|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 11, 2018 23:48:34 GMT -5
This question is prompted by my viewing of Bohemian Rhapsody. I'm a big fan of Queen and have read a couple of books and viewed some documentaries and concert films. Plus, I was alive during their career. The film plays very fast and loose with facts and timelines, especially shifting things around to manipulate emotions and motivations for things, rather than depicting what really happened. it ignores a lot more interesting stuff, then twists actual things to fit their narrative, which is mostly false or extremely massaged. it ticked me off greatly (my wife was just bored by it).
On the other hand, we watched Hidden Figures and enjoyed it, even though they also played fast and loose with some of the events. For instance, after one of the three women has had enough and rants about segregated bathrooms, there is a scene of Kevin Costner's character tearing down a "Whites Only" sign. Never happened. One character is being passed over for supervisor, yet had actually been promoted to a supervisory role years before the time period depicted.
To me, that one still uses mostly factual things to tell the actual story. It does shift some things around, time wise, and shifts experiences between characters; but, it mostly tells a great story with the real facts. It certainly plays to certain tropes, and was criticised for the Costner scene, as depicting the White Savior cliche, in context of civil rights. That seemed rather fair, though I didn't think it detracted from the film.
With Queen, there is definitely a more personal aspect to the film, as a fan of the band; but, I felt like they were deliberately manipulating an audience to tell their jazzed up story, rather than telling the actual story. For instance, Freddie was not diagnosed with AIDS until about 1987; yet they have him telling the band before Live Aid, to help convince them to reform and play the gig. In reality, the band had never broken up and had finished a tour some months before and were taking time off. The film would have you think that Live Aid was it for them, despite touring the following year and putting out 3 albums, before Freddie's death (and one after). They show his personal manager Paul interfering with word about Live Aid, yet he was out by 1984. They create motivations that weren't there, rather than Freddie and the band getting involved because of the cause, though being wary of whether the event would work or was a pipe dream and whether they could play up to their standards, in that kind of a set-up. It has MTV existing before they record "Another One Bites the Dust, yet MTV debuted in the summer of 1981. They claim I Want to Break free's video was banned by MTV, yet it was in heavy rotation, at first. It might have been retired early, due to concerns about the drag; but, I don't recall it suddenly disappearing, just appearing more sporadically, when the album wasn't getting much coverage in the US and they weren't touring here.
To me, this film isn't remotely factual, as too much is fabricated or altered to tell something other than the actual story. It is a fiction inspired by events and people in Freddie's life. For me, a biopic or historical film needs to be true to the facts, while still presenting them in an entertaining way. A complete fiction that intersects with history is a different story (like Quantum Leap's various intersections with history, like when Sam meets young Woodie Allen or Stephen King). The defense on the other side is "It's not a documentary!" That's fine, if you aren't marketing it as a biopic. that implies that it is factual, with some events dramatised, condensed or whatever. This felt like a fabricated story, with some facts placed in for emotional impact.
By contrast, The Right Stuff has a bunch of things that are made up, massaged, condensed, ignored, magnified or glossed over; yet, it is mostly faithful to the truth and the people who lived it. Same with Apollo 13. No, they didn't get into a sparring match in the middle of the mission; yet, you could see the truth of those emotions, like it might have been inside their head,; but, not ever verbalized. As Jim Lovell said, they had too many things to do and they were professionals. Character actions were composites of those of several people (especially the engineers and things you see with Ken Mattingly, in the simulator, testing procedures to restart the command module). Yet, most of it happened and happened the way it was shown, even if more than one person was doing things you see one character doing.
So, anyway, the question is, how important is accuracy, to you. Do you mind massaging things if the story is good, or do you prefer that the facts be correct, even if events are given heightened drama? Is it more forgivable in a biopic or a film that re-enacts historical events? Does it matter, as long as you are entertained?
