This Article Is Inspired by Movies that Are "Based on" True Stories

I'm just going to assume that everything said in this scene is exactly what happened in reality.

"Based on a true story" can make or break a movie. For horror films, it usually makes it. (Stupid) people like to watch horror films and talk about how it really happened to get themselves even more freaked out by it. True story: at the end of Paranormal Activity, I heard an audience member react to the credits which thanked the San Diego Police Department with, "You see, that was a true story." This blew my mind. Let's assume it is actual footage and follow that line of thinking. We have video evidence of demonic possession, but it is only used as entertainment? Wouldn't the world be freaking out a bit more if Paranormal Activity was real footage. Not to mention it is also video footage of a death used for entertainment. None of that occurred to this guy. He just thought, "Wow, that's really freaky, and it really happened!" Maybe I'm overreacting and the guy was just trying to mess with whoever he was with, but there are enough people that think at least some of it is real to the point that an FAQ on the IMDb page is "Does this film feature real video footage?" This is similar to what happened with films like Cannibal Holocaust and The Blair Witch Project, but what makes it doubly infuriating now is that we have instant access to the truth. With films in the past, it was harder to confirm if a story was made up or not.

So what, right? Some idiots believe in scary movies because it adds a level of enjoyment to their experience. That's fine, but, unfortunately, that same line of thinking is applied to films that are actually based on true stories. And that is a problem because too many of these people will just accept what they see as fact and not investigate it further. Now, the FAQ at IMDb is evidence that people wanted to know for sure, and that's a good sign, but people are probably more likely to take a historical film's word for it over a horror film. We know (at least subconsciously for the dumber folks) that scary movies are trying to mess with us. The "Based on a true story" message is akin to a jump scare. It might get people at first, but a little thought will dismiss it as just another scare tactic. 

Special thanks to the San Diego PD for releasing this evidence of demonic possession and murder.

If a historical film claims to be based on a true story, we don't see that as a scare tactic; we see it as a badge of authenticity. We're about to watch a historical document. Of course, this is wrong. How could any narrative film tell a 100% true story in a standard two hour running time? A lot of people do not realize that, though. When they see American Sniper (a movie I liked, by the way), some will come away thinking there really was a rival sniper that Chris Kyle came across, and there really was a man called "The Butcher" that he and his team were tasked with stopping. While there are elements of truth to these aspects, they are largely fictionalized to make a more traditional story for the audience. Alterations like that are likely to be taken as fact by some of the audience. Changes like, say, (SPOILER) killing Hitler in Inglourious Basterds, are blatant enough that the audience knows it's fictional. 

Tarantino's films don't claim to be true stories, of course, but even if they did, the audience for a film like that knows what to expect. Audiences for "legitimate" historical films expect the truth, even though they shouldn't. There's not much that can be done for this, but I think an attempt should be made to remind the audience that a film is not the whole story. This has been attempted before. For instance, with Oliver Stone's Nixon, that film began with a disclaimed stating that the film was partially based on an "incomplete historical record." Sure, this is more of a dig at Nixon regarding the missing Watergate tapes, but it's something we should consider for all "true stories" today. Just put something at the beginning reminding people: "The following film is a slightly fictionalized account of a true part of history. For the entire story, you should do some research and reading." I'm sure there's a better way to word it, but the gist is that people shouldn't take movies as fact. With this warning, maybe people would stop overreacting to films like Selma and American Sniper. 

I'm sure the real Nixon would have loved 19 minutes of silence instead of the
speculation Stone created, but that would have been much less interesting.

Studios aren't very likely to add any new disclaimers, though, because admitting that changes were made makes a movie appear less substantial. When a horror movie claims to be true, it's for the scares; when a historical film claims to be true, it's for the Oscar. Who can blame the studios? Look at this year's nominees: American Sniper (Picture, Actor), Selma (Picture), The Imitation Game (Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actress), Foxcatcher (Actor, Supporting Actor, Director [but not Picture for some odd reason]), The Theory of Everything (Picture, Actor, Actress), Wild (Actress, Supporting Actress), not to mention awards-hopefuls like Unbroken and Mr. Turner that came away with a few lesser nominations. 

