the brothers said on the charlie rose show that fargo is a true story, but the characters are fictional. Ebert says that its not, they use that opening title as a story telling device. is it just a hook, or a way of making the film feel even more disturbing that it already is? or does ebert just not know what he is talking about? neither would surprise me
Ebert knew what he was talking about.
It's NOT true!
The Coens did it to open our minds about the story.
You gotta agree it works better as a true story... :)
A girl apperantly did die looking for the money Buscemi's character hid. Probably bullshit too.
Beat you by one minute, Kotte!!!
I love it when people ask questions that lots of people know the answer...you'll get three people posting the exact same thing simultaneously.
Quote from: GhostboyBeat you by one minute, Kotte!!!
I love it when people ask questions that lots of people know the answer...you'll get three people posting the exact same thing simultaneously.
You feel really clever being the first to post an answere...then you feel more stupid than you felt clever when you see someone beat you by a minute.
It's meaningless to reply to an unanswered thread...you know someone's on it... :)
EDIT: I would've won if I didn't ramble on about the girl...never ramble when things are at stake :evil:
is the neverending story true? my daddy told me it was...does HE know what he's talking about?
Quote from: cowboykurtisis the neverending story true? my daddy told me it was...does HE know what he's talking about?
What story?
From what I heard, on the DVD they talk about whether it's a true story or not.
Your daddy DEFINITELY knows what he's talking about.
was this movie based on true events.....?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2F6305308845.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=dd3b070ce3d9bdbd04e83aa663fca2fbe5b409c7)
I watched a late night documentaary which covered the case of the girl who supposedly died looking for Buscemi's buried treasure, and most of the evidence seemed to indicate that she went out there to commit suicide. Really creepy tale. Its a shame they didn't put it on the DVD.
hopefully this might bring this post back to life....does anyone find that duping the audience this way goes beyond storytelling device and borders on immoral storytelling...?
if ever there were a code of ethics for filmmaking, lying to the audience would undoubtedly violate it...
i love this film, but i hate that they took such a liberty with the trust of the audience...
Quote from: Pro T-Bonoi love this film, but i hate that they took such a liberty with the trust of the audience...
Really? I don't feel that way at all. I don't think they're abusing the audience's trust, they're just trying to get the audience in a state of mind where they're more willing to accept the chain of bizarre events that happen.
right, but in a way they're destroying the validity of future filmmaking. if anyone can just throw on a "based on a true story" the audience will question each piece's authenticity. i think it's a cool device but the coens took it too far.
-sl-
Personally, I think that every film which labels itself as 'based on a true story' takes liberties with the actual truth. Possibly even dicumentaries do an extent too (or so some would argue). I agree that the Coens have taken this further than most, but I still think all they've done is exploit what has become a cinematic device in order to bring the audience further into the movie. I wouldn't have thought that anyone would have gone into it believing every thing which happened on the screen. Yes, it would encourage them to think that something like this might have happened, but I think by the end of the film they've realised that's it not necessarily true - I think most audience members would be forgiving of it. All its done is encouraged them to suspend their disbelief. I can appreciate what you're saying, but I really don't think it's had a negative of the integrity of future filmmakers, or indeed the Coen brothers' own integrity.
Quote from: Pro T-Bonohopefully this might bring this post back to life....does anyone find that duping the audience this way goes beyond storytelling device and borders on immoral storytelling...?
if ever there were a code of ethics for filmmaking, lying to the audience would undoubtedly violate it...
i love this film, but i hate that they took such a liberty with the trust of the audience...
i think that maybe "based on a true story" is a joke. When you look closely Fargo is a comedy. You have dumb criminals, pregnant woman who can barely walk but uses her brain and men who laugh at what she sais(politely), don't think but are big and mobile. And the woman solves the crime and makes the arrest. Man who wants to kill his wife because of her money, overbearing father in law. I would say it's a parody of those stories that come on a front page of the newspapers. It maybe wasn't literally true story, but fragments are almost criminal stereotipes. I like when people take sterotipes and make fun of them. If Fargo was made more serious it wouldn't work - it would be just another predictable movie. On the beginning of the film you suspect how it will end but still the characters bring that element of surprise. On almost every movie you could put "based on a true story".
which is kinda what i was getting at, only you put it better than me
all that's valid and interesting but not the result of using such a device in my opinion. i also doubt it was the coen brothers intent. they're not expecting the audience to think about the senerio that much. they wanted people to go "oh my god, that really happened!" at the end of the film. it's an inside joke. not part of the comedy, as true as it may very well be. this is a case in which the ends do not justify the means because most film goers won't get that far in the analysis. it has more bad effects then good.
