Based on the incredible and inspiring true story . . . so what?

Charles: What if you interviewed your mom about what her dreams were about, and then you hired actors to act them out? . . .  that might show your thesis more clearly. 

Amy: I mean it might, but then it wouldn't be a documentary. 

Charles: How would it not be a documentary? It's still about your mother. 

-her (2013)

In Fargo (1996), filmmakers, Joel and Ethan Coen, begin by telling the audience their film is based on a true story. Other than the name changes, they say, “the rest has been told exactly as it occurred.” This is odd for the following reasons: First, the story is mostly fiction. Second, the Coens obviously were not present at every moment of the said actual event. It is obvious the Coens are making fun of the based-on-a true-story (BTS) property of certain films.

‘Realistic’ is concocted in the marketing scheme of certain films—this occurred with Lone Survivor (2014). People enjoyed the fact that the actual participant was at the helm of the story—but to be completely realistic and faithful to the true story bores audiences, given the unpopularity of realism films. One might even wonder why a film has to promote itself as a true story.

You might see an over-emphasis of the BTS in film commercials and trailers, such as ‘the incredible true story’ or ‘the inspiring true story’, or a de-emphasis of it, such as ‘inspired by true events’. It’s easy to see from the over-emphasis that there really is some bite to advertising a film this way: audiences see a film they believe is inspiring because of its foundation in truth, and a fiction story less so. How can a film help get you through the struggles of everyday life if it is not founded on some truthiness? Sure, any fiction-based character can overcome the struggles presented to them, but Johnny Cash? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.? Stephen Hawking? They make it seem possible, and only then provide the motivation and interest to the viewer.

Documentaries have the most bases in truth as nonfiction films. Even still the truthiness per documentary varies, as artistic intention distorts truth. One might say the truest documentary was the Zapruder film, which shows the actual assassination of President John F. Kennedy. But, to what extent does a BTS film bring to the table what a documentary wouldn’t? That is if the foundation in truth is the mark of an inspiring and marketable film.

The Coen brothers draw attention to the absurdity of how one would know every moment, conversation, setting, or thought process to make a story true. Was the car to the left or to the right of the street? How was the weather? Clothing? Etc. The BTS is clearly a superficial attribute, the foundation that it rests on murky—i.e. not meant to be taken the way the Coens mock it, but more of a marketing ploy. The expressions 'based on' and 'inspired' provide filmmakers with artistic leeway (think of horror movies, like The Conjuring (2013)). The Theory of Everything (2014) is based on the book written by Stephen’s ex-wife Jane, who purports to truth. By the transitive property the film also purports to truth. Better said, it’s truthy because the film shows scenes where Jane simply was not present, e.g. when Stephen wakes up in the hospital, again leeway on behalf of the filmmakers. Similarly, take the shot in  Lone Survivor where the soldiers jump off the edge of a rock. The shot is not from the perspective of Marcus Lutrell, whose testimony was used to verify the story. Is this action shot one that actually happened at the scene of the battle, or one meant to intensify the action?

But at the same time, while it seems clear that the BTS is meant to stand superficially, some audiences are pricked when a film possessing this attribute is factually inaccurate. A good example is of the recent Selma (2014). President Lyndon Johnson’s assistant, Joseph A. Califano Jr., wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post expressing his problem with the film. The film portrays President Johnson harshly in the way that it seems, throughout, Dr. King is constantly pestering and annoying President Johnson to take seriously the racial injustices at hand. According to Mr. Califano, both the President and Dr. King were partners in the event. A film possessing the BTS should be factually accurate. Right? If not to present the event at Selma, Alabama and Dr. King in a way that is unique to the filmmaker, wouldn’t a historical text be better suited, or a documentary free from artistic intention, such as the Zapruder film? So, here is the tension amongst audiences. If a film doesn’t mirror the fact that p, then somehow it loses its bite to inspire or motivate, and discredits the living or the dead.

Mr. Califano does not realize biopics are filled with inaccuracies brought on by filmmaking techniques: score, writing, lighting, colors, mise en scene, and editing, etc. He notes, as he feels, the facts were not checked for the possible expense of “a better story.” In biopics, obviously, a script is adapted, and the dialogue is never exact to how it was. For instance, in Moneyball (2011), there was a ton of made-up dialogue. Pete (Jonah Hill) didn't actually exist; he was invented at the expense of a better story, discrediting the living Billy Beane. In addition, it's hard to believe that second baseman, Mark Ellis, was not as crucial to the A's' success as Chad Bradford (Casey Bond), Scott Hatteberg (Chris Pratt), and David Justice (Stephen Bishop). The film's focus is on these three players, again, at the expense of a better story. A film's score or song indicates the filmmaker’s or composer’s impression on that given shot or scene. And, of course deciding what to leave out of the film changes a film’s interpretation. There could have been many ways to depict an event, each filmmaker presenting a unique style (the upcoming Danny Boyle film about Steve Jobs will not be like JOBS (2013)).

While manipulations, like score and edits, take away from the BTS property, audiences wouldn’t dare watch a movie without them. The realist films have yet to find gold. A realist film like Police, Adjective (2009) is a slow burner, as suggested by the long takes: A character will be doing an ordinary task, like eating for some time. It doesn’t help that there is no score, no music to guide the audiences attention, showing them how to feel. The point here is that realism is something not sought in popular films, which includes many good and bad BTS films—despite the interest point being their basis in truth.

Here is the funny result of BTS films: there are film interests in stories that are true, but these interests remain undeterred, given audiences desire films completely true and non-artistic, but unrealistic and artistic. The attitude of BTS films results from the kinds of audiences. BTS films benefit audiences with little knowledge on the subject matter. Audiences with little knowledge might say, “What inspiration I have received from knowing more about X”, and “What a great story”, ‘great’ coming from the film’s truth.  Audiences with expert knowledge on the material MIGHT be more particular with their attitude, like Mr. Califano who reports to first hand experience to knock Selma as a good film.

Nevertheless, the way I see BTS films is similar to the way I view adapting a play or book into a film. Usually the filmmaker or screenwriter takes inspiration of a given part of the event or book (sometimes both). Mark Zuckerberg might take offense to his depiction in The Social Network (2010), understandably. I wouldn’t be surprised if audiences view him as an “asshole” because of the film. Still, to give that film a bad rating on the basis of its supposed poor depiction of Mr. Zuckerberg would be unfair. And while the film is adapted from the non-fiction book The Accidental Billionaires, one can only imagine the exaggeration (whatever the intensity) on Mark’s depiction. One aspect that makes the film as enticing as it is is the editing. Who’s telling the truth? Who’s exaggerating? What we get at the end is not the feeling and satisfaction that we saw something as it really happened—i.e. something realistic and true—but the decay of a friendship as a result of selfishness, and hurt feelings. The film’s structure works for this emotional effect. 

I close by quoting Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men (2007)), ". . . true story? I couldn't swore to every detail, but it certainly is true it is a story."