The Academy Awards are not really all that important aside from the fact that they add prestige to these movies. That's when people get up in arms. "You mean to tell me that the Academy means to reward Selma's inaccurate and unfair depiction of President Lyndon Johnson?!" As if being nominated for an award retroactively changed how the film was written and made. When a movie is presented as awards-worthy, people like to assign responsibility to it. Films start getting labelled as "reckless" and "dangerous." It's all hyperbole, of course (as if it is truly dangerous for a junior high student to come away from Selma with a slightly negative opinion of LBJ), but it's something to consider. There is a middle-ground to this debate. Films should not purport to be based on true stories if they plan on making intentional changes. Filmgoers, likewise, need to realize that movies are not 100% true. The main point needs to be that these films should be judged on their merits as films and not necessarily on accuracy. It's time for us to put some responsibility on the viewer, which is why my proposed disclaimer encourages the viewer to do some research. Odds are a lot of people would not take that advice. Researching is boring, tedious work. I suggest that for those audience members unwilling to take the time to look up factual information we come to this conclusion: screw 'em. 

Honestly, who cares what an ignorant person thinks? If someone comes away from American Sniper believing that the Iraq War was a direct response to 9/11, then it is likely that that person was stupid before they watched the film, not after. Why worry about people who don't care enough about something to look into it for themselves, especially when there are websites that do all the work for them? Well, maybe we should worry about an uninformed public, but Hollywood and the Academy Awards is not the place to start. Not to get too political or anything, but if we're worried about the knowledge of our citizens shouldn't we be focusing on our education system instead of Hollywood? It seems like any outrage over historical accuracy in film is meant more to distract us from real issues than it is to deal with any so-called problems created by the films.

If anything, I think movies sometimes adhere too closely to the true story. It's far more interesting when a film like Walker (the criminally underseen Alex Cox film) inserts cars and other anachronistic elements into a film set in the 1850s, especially when it's done to service the theme connecting it to (then) modern issues. Or take JFK, a film that should be seen more as a visual essay of conspiracy theories about the assassination rather than a historical document. I watched that film as a teenager and came away wanting to do research about the subject. It inspired me to know more about it. I didn't just assume that the film was everything. The most important thing about these two examples is that I found them to be endlessly entertaining. They were, in my opinion, good movies. It's fine to fault a film for being boring, silly, poorly made, etc. But to bash it because they took liberties to create a potentially more interesting experience? That seems lazy, especially when anyone truly interested will find out the truth on their own. As for everyone else, let them be scared and amazed by that "Based on a true story" claim. As for the rest of us, we'll just enjoy the movie.

"The Lovely Bones" / Mini Reviews: "Pandorum" / "The Room" / "Outland" / "Zardoz" / "In the Loop" / "Orphan" / "Walker"

The Lovely Bones - Directed by Peter Jackson, starring Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, and Stanley Tucci - Rated PG-13

The film has its moments, but overall it's a bit weak, like Commodus.

The Lovely Bones, Peter Jackson’s latest, is all over the place but when it’s focused, the film is very effective. The problem, for me, was that the weak moments overshadowed the strong.

The film takes place in Pennsylvania in the early 1970’s. Susie Salmon is a regular 14-year old girl who gets murdered by a creepy neighbor and then spends time in the “in between,” watching over her family as they deal with her death. The problem I had with the film is that she seems to only be watching. While the film pretends she has some influence in the living world, all it really amounts to is her voice breaking through on occasion (save for one nearly pointless moment at the end). So it’s kind of like Ghost, except Susie never learns how to be useful after her death. The film tries to make it seem like she is influencing events, though. Susie says in narration that she has “willed” things to happen, but I don’t buy it. The events she thinks she influences are completely believable without Susie’s involvement, so what is she really doing?

