HOWLING film poster REC 3 film poster THE GREAT MAGICIAN film poster ELECTRICK CHILDREN film poster NUIT BLANCHE film poster

2012 Movies #32-36 - Howling, REC 3, The Great Magician, Electrick Children, Sleepless Night

For the last few days I’ve been in Berlin attending the European Film Market. For people who haven’t attended a film market, it’s an industry convention for international film companies. There are booths and offices where foreign sales companies, national film commissions, and various other entities pitch their product or services to distribution companies and film producers. The three largest film markets are Le Marché du Film (during the Cannes FIlm Festival), the American Film Market, and the European Film Market.

The majority of activity at a film market involves “pre-sales” which refer to licensing distribution rights for a film that hasn’t been made yet and “post-sales” which refer to licensing distribution rights for completed films. For companies to see the finished films, film markets have a series of screenings that’s a bit like a film festival just for film executives. So a foreign distributor will go see a new finished film at a market screening, and then contact the foreign sales company to make an offer. The foreign sales companies also screen promo-reels or have other materials for the films that are in “pre-sales.”

For me, film markets are a great way to catch up with my international film industry colleagues, and to attend market screenings so I can see films early and to educate myself on upcoming foreign filmmakers.

I saw ACE ATTORNEY and WRONG at EFM, but I realized that I probably shouldn’t be blogging my thoughts on what I see at EFM, as these are all films that are currently in the marketplace looking for distribution. Unfortunately I didn’t think about this until after I had already written about ACE ATTORNEY and WRONG, but I decided to just give a simple list of other films I saw at EFM in 2012.

2012 Movie #31 - Ace Attorney (2012) Under all the wackadoodle aesthetic and tonal choices (I assume, mostly imported from the original video games and manga) is a solid narrative about an escalating series of interrelated court cases full of mostly interesting peripeteia. Unfortunately, the style and tone ruined any chance of me becoming involved in the story, or even understanding the story most of the time. What I’ll Take Away: Ryo Ishibashi can bring gravitas and immediacy to any role. High-res

2012 Movie #31 - Ace Attorney (2012)

Under all the wackadoodle aesthetic and tonal choices (I assume, mostly imported from the original video games and manga) is a solid narrative about an escalating series of interrelated court cases full of mostly interesting peripeteia. Unfortunately, the style and tone ruined any chance of me becoming involved in the story, or even understanding the story most of the time.

What I’ll Take Away: Ryo Ishibashi can bring gravitas and immediacy to any role.

2012 Movie #30 - Wrong (2012) I am definitely a traditionalist when it comes to narrative filmmaking, but even I was often charmed and won-over by the surreal storytelling present in WRONG. I found the film at its most successful when it managed to satisfy the emotional and dramatic beats of a traditional narrative in ways totally non-traditional. This is especially true of the first 15 minutes, but when it verged off beyond that style I started to lose interest. That said, I suspect for someone with more anti-traditionalist tastes than me, the film is vastly more enjoyable. What I’ll Take Away: It’s definitely worth watching a film like WRONG as an exercise in separating the power of form and content. High-res

2012 Movie #30 - Wrong (2012)

I am definitely a traditionalist when it comes to narrative filmmaking, but even I was often charmed and won-over by the surreal storytelling present in WRONG. I found the film at its most successful when it managed to satisfy the emotional and dramatic beats of a traditional narrative in ways totally non-traditional. This is especially true of the first 15 minutes, but when it verged off beyond that style I started to lose interest. That said, I suspect for someone with more anti-traditionalist tastes than me, the film is vastly more enjoyable.

What I’ll Take Away: It’s definitely worth watching a film like WRONG as an exercise in separating the power of form and content.

2012 Movie #29 - To Catch A Thief (1955) By far the best aspect of this film was the sense of fun and glamour achieved by actually shooting big segments of the film in the South of France. Looking back on the film with modern eyes, it’s clear that the real location photography is far more compelling than the faked studio segments. Although, this is a problem I have with a lot of films from this era. What’s I’ll take away: Shooting a fun sexy movie in the summer in the South of France is an incredible idea that I should steal. High-res

2012 Movie #29 - To Catch A Thief (1955)

By far the best aspect of this film was the sense of fun and glamour achieved by actually shooting big segments of the film in the South of France. Looking back on the film with modern eyes, it’s clear that the real location photography is far more compelling than the faked studio segments. Although, this is a problem I have with a lot of films from this era.

What’s I’ll take away: Shooting a fun sexy movie in the summer in the South of France is an incredible idea that I should steal.