|
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Nov 12, 2018 0:49:58 GMT -5
Yeah, music biopics have a fairly lousy record of getting things right. I don't know why that is. I guess Control about Ian Curtis or the Johnny Cash one might be the better case scenarios, I've seen a lot of others be so wrong I almost won't see any biopics anymore (in fact have made it a point to never see Stoned centering on Brian Jones). Some people liked Backbeat about John Lennon and Stu Sutcliffe while I've always thought it was ridiculous junk. I stick with documentaries, they can leave things out, gloss over stuff, get the timeline a bit muddled but can't remember one making me actually angry so far like some biopics. I'd love a good Queen doc, it would have to have a fair bit of of info and images from the pre-Queen groups Smile and Brian May's '1984' and less about say Live Aid which I watched live and there's a whole DVD of just that anyway. Gladiator felt it was okay to rewrite the historical characters of two Roman Emperors, so they will do whatever they want it seems with lowly rock musicians. Oh yeah, Sid & Nancy was wrong in a lot of ways too, though I didn't mind it really for all that; perfect casting!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2018 0:53:05 GMT -5
When I was in grad school (studying ancient/medieval history), my thesis adviser (Prof. Sunshine, no lie) had what he called Sunshine's Law of Historical Movies, which stated, any movie depicting historical or "true events" will tell you more about the time it was made and the people making it than it will about the time it is set or the people it is about.
All history is interpretation of events by those doing the telling. It is all biased in some way or another, the key is in identifying the bias of the tellers. Facts and evidence are one thing, but history is another, it is a story based on those facts and evidence told through the lens of the teller's interpretation of them. Even first hand accounts and primary sources are biased and will contain inaccuracies based on the lens of the witness/teller. Secondary and tertiary sources even more so.
So inaccuracies in historical or biopics do not bother me much, as they are in and of themselves historical clues telling us about the time the story is told and what is important tot he people of that time, especially when contrasted with other sources and evidence about the topic. What matters to me about such movies is-is it a good movie? Does it tell a good story that I enjoy experiencing? I don't go in expecting accuracy because I know better. Even if the movie were 100% true to source material it would still contain inaccuracies, it would just be those of the source material not of the movie makers doing. People believe the fallacy that there is a "T"rue history or that history is an infallible fact based account. Nothing can be further from the truth. At best, it is a best guess based on what evidence and sources we have available, and it is a rarity when it even achieves that (and if all the sources agree or are uncontested or that a majority of historians agree on what they say actually means, or that the sources are even reliable in their accounts or that new evidence or sources won;t come to light to totally change our understanding or that evidence and sources are not being deliberately ignored because they challenge the "accepted" accounts, etc. etc.).
What can bother me is if the filmmakers/storytellers misrepresent what they are actually doing, but then a part of that is on me for not going in with my eyes open and determining for myself what the movie actually aspires to be.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Nov 12, 2018 1:24:39 GMT -5
If the subject is anyone that's lived since the age of film and television, I'd much prefer to see a documentary than watch some actor, no matter how talented and skilful, trying to impersonate them. I'm a bit of a diehard about this and have not and likely never will see the current Neil Armstrong movie, Will Smith as Muhammad Ali, whoever played Ray Charles and Johnny Cash in those highly commercially successful biopics from a few years back, Gary Oldman as Churchill, etc, etc.
Some of these and others I've seen bits and pieces of in previews or when they've been playing on someone's tv while I was at a get-together at someone's house or some such situation, and nothing has compelled me to change my mind about this. I just don't have any interest in watching an actor when I can see and hear the actual person, even if only in their public moments.
I really don't get the attraction, especially if you're watching, for example, Oldman give his version of Churchill's famous radio speech, which is such an iconic piece of 20th century history that it's even become a part of pop-culture; not to mention those actors who give their own renditions of famous songs by the singer or artist they're playing, something I'll never understand - what, if they made a biopic of Leonardo da Vinci would they get the actor to paint his own version of the Mona Lisa?
I can kind of see the interest in watching re-enactments of things that went on behind the scenes, but even then, some of these people are so familiar in themselves that I find it almost impossible to accept an actor's portrayal.
There are exceptions: the German film about Hitler's last days, Downfall, was one of the best things I've seen the last 10 or 20 years. Perhaps it helped that Hitler himself, as we see him in newsreel footage and so on, was already a caricature, so the film actually adds nuance rather than taking it away. I suppose fans of the movies I listed in the first paragraph might make the same claim for those performances, but I just don't see it. Interestingly, I saw a documentary called Hilter's Secretary not long afterwards and it confirmed the dramatic film both in factual detail and in atmosphere and feeling.