-sl-
Quote from: socketlevelfine, all that's valid and interesting but not the result of using such a device. i also doubt it was the coen brothers intent. they're not expecting the audience to think about the senerio that much. they wanted people to go "oh my god, that really happened!" at the end of the film. it's an inside joke. not part of the comedy, as true as it very well be. this is a case in which the ends do not justify the means because most film goers won't get that far in the analysis. it has more bad effects then good.
-sl-
They wanted to open peoples perception of the story. It works alot better if people think it happened for real.
It's a totally different movie with the 'true story' label on it.
I think they wrote it with that in mind. It's not like they, in post, said like 'hey, you know what would be fun...?'
i don't know about that, have you seen the interview with the coens and they talk about the stranger in the big lebowski. sam elliot even asked them why he was there and they said they didn't really know, they just loved it. they don't know why they add some stuff in, it just gives them a kick. they seem like guys who would for sure add something in cause they think it's silly and clever.
don't get me wrong fargo should have won the oscar that year, i love the film. but if adding that little statement at the start of the film adds so much to the film, like you say, I think that's pretty lame.
-sl-
Quote from: socketleveli don't know about that, have you seen the interview with the coens and they talk about the stranger in the big lebowski. sam elliot even asked them why he was there and they said they didn't really know, they just loved it. they don't know why they add some stuff in, it just gives them a kick. they seem like guys who would for sure add something in cause they think it's silly and clever.
don't get me wrong fargo should have won the oscar that year, i love the film. but if adding that little statement at the start of the film adds so much to the film, like you say, I think that's pretty lame.
-sl-
Well, it's a part of the film. An important part.
Filmmakers put the 'true story' thing on movies actually based on true stories but the movie never ever reflects the reality.
In that case, all filmmakers lie.
Like Soderbergh said: "Films lie."
People know that the truth is stretched in these situations, but always go home and tout "Man, I saw this true story!" And treat it like Bible truth anyway. Calling Fargo a true story only made people say "Really?" and believing it anyway. I appreciate how they played the audience like this. There's no movie that's a 100% truth. You can't film without people knowing you are, and when they know you are, they act differently. So, you give filmmakers an inch, and they'll take a mile. You say they can make a fiction out of truth, and here you go. The Coens played on people's emotions to draw them in, and that in my opinion, was as hilarious as it was genius.
The film rocked either way.
i agree. there is no way to ever believe a history book for that matter, communication is subjective. so why add to the confusion? i still would have loved the film if they didn't.
-sl-
Quote from: socketleveli agree. there is no way to ever believe a history book for that matter, communication is subjective. so why add to the confusion? i still would have loved the film if they didn't.
-sl-
I love it too but you gotta agree it would be a totally different film without it...
it's more of an issue in ethics and morals for me. they just shouldn't have done it.
sure the experience would be different (not the way your saying it, more for the "holy shit" factor) but not as drastic as you're letting on. i saw the film with my parents back when i was still living at home, and being the teenager i was back then, I said to them, "holy shit! can you believe that was a true story." and they said "really, how do you know?" I told them it was at the start of the film. they shrugged their shoulders because that wasn't on their minds during the film. now i'm not saying this is everyone, and maybe only a small percentage of the population but they still loved the movie regardless. i don't think it does anything but aid in keeping the audience interested in the film. the coens made a good enough film that they didn't need to do that. in the process they fucked credibility in the ass.
-sl-
in agreement with socket......its ethics, not a question of good or bad storytelling, because it obviously worked to their advantage, but does that warrant its use?
I don't agree they did anything with credibility. Why are you singeling this film out? There are hundreds of films claiming it's a true story they tell...
A Beautiful Mind for example...
but it's nowhere near the truth.
Why this film? Because they're honest and want to let everybody in on the joke?
its funny how you say it's honest, i think it's absolutly dishonest. how can they be honest about the humour when it's decieving the audience?
a beautiful mind has more thruth to the story then fargo. I'm not pointing my finger just to this film, i'm sure there are others. those films are having just as bad effect, i just don't know which films are like that. see that's the problem, when you do something like that a lot people will never know if it's the truth.
-sl-
Quote from: socketlevelits funny how you say it's honest, i think it's absolutly dishonest. how can they be honest about the humour when it's decieving the audience?
a beautiful mind has more thruth to the story then fargo. I'm not pointing my finger just to this film, i'm sure there are others. those films are having just as bad effect, i just don't know which films are like that. see that's the problem, when you do something like that a lot people will never know if it's the truth.
-sl-
that's not true.