2012 Movie #28 - Chronicle (2012) So, that’s a found-footage superhero movie. What I’ll take away: Perhaps it’s a generational thing, but I just don’t get the appeal of forcing a found-footage aesthetic onto a story that doesn’t fit it. It just results in distracting narrative gymnastics trying to justify the incorporation of cameras into every scene, often with the side effect of the shot not capturing the key story and emotional beats of a scene. That said, I thought the three lead actors were all fantastic. High-res

2012 Movie #28 - Chronicle (2012)

So, that’s a found-footage superhero movie.

What I’ll take away: Perhaps it’s a generational thing, but I just don’t get the appeal of forcing a found-footage aesthetic onto a story that doesn’t fit it. It just results in distracting narrative gymnastics trying to justify the incorporation of cameras into every scene, often with the side effect of the shot not capturing the key story and emotional beats of a scene. That said, I thought the three lead actors were all fantastic.

2012 Movie #27 - Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012) Journey 2 is vastly superior to the first film, but unfortunately that’s not saying much. Clearly the go-to method for breathing life into a tired franchise is casting The Rock, and I can’t argue with the results. He revitalized the Fast and Furious franchise with Fast Five, he’s done it here with Journey 2, and I suspect he’ll do the same with GI Joe: Retaliation. The film suffers from a bad case of stuff-happening syndrome, never really engaging the audience with the story or characters. The highlights are when the plot takes a break, and we’re left with The Rock and Luis Guzmán bringing their fun charisma to the screen. What I’ll take away: the lovable confidence of The Rock and lovable worry of Luis Guzmán make them ideal casting for a buddy comedy. I would love to see a buddy-cop movie with The Rock and Luis Guzmán. High-res

2012 Movie #27 - Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012)

Journey 2 is vastly superior to the first film, but unfortunately that’s not saying much. Clearly the go-to method for breathing life into a tired franchise is casting The Rock, and I can’t argue with the results. He revitalized the Fast and Furious franchise with Fast Five, he’s done it here with Journey 2, and I suspect he’ll do the same with GI Joe: Retaliation.

The film suffers from a bad case of stuff-happening syndrome, never really engaging the audience with the story or characters. The highlights are when the plot takes a break, and we’re left with The Rock and Luis Guzmán bringing their fun charisma to the screen.

What I’ll take away: the lovable confidence of The Rock and lovable worry of Luis Guzmán make them ideal casting for a buddy comedy. I would love to see a buddy-cop movie with The Rock and Luis Guzmán.

2012 Movie #26 - Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) After the pleasant surprise of the first Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes film, I was looking forward to the next film in the franchise. The high points continue to be the chemistry between Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law and moments of visual brilliance. Unfortunately the movie quickly devolves into “stuff happening” for the majority of its run-time, as the many visual flourishes often distract from the key information and character beats needed to engage in the story. It’s dangerous to focus so heavily on style over story with a film like this, as it’s easy to lose the audience involvement when you rely so heavily on unseen mysterious machinations to drive the plot. What I’ll take away: slow-motion is a dangerous thing. If you use it well, it can be thrilling and beautiful. If you use it poorly, it can distance the audience, ruin the storytelling pace, and lose focus on the important elements of a scene. High-res

2012 Movie #26 - Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

After the pleasant surprise of the first Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes film, I was looking forward to the next film in the franchise. The high points continue to be the chemistry between Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law and moments of visual brilliance. Unfortunately the movie quickly devolves into “stuff happening” for the majority of its run-time, as the many visual flourishes often distract from the key information and character beats needed to engage in the story. It’s dangerous to focus so heavily on style over story with a film like this, as it’s easy to lose the audience involvement when you rely so heavily on unseen mysterious machinations to drive the plot.

What I’ll take away: slow-motion is a dangerous thing. If you use it well, it can be thrilling and beautiful. If you use it poorly, it can distance the audience, ruin the storytelling pace, and lose focus on the important elements of a scene.