And there was French film a few years back about Sarkozy that was pretty good - in this case because it wasn't so much Sarkozy himself that was interesting as the whole story, the political back-door dealing, etc. Also, I'm not all that familiar with French politics, so hadn't seen much in the way of photos, video, etc of the people involved. I doubt if I'd be able to sit through a similar film about, for example, Canadian politicians I am very familiar with, no matter how interesting the story - just as I'm not interested in watching the dramtised film CBC made about the 1972 Canada-Russia series, so famous here in Canada: don't want to see actors playing my favourite hockey players like Yvan Cournoyer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Nov 12, 2018 10:03:57 GMT -5
When I was in grad school (studying ancient/medieval history), my thesis adviser (Prof. Sunshine, no lie) had what he called Sunshine's Law of Historical Movies, which stated, any movie depicting historical or "true events" will tell you more about the time it was made and the people making it than it will about the time it is set or the people it is about. All history is interpretation of events by those doing the telling. It is all biased in some way or another, the key is in identifying the bias of the tellers. Facts and evidence are one thing, but history is another, it is a story based on those facts and evidence told through the lens of the teller's interpretation of them. Even first hand accounts and primary sources are biased and will contain inaccuracies based on the lens of the witness/teller. Secondary and tertiary sources even more so. So inaccuracies in historical or biopics do not bother me much, as they are in and of themselves historical clues telling us about the time the story is told and what is important tot he people of that time, especially when contrasted with other sources and evidence about the topic. What matters to me about such movies is-is it a good movie? Does it tell a good story that I enjoy experiencing? I don't go in expecting accuracy because I know better. Even if the movie were 100% true to source material it would still contain inaccuracies, it would just be those of the source material not of the movie makers doing. People believe the fallacy that there is a "T"rue history or that history is an infallible fact based account. Nothing can be further from the truth. At best, it is a best guess based on what evidence and sources we have available, and it is a rarity when it even achieves that (and if all the sources agree or are uncontested or that a majority of historians agree on what they say actually means, or that the sources are even reliable in their accounts or that new evidence or sources won;t come to light to totally change our understanding or that evidence and sources are not being deliberately ignored because they challenge the "accepted" accounts, etc. etc.). What can bother me is if the filmmakers/storytellers misrepresent what they are actually doing, but then a part of that is on me for not going in with my eyes open and determining for myself what the movie actually aspires to be. -M
Reminds me a lot about what William Gibson has said (I thought it was Gibson at least) about science fiction: all science fiction is about the present. Something we are noticing more and more as we catch up to and surpass a lot of classic sci-fi books and movies.
As for the topic itself:
I like accuracy in my movies, but I don't demand it. I just feel that if a writer, director or actor did his work in researching the period of the piece, the events surrounding it and so on, that it nearly always result in a better product in the end. I also think that if you want to make a story out of it, you *will* have to change things, because reality never follows the structure of a regular story (unless it's a Coen's style story where the protagonists don't know what is going on, learn nothing and/or nothing gets resolved). I also like if movies/books/comics include an in-story reason for changing events , presenting the story as told by an unreliable narrator for instance, or just ignore history in the most blatant way to show "yes, no historical accuracy here at all" a la Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds.
|
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Nov 12, 2018 13:06:58 GMT -5
I never demand or expect accuracy in movies/television as they are meant for "entertainment" providing information about subjects to the general/mass audience. Hollywood has shown time and again that they are not interested in accuracy with facts as they change it all to suit their needs. IF accuracy were some type of standard policy or procedure and they were deviating from the facts it might upset me. If I truly "need/want" total accuracy there are better methods of learning them.
Accuracy fluctuates. How "accurate" are the Marvel and DC movies in reality to the comics they are based upon? Tons of differences yet the movies still make boatloads of money and the "inaccuracies" don't stop me from enjoying them as different entities from the comics. If the films get folks interested enough to go to a library or purchasing a book which has the facts and details delivered more accurately then that is a good thing in the end run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 12, 2018 13:54:26 GMT -5
For me it kind of depends on how much knowledge I have of the subject to begin with. The more knowledge I have going in the more likely changes to the actual history are going to take me out of the story. This is why, with limited exceptions, I don't watch lawyer or police shows. They pretty much always screw it up and it takes me out of the show and I end up ranting or riffing or both.