Fargo jokes with that "based on a true story" and they say that. Beautiful Mind takes real man, a Nobel prize winner, and talks about his mental condition, the movie is ABOUT that mental condition, but plays with facts. He(the director/writer) lied very much about some facts, but was reluctant to admit that.
First of all, he invented all that thing with a friend and that little girl - he showed shizophrenia like a disease where an adult imagines friends like children do. He evaded all that thing about the character being a gay, or at least bisexual. That is very important because some scientist think that psychosis turns up when a person can't accept the fact that he/she is possibly homosexual(that is only one of the few possible causes of shizophrenia, but there are involved many factors). Beautiful Mind i see like a mockery, something like "look, he's completely nuts, but he's so good with numbers. Can you believe this?" The director tries to hide that by making his film looking like a lemonade, but you can feel through film that he was uncomfortable doing it.
"Based on a true story"
Why don't you see it as a part o the film? Why do you feel like it's a message from the writers?
i'm not saying a beautiful mind is truthful, i'm just saying that it has more truth to the actual accounts over fargo. and i don't want to defend a beautiful mind beyond that, i agree with all the problems that you talk about with that movie. but it is technically more of a true story then fargo. truth is i fucking hate a beautiful mind, it's gentrified garbage.
you keep on saying that fargo 'jokes' or 'has fun with' or whatever with the audience. where do you get that from? it is only based upon the knowledge of it not being true that you are in on the joke. when exactly did the coen brothers let out that the film was being tongue and cheek? they're not letting people know about the truth within the movie so i would consider that a lie. the more and more lies there are, the less and less we'll believe people telling stories.
-sl-
go read MrBurgerKing's latest post. (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=5223&highlight=)
that's some cool fucked up shit. interesting...
i had to think about that one for a sec.
is this supposed to work on some level with this thread? (no sarcasm intended)
-sl-
yes, his first line was "This is from experience".
if sumone claims to tell a true story, whether it is true or not is meaningless, and anyone even slightly bothered by their claim has real emotional issues. personally i wish everything was prefaced with "a true story", ppl might scrutinize their own lives a little closer. the point is that MBK did a great thing by saying it happened to him, it benefited our understanding of his bizarre philosophical situation.
i think there is a certain juxtaposition that happened with this story. since most stories (and films) do not make this "truth" claim we put special interest on ones that do. especially when it's a story like the one burger mentioned. if everyone started saying everything is true we'd stop caring if it actually was or at least be interested the part that is true. likewise, if every film started with the "based on a true story" we wouldn't even give them a chance at being taken a certain way. by ignoring this fact there is no way people would scrutinize their lifes. every film would be asking that and each filmgoer would be sick of it. they wouldn't be excited and pay interest in the validity to be introspective in their own lives. your view point seems to come from the current state, if films all made this claim you might look at it somewhat different.
-sl-
The Coens honesty makes you mistrust them. If they'd kept quiet we wouldn't have this thread.
We¨re talking about moral here? People doesn't react to violence anymore. Before it used to be a bitchslap, now it's head getting chopped off, blood spurting everywhere, limbs lost, eyes drilled...this is just the tip of the iceberg...we accept all this but as soon as someone uses a different storytelling device it's "Oh No! They're using our trust. Make them stop!"
I know it's your opinion but I think it's wrong.
Quote from: kottehead getting chopped off, blood spurting everywhere, limbs lost, eyes drilled......we accept all this but as soon as someone uses a different storytelling device it's "Oh No! They're using our trust. Make them stop!"
hahaa brilliant.
FIN
yeah but these are problems are they not? you shouldn't point out the problem with something else in entertainment as a reason to justify this decieving technique. sorry i choose to send messages of discord rather then pick the easy path of complacency.
i can respect that you think my opinion is wrong. i can except the stance you take, but i hope you guys aren't just blindly following like any old fanboy. do you believe the artist you love (and believe it or not, I love the coens too) can do no wrong?
If this was a movie you didn't like would you be more willing to share in my opinion?
-sl-
i'm not in love with the coens, i probably will never see intolerable cruelty. i just don't see the big deal. it works for me. i like being lied to, i guess. it was a harmless trick, and ingenious.
if the movie sucked i would care even less. it's their risk to claim sumthing like that, and if the movie failed then the trick would appear totally superficial and gimmicky. never "immoral" tho.
Quote from: socketleveli think there is a certain juxtaposition that happened with this story. since most stories (and films) do not make this "truth" claim we put special interest on ones that do. especially when it's a story like the one burger mentioned. if everyone started saying everything is true we'd stop caring if it actually was or at least be interested the part that is true. likewise, if every film started with the "based on a true story" we wouldn't even give them a chance at being taken a certain way.