2012 Movie #25 - Roman Holiday (1953) I love this movie. I’ve seen it a few times before, but I’m always amazed by how a well made movie based on a simple concept and perfect cast can be so incredible. Audrey Hepburn is unbelievably good in the film. For me, this is the definition of a movie-star performance for an actress like Hepburn. Her acting is fantastic, but beyond that it’s the fresh open joy and discovery that you can read on her face. That goes beyond acting ability and into pure movie star territory. What I’ll take away: The scene at the Bocca della Verità is one of my favorite scenes of all time. It manages to create a focal point for every element of the film, and create a scene that perfectly embraces the power of cinema. The Bocca della Verità (the “Mouth of Truth,” image below) is a large round sculpture in Rome of a large face with an open hole for a mouth. Gregory Peck’s character (Joe) tells Audrey Hepburn’s character (Ann) the legend of the statue. That if someone is lying while they have their hand in the statue’s mouth, the hand will be bitten off. Joe then encourages Ann to put her hand in the mouth. Of course, Ann won’t do this because she’s lying to Joe about her identity (pretending not to be a princess), and of course Ann doesn’t know that Joe knows this already, which is probably why Joe brought her here and put her in this situation. It heightens the scene for the audience who is already aware of Ann pretending to not be a princess, and Joe’s knowledge of this. Ann edges towards putting her hand in the hole, but is too afraid, pulling back her hand just before the edge. She turns the tables, asking Joe to do it instead. Now we know that Joe is lying to Ann about his identity, but Ann doesn’t realize this. She thinks that she’s innocently asking Joe to put his hand in the hole. This makes the table-turning even funnier, as we see Ann unintentionally put Joe in an awkward situation. So the audience is gleefully juggling the inter-dynamics of the character relationships, what the characters know about each other, and what lies they’re telling to each other. And the film creates a natural situation that fulfills both the exotic travel possibilities of the premise and the central character dynamic that drives the engine of the film. Of course, Joe puts his hand in the mouth. And he pretends it’s bitten off. Causing a jump for Ann and for the audience, as for a moment we think that perhaps the myth of the statue is real! He removes his arm from the mouth, and his hand is gone! But he quickly reveals the hand up his sleeve. The scene has a short fright of horror, and then a quick laugh release and bonding between the two characters after the innocent joke is revealed. The true mastery of this scene is in how expertly it plays with the interplay of audience knowledge about the situation and the characters. Almost line to line we jump forwards and backwards in our knowledge of the situation between the characters. It’s done so well that during the scene the audience feels like an invisible third character in the film. And it does all this while providing us with a scene that advances the plot, the character arcs, and the marketing hook of visiting an exotic location with two beautiful movie stars. It even has a quick jump-scare! So, yeah, ROMAN HOLIDAY is a good movie. High-res

2012 Movie #25 - Roman Holiday (1953)

I love this movie. I’ve seen it a few times before, but I’m always amazed by how a well made movie based on a simple concept and perfect cast can be so incredible. Audrey Hepburn is unbelievably good in the film. For me, this is the definition of a movie-star performance for an actress like Hepburn. Her acting is fantastic, but beyond that it’s the fresh open joy and discovery that you can read on her face. That goes beyond acting ability and into pure movie star territory.

What I’ll take away: The scene at the Bocca della Verità is one of my favorite scenes of all time. It manages to create a focal point for every element of the film, and create a scene that perfectly embraces the power of cinema. The Bocca della Verità (the “Mouth of Truth,” image below) is a large round sculpture in Rome of a large face with an open hole for a mouth. Gregory Peck’s character (Joe) tells Audrey Hepburn’s character (Ann) the legend of the statue. That if someone is lying while they have their hand in the statue’s mouth, the hand will be bitten off. Joe then encourages Ann to put her hand in the mouth. Of course, Ann won’t do this because she’s lying to Joe about her identity (pretending not to be a princess), and of course Ann doesn’t know that Joe knows this already, which is probably why Joe brought her here and put her in this situation. It heightens the scene for the audience who is already aware of Ann pretending to not be a princess, and Joe’s knowledge of this. Ann edges towards putting her hand in the hole, but is too afraid, pulling back her hand just before the edge. She turns the tables, asking Joe to do it instead. Now we know that Joe is lying to Ann about his identity, but Ann doesn’t realize this. She thinks that she’s innocently asking Joe to put his hand in the hole. This makes the table-turning even funnier, as we see Ann unintentionally put Joe in an awkward situation.

So the audience is gleefully juggling the inter-dynamics of the character relationships, what the characters know about each other, and what lies they’re telling to each other. And the film creates a natural situation that fulfills both the exotic travel possibilities of the premise and the central character dynamic that drives the engine of the film.

Of course, Joe puts his hand in the mouth. And he pretends it’s bitten off. Causing a jump for Ann and for the audience, as for a moment we think that perhaps the myth of the statue is real! He removes his arm from the mouth, and his hand is gone! But he quickly reveals the hand up his sleeve. The scene has a short fright of horror, and then a quick laugh release and bonding between the two characters after the innocent joke is revealed.