The film’s stronger moments take place in the living world where her father (Mark Wahlberg) is trying to track down the killer. I can’t take Wahlberg seriously after the “Saturday Night Live” sketch about him and his performance in The Happening, but his storyline intrigued me the most. Saosirse Ronan is great as Susie, though. She definitely creates sympathy for her character. Ronan exudes such innocence before her death that you’ll get a true sense of hate for her murderer. That’s not to say that Stanley Tucci, as the murderer, needs any help in creating hatred. He absolutely embodies creepiness and his portrayal is one of the most unsettling performances in recent memory. I would go so far as to say that Tucci alone makes this film worth watching.

It’s a shame that the unsympathetic character is given the most development, though. The mother and father get their angry/crying scenes, but Susie’s dad almost instantly goes into obsessed mode while the mother just leaves. I normally wouldn’t suggest this, but this film needed a better misery scene. The biggest mistake in the character department, however, rests with Susan Sarandon as Susie’s wacky grandma. Now, this is a movie about the murder of a child, yet the filmmakers felt that they should add a montage of Sarandon acting goofy. Watch as grandma messes up the laundry, sets the kitchen on fire, drinks too much, and always smokes! Hilarious, right? Completely out of place is more like it. I felt like I was watching a different movie in that moment.

Scenes like that led me to believe that the screenwriters tried too hard to please fans of the book. I have never read the bestseller that this film is based on, but the out of place moments of this film must be better handled in the book. Maybe that’s not the case, but even if I had gone into this movie with no prior knowledge, I would’ve known that it was an adaptation after that montage.

As I mentioned earlier, though, this film does have strong aspects. The scenes involving Tucci were full of tension and they truly made me feel uncomfortable. The visuals are impressive at times, though I was actually expecting them to be a bit better since it was Peter Jackson. Regardless, some images stuck with me, like the giant bottled ships crashing into rocks. And speaking of Jackson, his cameo (a not so subtle shot of him looking through a camera) and references were an amusing touch.

Peter Jackson is a proven director, but he really needs to trim the fat off of his films. I’ve had issues with his films since the multiple endings of The Return of the King and then the bloated King Kong remake. This film isn’t extremely long or anything, but plenty of it could have been cut to tighten the focus. For starters, Jackson could have cut the Sarandon character completely. I believe other characters, like Susie’s sister, could’ve have been cut down as well.

I wanted to see a movie that was only about a father and his daughter and how they both deal with her death. Instead, I got an unfocused film that seemed to randomly focus on different characters. If the filmmakers could’ve seen the strong aspects of The Lovely Bones during production, maybe the film would have turned out better. As it is, the film is mediocre and worth a rental at best.

Mini Reviews

Pandorum - Directed by Christian Alvart, starring Ben Foster, Dennis Quaid, and Antje Traue - Rated R

If you've been reading my reviews at all, then you know I have a soft spot for sci-fi, which is why I'm willing to forgive Pandorum its few transgressions (too dark early in the film, creatures seem like rip offs of the Reavers from "Firefly"/Serenity, etc.) and recommend it as a totally decent horror sci-fi film. It helps that it stars Ben Foster, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors and is hardcore sci-fi. By that I mean that it takes place hundreds of years in the future and the entire movie takes place on a spaceship. The action isn't half bad, either. A little frenetic at times, but it does have an interesting look to it. If any of the above sounds good, do yourself a favor and give it a rent.

The Room - Written and directed by Tommy Wiseau, starring Tommy Wiseau, Juliette Danielle, and Greg Sistero - Rated R (2003)

The Room is not to be taken seriously. This is the film that became famous for its midnight showings (of which multiple celebrities are known to attend) in which fans yell at the screen and throw plastic spoons (because of the framed artwork of cutlery in the film). Simply put, it's one of the worst movies ever made, which makes it extremely enjoyable (kind of like the new The Wicker Man). Characters seem to completely change from scene to scene. There are multiple lengthy, strange sex scenes. For some reason, the characters play what they call "football" at random times (once while wearing tuxedos). Wiseau himself delivers his dialogue in such a strange way you can't help but laugh. I could go on and on, but I suggest you just watch it yourself and enjoy the awfulness.