Maybe the Coens didn't want their film to be taken a certain way, hence the use of the 'based on a true story' device. I can see te point you're making, but I really don't think that this is a hugely immoral act on their part. Sorry, but as much as you labour to clarify, I just don't agree that there is a negative consequence of their actions. All I can see is positive: audience suspends their disbelief, the film reaches a wider audience, etc, etc... Also the media has become such a powerful force that even in the case of ABM the truth will out eventually. And if you look at Fargo in relation to ABM your case weakens still: in Fargo the coens took real events, concocted a narrative, invented the characters. In ABM: they started with a real person, real events, a real story, and changed it so that really it's nothing like the truth. As much as I hate ABM I want to stress I'm not picking on it - there are loads of other 'true' films that are guilty of the same. When the Coens admitted Fargo wasn't true after they've seen the movie - they weren't gloating that they had everyone fooled - they were just being far more honest than someone like Ron Howard would ever be. And yes, I love the Coen's work, but I do believe they can do wrong (i.e. see Catherine Zeta Jones in Intolerable Cruelty).
Quote from: SleeplessAnd if you look at Fargo in relation to ABM your case weakens still: in Fargo the coens took real events, concocted a narrative, invented the characters. In ABM: they started with a real person, real events, a real story, and changed it so that really it's nothing like the truth.
so, are you saying there is truth in the fargo script? are these in fact 'real events?' I was under the impression that it was all fabricated. i remember reading that there was not an ounce of truth to the story. I'm sorry i just can't take your word for it, I would need some proof otherwise. if the case is however, that fargo was based upon 'real events,' like you say, then I fully admit that I am wrong. wrong because fargo is not an example of what bothers me. i still believe making the claim that something is true when it is in fact not is wrong.
so i'm not backing out on my stance, and like i just said, i'd need proof to make me see otherwise (and if there is any, i'm sure it'll come flooding to this thread in no time). still there is a huge discrepency between our two fundemental ways of thinking. I sense a certain amount of shortsightedness in your belief, what comes across as an inside joke and a clever littled story device is negative in a much larger context. we've seen things like that before in film history, you know like how MTV and the Music Viedeo seemed like harmless entertainment when first explored. Now look how fast films are cut and there is no depth within the hollywood system, much an offshoot of this A.D.D. way of cutting images. it didn't seem like a big deal in the early eighties, people justified it, and now it's the dominant form of cummunicating visual stories. you guys may like film this way, but i think it's inferior. or maybe you agree with me, if you do then you can see it's not always about breaking the rules. and like with fargo maybe its not about breaking that rule. some of those rules need to ground the rhetoric of filmmaking, so everyone can know what was inspired by truth and what was pure fiction
-sl-
Okay, I've re-read my post and I think I failed to articulate what I meant properly. What I meant to say was that Fargo takes events which could happen - and *similar* events can and do happen - but not neccessarily as they are shown on screen. So, in that respect, Fargo may be seen as a true story - just as many other movies could. What I'm getting at is when you think of it in this way, Fargo is no less true than many other films which claim to be true. However, because other films might have a source material they are percieved to be actual documented fact, even though the filmmakers have altered events and characters so they are far from what actually happened. Fargo kind of works in the opposite direction - similar events to those portrayed in the film do occur; they are not as cartoonish as Fargo would have you believe, but there are *similar* stories out there. Please don't think I'm trying to say I believed everything that happened in Fargo happens on a daily basis, just as the film shows, but many of the aspects of Fargo do happen, what the Coens have done is connect them into a story, but they do, essentially take their basis from real-life. So in that sense Fargo is not that different from other 'true' stories - they have taken *real* events and altered them to serve the story they want to tell. Just because Fargo doesn't have one hard source material doesn't mean it's not superficially as true as A Beautiful Mind.
To get back to the point of your original post then, Fargo is no more immoral than any of these other supposedly 'true' stories, maybe less so. At least the Coens admitted Fargo wasn't actually 100% bona-fide gospel truth. But look at all these other films which supposedly take their ispiration from real-life events, are they the gospel truth of what actually happened? Of course they're not!!!
Clearly you believe the Coens comitted a crime against cinema when they stuck that stamp on Fargo, but I disagree with you. I fail to see how you can justify their actions as immoral. Non-conformist, yes, but not immoral. Sorry, that's just my opinion, just as you've got yours. We've both made out arguments, and maybe it's best just to agree to disagree. you think what they did was morally wrong. I don't.
