accurately as we could. We did all the research and in this instance took little artistic freedom in the retelling. Audiences show up to watch the film. They enjoy it immensely and it does seem as if the events could have occurred. People begin to think, "Wow.. I wonder if that was a true story." The question I would ask is,

Who cares?

Even though as a filmmaker I did my best to tell you an authentic story, is it actually true? If so, does the audience judge for themselves what true means for them even if I do choose to brand my film,

"Based on a true story."

This is all a matter of philosophy guys. It comes down to the definition of the word "true".

true

Consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous.

So, if a film contains a fabrication, is it actually true? It's bullshit if you ask me and simply a way to make more money. Every single film which is "Based on a true story" is false and erroneous. It's not possible to make something which actually conforms to the word "true". I'm not saying it's a horrible thing that filmmakers do this but simply that the phrase is a load of crap.

I know what you are thinking..

"Well, the fact remains that the film is mostly true. If the director did his or her job, we should have a faithful recounting of this man's story."

So, are there films that exist which are mostly false and masquerade as,

Based on a true story.

When it comes down to it, any film no matter how authentic and honest is still a story. You can call it whatever you want but in the end it's all a marketing tool and the label doesn't fit.

[Ghostboy]

It comes down to the definition of the word "true".

No it doesn't.

You're still ignoring how the prepository 'based on' which, as MacGuffin already pointed out, implies something very different than the simple definition of the word true.

You're right about it being a marketing technique, but the reason it is a marketing technique in the first place is because it generally changes how you view a movie; it puts a film in a slightly different context. So it can also be a creative technique, as the Coens illustrated when they misdirected audiences around the world (and in doing so caused the death of one woman, if I rememebr correctly) when they labeled Fargo a true story.

[pete]

Just about every single episode of This American Life would make a great movie.

NEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD.

[Chest Rockwell]

...as the Coens illustrated when they misdirected audiences around the world (and in doing so caused the death of one woman, if I rememebr correctly) when they labeled Fargo a true story.

Really? How'd she die?