Outland - Written and directed by Peter Hyams, starring Sean Connery and Peter Boyle - Rated R (1981)

This is the first of two Sean Connery films that I watched only because of references to other films. In this case, the reference was in Moon. Outland is about a mining colony on a moon of Jupiter that is experiencing a surge of violent deaths. Sean Connery is the new head of security and he has to face off with the general manager of the mine, Peter Boyle. This is one of those films that I probably would have loved if I had seen it when it first came out, but I've seen so many better sci-fi films that came out after this. And Outland just isn't all that memorable. It has its moments, though. It's fun to watch Connery and Boyle square off and the plot was interesting. If you like sci-fi, I'd recommend checking it out on Netflix streaming, it's probably not worth wasting a disc rental on, though.

Zardoz - Written and directed by John Boorman, starring Sean Connery, John Alderton, and Charlotte Rampling - Rated R (1974)

Part two of my Connery reference twin bill, Zardoz was compared to The Book of Eli in an amusing io9.com article, so I had to check out this post-apocalyptic/sci-fi/crazy film. This film is just plain wacky. If you need proof, just check out a picture of Sean Connery in costume for this one. He looks ridiculous, but that's in keeping with this foolish film. Apparently this film is a cult classic, but I didn't even get that kind of enjoyment out of it. So maybe it's for you, but if you haven't seen it yet, don't make a point to, unless you're just that curious about why Sean Connery would wear such a ridiculous getup.

In the Loop - Written (partially) and directed by Armando Ianucci, starring Tom Hollander, James Gandolfini, and Peter Capaldi - Rated R

In the Loop is the hilarious satire of a joint British-American buildup to war in an unnamed middle eastern country. War in the middle east isn't exactly the funniest topic out there, so this film focuses on how ridiculous the political world is. If you've heard anything about this movie, you've probably heard about Peter Capaldi's hilarious turn as Malcolm Tucker. There's nothing I can write that will add to the mountain of praise he has already received, so I'll just let you know that everything you've heard/read is absolutely correct. In the Loop is definitely one of the funniest films of 2009 and it's one of those great, rapid-fire comedies that you need to watch two or three times to catch all of the jokes. Definitely check this one out. At worst, you'll only find Capaldi to be funny.

Orphan - Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra, starring Vera Farmiga, Peter Sarsgaard, and Isabelle Fuhrman - Rated R

This movie isn't bad or anything, it's just that I am sick of the "evil child" movies. And this one doesn't offer anything groundbreaking. To be honest, I prefer Vera Famiga's other evil kid movie, 2007's Joshua. It's a bit strange that she has made two movies like this in a span of three years. If you like this type of movie, I honestly suggest checking out Joshua instead of Orphan. I will say this for Orphan, though; Isabelle Fuhrman plays evil quite well. Oh, and Peter Sarsgaard is in this and that always helps, though I wish he would start taking some more interesting roles.

Walker - Directed by Alex Cox, starring Ed Harris, Sy Richardson, Xander Berkeley, Marlee Matlin, and Peter Boyle - Rated R (1987)

This film, from the director of Repo Man and Sid and Nancy (two films that I thought were interesting, but didn't like as much as everyone else), is quite weird. From the opening scene set to Joe Strummer's interesting and original score, you know you're in for something quite different from a regular biopic. The movie, made during the Sandinista/Contra ordeal in Nicauragua has a few intentional anachronisms that seem to point out that the movie is about William Walker, but it's also about the (then) current situation. I watched it because the history sounded so interesting. William Walker (an excellent Ed Harris) was an American filibuster who went to Nicauragua for Cornelius Vanderbilt (Peter Boyle) and ended up declaring himself president in 1856. That much is true, and extremely interesting, at that. I imagine weirder parts of the movie might put off some viewers, though. But if you're looking for a cautionary tale about Manifest Destiny, an indictment of U.S. involvement in the Sandinista/Contra situation, and/or a great performance from Ed Harris then, by all means, check out Walker. Or maybe you're like me and you'll want to watch it again just for Strummer's score and the rest of the film is a bonus.