The point of movies and TV is to entertain. I recognize that they're not presenting documentaries (which come with their own issues and biases). But if it takes me out of the show that's a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by chadwilliam on Nov 12, 2018 15:00:45 GMT -5
I don't believe that someone knowledgeable about the subject at hand should be penalized for possessing that knowledge which I think is what happens when you watch a "based on a true story" film that gets everything wrong. If you're interested in the subject, why would you want to see the film makers make one mistake after another. If you're not interested, why even see the movie. I avoid biopics like the plague for this reason.
It's also manipulative and cheap. I remember watching that Bruce Lee "biography" that came out in the early 90's and being amazed that a man who broke his back and had to live inside a giant metal contraption for a time, could make a comeback and reclaim his title as the greatest martial artist in the world. I didn't question the veracity of this (I would have been about 12 or 13 at the time) and thought "Wow. What a guy!". Eventually of course, I found out this never happened. It was a ridiculous plot line which if utilized in a film open about its fictional status would have been laughed out of the theatres. However, because they shoved a real person we all knew into it, the film makers were granted the benefit of the doubt (at least in my case). "Hey, I've heard of Bruce Lee and I know he was capable of incredible things! This, therefore, must have happened!" It was a cheap and crass tug at the ol' heartstrings which commandeered the public's perception of a real person to enhance their one-dimensional creation. Had the film makers simply told the story they had written - about an unbelievably powerful superhuman I can't imagine they would have gotten much acclaim. Slap Bruce Lee's name on their character however, and suddenly they've garnered instant credibility without effort.
Of course, this is hardly the worst example of twisting reality to make your movie shine.
Ed Wood perverted Bela Lugosi into a foul mouthed old man bitter about not getting the lead role in Frankenstein. Not who the guy was in real life, but hey, why be respectful when an Oscar's on the line?
That Abraham Lincoln biopic from several years back reduced a great man into a father who'd hit his son if he lost his temper. Never mind the fact that in real life, the worst display of Lincoln's temper was when he spoke to his son sternly for misplacing some important papers. Why respect your meal ticket and the man who freed the slaves when a few seconds of dramatic tension is at stake?
Speaking of Presidents, thanks to Oliver Stone, intelligent discourse on the assassination of JFK has been set back generations because of all the lies he peppered throughout his film (which also made a hero out crooked cop Jim Garrison).
Oh, and Houdini didn't die in the Water Chamber act either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Nov 12, 2018 16:34:16 GMT -5
I'm generally willing to forgive inaccuracies if the changes make sense from a storytelling perspective and enhance our understanding of the subject. Still, there are howlers that can ruin movies for me that I would've otherwise enjoyed (like William Wallace in Braveheart having a love affair with a French princess who historically wasn't born until more than a decade after his execution) and don't get me started on movies that skew the facts to push the filmmaker's modern day agenda, something many documentaries are equally guilty of.
Cei-U!
I summon the cinema verite!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2018 18:45:16 GMT -5
a biopic has a responsibility to keep the viewer engaged enough emotionally, or thru factual input that they continue watching.
so yes, a lot of them do play fast and loose with the information, and the manipulation, although they tend to have some accuracy in them.
if it's not a documentary/historical film? then I don't expect exact history/facts.
(and a Biopic isn't a documentary)
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201 
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 12, 2018 18:45:21 GMT -5
Historical accuracy is pretty important for me in a film, both in a biopic and in a historical film, but I can also stand a little artistic licence. That said, I think Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid got it absolutely spot on with this simple disclaimer at the start of the film...  It was the perfect get out clause for any accusations of historical inaccuracy that might be levelled at the production. Actually, as it turns out, an awful lot of that movie is pretty historically accurate, so far as we know, at least (there are big gaps in our knowledge of the two outlaw's lives, hence the disclaimer, I guess). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2018 21:17:06 GMT -5
Historical Accuracy is very important to me and I think that in any biopic, film, and documentary -- I want to be as factual as possible. If I see too many errors in any that been produced it will make people to believe what they have watched and that bothers me a lot. I just can't tolerate too many errors and I watched a lots of documentaries and truth to be told that some of them are false. That's bothers me a great deal and it's hurts me to see those "errors".