I do agree, however, with your hatred of the MTV-esque movies Hollywood is ramming down the public's throat nowadays. And although I personally am I against it, I fail to see that as an immoral act also.
ok i agree to disagree. just let me clear something up and then i'll be done like you. maybe you didn't realize that i also think a beutiful mind is regressive. they are not sticking to their guns and fail to be objective. this is bad, and originaly your point, so i give you full credit. i just think the fargo thing is worse, and that's ok that you think it's not bad at all.
i appreciate the debate, and look forward to the next one.
-sl-
oh yeah, the mtv thing, for me, has nothing to do with morals (like fargo) it has to do with mediocrity. its just an interesting pattern i think both films follow. the idea of bringing that example up was to say that something which appears harmless in todays mindset can fuck us over in the future.
From Empire, March 2004, on Fargo (voted 60th in the 100 greatest movies of all time: "Influenced by the story of Helle Crafts, a Connecticut woman murdered by her husband in 1986 by being fed through a wood-chipper."
FX Teams With Joel & Ethan Coen And Noah Hawley For Series Adaptation Of 'Fargo'
BY NELLIE ANDREEVA | Deadline
EXCLUSIVE: Joel and Ethan Coen are bringing one of their signatures movies to television. FX has closed a deal to develop Fargo, an hourlong project loosely based on the Coen brothers' 1996 comedic crime drama. The Coens will serve as executive producers on the project, which will be written/executive produced by The Unusuals and My Generation creator Noah Hawley. Warren Littlefield also will executive the project, which will be co-produced by MGM Television and FX Prods.
The Fargo movie starred Frances McDormand as a pregnant Minnesota police chief who follows the trail of two bumbling criminals (Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare) hired by a car salesman (William H. Macy) to kidnap his wife. The indie earned seven Oscar nominations, winning two statuettes — for the Coen brothers' script and McDormand's performance. (The Coens won three more Oscars for No Country For Old Men.) The title belongs to MGM's library, making the project part of MGM TV's strategy to mine the company's catalogs for properties suitable for series adaptations/remakes. The company has the Teen Wolf reboot on MTV and recently announced it was teaming with American Idol executive producer Nigel Lythgoe for Fame, a scripted series based on the 1980 MGM film and 1982 MGM TV series. MGM TV first attempted to adapt Fargo in 2003 with a pilot starring Edie Falco and directed by Kathy Bates, which was done without the Coen brothers' participation.
CAA-repped Hawley was a writer on Fox's dramedy Bones before going on to create two series for ABC, The Unusuals and My Generation. The latter also was an adaptation; it was based on a Swedish series. This broadcast development season, he teamed with producers Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci for a high-concept drama revolving around a mysterious game. Hawley is writing/executive producing the project, which has a script commitment with penalty at ABC. Fargo reunites Hawley with Littlefield who executive produced My Generation. Both are with CAA; Hawley is additionally repped by Joel McKuin. The Coen brothers' upcoming movies include caper comedy Gambit, which they wrote, and Inside Llewyn Davis, which they wrote and directed. They are with UTA.
Bob Odenkirk, Oliver Platt Join Billy Bob Thornton, Martin Freeman and Others in FX's 'Fargo' Limited Series
Source: IndieWire
"Fargo," the 10-episode FX limited series based on the 1996 Coen brothers' movies, has assembled a nifty cast, with Bob Odenkirk, Oliver Platt, Kate Walsh and Glenn Howerton joining the already announced Billy Bob Thornton, Martin Freeman and Colin Hanks. Production's slated to start in Calgary in November, with the series airing on FX next spring.
Odenkirk's a particularly busy guy these days -- "Breaking Bad" just ended, but his character is set to be spun-off into a new series entitled "Better Call Saul" that's practically been greenlit by AMC, and he's producing and appearing in IFC's upcoming sketch comedy series "The Birthday Boys."
The "Fargo" series will follow new characters in a new case, taking from the film only its sense of humor, its procedural aspects and its Minnesota culture. Written by Noah Hawley ("The Unusuals"), the series is being executive produced by the Coens. Thornton will play the manipulative Lorne Malvo, who forever changes the life of small town insurance salesman Lester Nygaard (Freeman) after encountering him. Hanks is Gus Grimly, a Duluth Police Deputy and single dad, and Odenkirk is Deputy Bill Olson, a Bemidji deputy partnered with the younger, smarter Molly Solverson (Allison Tolman). Platt plays Stavros Milos, the Supermarket King of Minnesota, Walsh is a former stripper and mother of two named Gina Hess, and Howerton acts as Don Chumph, a personal trainer.
"Fargo" was first adapted into a potential TV series in 1997, with Edie Falco starring as Marge Gunderson in a pilot directed by Kathy Bates that was never picked up.