Reality in movies: Fact or Fiction

[Barry]

The Clint Eastwood Post prompted me to ask this question of the great movie goers that we have here .

How accurate does a movie based on reality have to be? Should be as accurate as possible, or should they be able to throw out the truth to make a much better movie.

Tom Hanks would be a great example . He was in three movies that worked very hard to be accurate, although always condensing the timeline.

Apollo 13
Bridge of Spies
The Post

Hanks also starred in the movie “Sully” directed by Eastwood. The ending is a complete fabrication of what happened. In real life, Sully was a hero and did not face a hearing, where he stood accused, which they showed in the movie. More than that, they had a hearing before the final results of the crash were established. But Eastwood wanted the government to look like a villain.

The ending was so made up that they had to change the names of the actual people involved because they threatened to sue.

In the movie, Argo, the Americans have an exciting Chase to Escape in time that never happened. This is history, not Die Hard.

The late Roger Ebert, who I have great respect for, would disagree with me. Time and time again he would say that it was making a good movie that was important not the facts.

Of course, they’ll always be room for this sort of audience manipulation. Take the movie the Sound of Music. At the end of the movie, the family has to hike across the Swiss frontier to escape the Nazis.

In real life, they took a train.

And I can give a long list of biographies, In recent times, That really fictionalized the story of the main character.

Seriously, my feeling is that more people get their history today from movies than they do from books. More people today will think that Sully was persecuted unnecessarily when he wasn’t. I vote for the more or at least the most accurate movie.


Be seeing you!
Barry Pearl, F.F.F,
Sent from my IPad, excuse the typos, I am dictating this!

[DLCPhoto]

I lean towards feeling the same way. I often watch this type of movie with mixed emotions for all the reasons you identify. I'll often really enjoy a movie, and then be pretty disappointed at how much it deviated from the facts.

At this point, I often won't 'ruin' the experience by fact checking, but at least have enough sense to realize that I can't rely on what I just saw to be valid historically.

[David Vaughn]

There are people who think "JFK" from Oliver Stone is a documentary...it isn't. If you want accuracy, read a book on the subject. If you want to be entertained, watch the movie.

[bmoney]

Anytime I watch a based on real events movie I always end up googling the event  to see the similarities. I rarely care though if the movie is loosely based or accurate. As long as it’s enjoyable 

[Barry]

There are people who think "JFK" from Oliver Stone is a documentary...it isn't. If you want accuracy, read a book on the subject. If you want to be entertained, watch the movie.

I knew that you would come down on the side of making a movie more entertaining than accurate.

I remember when you thought it was OK that they didn’t mention at the end of the movie that John Reid, after capturing the Cavendish gang, retired to Florida and lived off residuals.

Instead, you preferred the ending of the movie where he has a big conflict with a Cavendish gang in a train wreck .😎

[David Vaughn]

Barry...I didn't have any problem reading that font

Regardless, I believe you're referring to The Lone Ranger, right? 

[David Vaughn]

There's another movie that stays pretty close to the facts (according to the men on the ground) and that's 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. 

Fact or Fiction

One of the best "true" story films that took actual accounts from the men on the ground of what was happening. Also, the film did a pretty good job of staying apolitical in its storytelling, but when you see interviews of the men involved, there still is a lot of animosity towards Washington and the the political class.

Another one is Lone Survivor. While there were certain liberties taken, the essence of the story is true. 

Fact or Fiction

[Barry]

Barry...I didn't have any problem reading that font

Regardless, I believe you're referring to The Lone Ranger, right?

That was an accident. in Notes on my brand, new iPad and pasted it in. Oops

of course John Reid was the Lone Ranger.

[bmoney]

There's another movie that stays pretty close to the facts (according to the men on the ground) and that's 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.

Fact or Fiction

One of the best "true" story films that took actual accounts from the men on the ground of what was happening. Also, the film did a pretty good job of staying apolitical in its storytelling, but when you see interviews of the men involved, there still is a lot of animosity towards Washington and the the political class.

Another one is Lone Survivor. While there were certain liberties taken, the essence of the story is true.

Fact or Fiction

And both outstanding movies. 

how about black hawk down? 

[David Vaughn]

And both outstanding movies.

how about black hawk down?

I checked into that one as well and certain liberties were taken. There's a documentary on Netflix that goes into the details of the actual attack and I've read they reference the movie in it (and do some type of comparison), but I haven't seen it myself. 

[SRW1000]

This is something I always think about when watching anything "based on true events."  I usually assume that there's only a nugget of truth in these films, with the most dramatic sections being enhanced and even fictionalized.  Afterall, even documentaries are subject to inaccuracies, depending on how archival footage is framed.

That opens up the larger question of how we know what the truth of the events actually were.  We can look at contemporary news coverage, but there are plenty of instances where that's turned out to subject to the viewpoint of the writer.  The modern electronic age has made more information available, including audio and video, but again, that's all dependent on point of view and editing.

This is all about to get much worse.  AI is in its infancy right now, but soon anyone will be able to create anything support their version of truth and put it out there for others to see.  While these are sometimes obvious by looking for extra limbs or fingers today, it won't be long before fabricated versions of the past will be indistinguishable from "real" history.

I guess that pushes me closer to the camp wanting a good story, with bonus points for historical accuracy, since that second part will be irrelevant at some point.

[Barry]

This is something I always think about when watching anything "based on true events."  I usually assume that there's only a nugget of truth in these films, with the most dramatic sections being enhanced and even fictionalized.  Afterall, even documentaries are subject to inaccuracies, depending on how archival footage is framed.

That opens up the larger question of how we know what the truth of the events actually were.  We can look at contemporary news coverage, but there are plenty of instances where that's turned out to subject to the viewpoint of the writer.  The modern electronic age has made more information available, including audio and video, but again, that's all dependent on point of view and editing.

This is all about to get much worse.  AI is in its infancy right now, but soon anyone will be able to create anything support their version of truth and put it out there for others to see.  While these are sometimes obvious by looking for extra limbs or fingers today, it won't be long before fabricated versions of the past will be indistinguishable from "real" history.

I guess that pushes me closer to the camp wanting a good story, with bonus points for historical accuracy, since that second part will be irrelevant at some point.

You make some very important points