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2018 23:01:06 GMT -5
I find most biopics/historical films have the same accuracy rate as most textbooks used in American grade schools. The accuracy rates of most history textbooks used in America is atrocious, they are skewed and manipulated to get the approval of big states who adopt textbooks at a statewide level (Texas being the big dog on the block as being catered too) so they can sell and be profitable rather than staying true to evidence and source material. If our textbooks can't be accurate, why do we expect our movies to be?
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 12, 2018 23:51:40 GMT -5
I generally don't watch Biopics or historical fiction.. there's no point, since I just end up spending far more time than the movie was fact checking it.
I did see the Queen movie (wife really wanted to) and I was entertained, but when I got home to look a few things up I could see very clearly the story they were trying to tell (about Mercury being's difficulties dealing with his sexuality) was made far more important than the facts.
I thought at the time the whole video being banned thing was off (especially the time frame), and I knew there was no big break between albums, as they attempted to imply during the movie.
I was able to enjoy it since I wasn't SURE about what was wrong. , but any movie about a topic I know about will generally aggravate the crap out of me.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 13, 2018 0:57:13 GMT -5
I generally don't watch Biopics or historical fiction.. there's no point, since I just end up spending far more time than the movie was fact checking it. I did see the Queen movie (wife really wanted to) and I was entertained, but when I got home to look a few things up I could see very clearly the story they were trying to tell (about Mercury being's difficulties dealing with his sexuality) was made far more important than the facts. I thought at the time the whole video being banned thing was off (especially the time frame), and I knew there was no big break between albums, as they attempted to imply during the movie. I was able to enjoy it since I wasn't SURE about what was wrong. , but any movie about a topic I know about will generally aggravate the crap out of me. The problem there is the American lens of this thing. Queen were mostly off the radar after Jazz, which had "Another One Bites The Dust" as their last big, high charting single in the US. Their last tour of the US was in 1982, for Hot Space, which was treated rather badly by US critics (not that British critics were particularly loving). The Works and A Kind of Magic both went Gold in the US; but, never broke the Top 10, with The Works hitting #23 and A Kind of Magic #46. MTV played Radio GaGa and I Want To Break Free pretty heavily, when they were released and then with decreasing frequency after, especially compared to American and other bands that were touring in the US. Calling All Girls, from Hot Space, got a bit of airplay, when MTV was new; but, MTV played the heck out of everything then, as they had few sponsors, resulting in few commercials. Crazy Little Thing Called Love and The Game got a bit of play, now and then and Bohemian Rhapsody got a fair amount. Princes of the Universe got play relatively heavy, when Highlander was released; but, less so when the movie wasn't a big hit. The film very much has the American attitude about Queen, for the period, showing them on top in the late 70s, when We Will Rock You/We Are The Champions and Another One Bites the Dust were massive hits, then passe in the 80s, when they were getting nothing but grief in Rolling Stone and others and weren't touring in the US, with the SNL appearance being their sole thing, during that period, until Live Aid; but, glosses over how much they toured Europe, Asia and were at the forefront of touring Latin America (especially Rio). Part of the reason they were so great at Live Aid was that they had been playing to stadium crowds in Latin America and Europe and Freddy had mastered playing to a big crowd. Plus, regardless of critics and the media, Queen always maintained a solid, loyal fanbase, globally, and they were big on audience participation. The subsequent Kind of Magic tour featured mostly stadiums and had some of their best concerts, such as the one in Budapest (you can see on Youtube) and their final at Wembley (well, their last was at Knebworth; but, it was a late addition). The Wembley concert is amazing, covering a lot of ground in their back catalog, plus things like Elvis and Little Richard. It's a fantastic event and they just nail everything. Personally, I would have liked to have seen the story be more in the direction that Sacha Baron Cohen wanted to go. I think there was a better story in also capturing Freddie's last days, as, by accounts, he was in a better place emotionally, and in his relationships with everyone, and kept working because it gave him reason to go on and just live the fullest he could. To me, that is a stronger inspiration than a really great Live Aid performance, even if it is considered one of the greatest in Rock. |
|
