is fargo a true story?

[socketlevel]

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-

[Pubrick]

go read MrBurgerKing's latest post.

[socketlevel]

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-

[Pubrick]

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.

[socketlevel]

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-

[kotte]

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.

[Pubrick]

head 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

[socketlevel]

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-

[Pubrick]

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.

[Sleepless]

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.

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).

[socketlevel]

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.

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-

[Sleepless]

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.

[socketlevel]

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.

[Sleepless]

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."

[MacGuffin]

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.