The true mastery of this scene is in how expertly it plays with the interplay of audience knowledge about the situation and the characters. Almost line to line we jump forwards and backwards in our knowledge of the situation between the characters. It’s done so well that during the scene the audience feels like an invisible third character in the film. And it does all this while providing us with a scene that advances the plot, the character arcs, and the marketing hook of visiting an exotic location with two beautiful movie stars. It even has a quick jump-scare!

So, yeah, ROMAN HOLIDAY is a good movie.

The Mouth of Truth

2012 Movie #24 - Haywire (2011) Things that I liked about HAYWIRE. Bill Paxton. The deer smashing through the rear view window during a car chase. That one pretty exterior establishing shot of Bill Paxton’s character’s house. What I’ll take away: I need to remember to cast Bill Paxton in something, he makes sure every moment he’s on screen is interesting. High-res

2012 Movie #24 - Haywire (2011)

Things that I liked about HAYWIRE.

  1. Bill Paxton.
  2. The deer smashing through the rear view window during a car chase.
  3. That one pretty exterior establishing shot of Bill Paxton’s character’s house.

What I’ll take away: I need to remember to cast Bill Paxton in something, he makes sure every moment he’s on screen is interesting.

2012 Movie #23 - Margin Call (2011) I continue my trend of always liking Stanley Tucci. The costume designer (Caroline Duncan) did a great job of having all the characters in suits, yet still figuring out ways to differentiate their looks and to get across their relative success and position within the company. What I’ll take away: You can get a lot of mileage out of good actors and compelling current subject matter. High-res

2012 Movie #23 - Margin Call (2011)

I continue my trend of always liking Stanley Tucci. The costume designer (Caroline Duncan) did a great job of having all the characters in suits, yet still figuring out ways to differentiate their looks and to get across their relative success and position within the company.

What I’ll take away: You can get a lot of mileage out of good actors and compelling current subject matter.

2012 Movie #22 - Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) For my first viewing of the film in over 12 years, I was lucky enough to watch it in 35mm at the BFI in London. On second viewing, I’m less enamored with the Elliot (Michael Caine) and Lee (Barbara Hershey) storyline, but hugely charmed by the journeys of Hannah (Mia Farrow), Holly (Dianne Wiest), and Mickey (Woody Allen). The film features some of Woody’s best work as a dramatist, with impeccable scene and sequence construction. This is exemplified by the restaurant scene with the three sisters. The construction of this scene is simply incredible, with the dialog showing both clarity and subtlety, an unfortunately rare combination. Each sister has something they want to get out of the scene, and despite all of them having the best intentions towards each other, their goals are at odds. We see this in what the sisters are saying, and in what they are obviously struggling not to say. The scene serves to propel the narrative, give insight into character, shift the character arcs, and still remains highly compelling and entertaining. And it’s just three sisters talking at a table. Too many writers don’t understand the narrative point of a scene. Characters interact with each other to advance their personal goals, and we see a scene because the outcome of that interaction advances the narrative. If you don’t have a sense of character goals and you don’t have an interaction and you don’t have a resulting narrative drive… then it’s not a scene! Cut it from your script or figure out a way to turn it into a real scene. It’s astonishing how many films have scenes that serve no narrative or character purpose. This can be fine if the artistic point of the scene is to undermine traditional narrative expectations, or the filmmaker is seeking an alternative impact, but the problem is that you see it all the time in films that are ostensibly traditional narratives. If you don’t have a proper scene, it just becomes “stuff happening” which is the path to audience disinterest. What I’ll take away: Woody Allen sure knows how to write. High-res

2012 Movie #22 - Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)

For my first viewing of the film in over 12 years, I was lucky enough to watch it in 35mm at the BFI in London. On second viewing, I’m less enamored with the Elliot (Michael Caine) and Lee (Barbara Hershey) storyline, but hugely charmed by the journeys of Hannah (Mia Farrow), Holly (Dianne Wiest), and Mickey (Woody Allen).

The film features some of Woody’s best work as a dramatist, with impeccable scene and sequence construction. This is exemplified by the restaurant scene with the three sisters. The construction of this scene is simply incredible, with the dialog showing both clarity and subtlety, an unfortunately rare combination. Each sister has something they want to get out of the scene, and despite all of them having the best intentions towards each other, their goals are at odds. We see this in what the sisters are saying, and in what they are obviously struggling not to say. The scene serves to propel the narrative, give insight into character, shift the character arcs, and still remains highly compelling and entertaining. And it’s just three sisters talking at a table.

Too many writers don’t understand the narrative point of a scene. Characters interact with each other to advance their personal goals, and we see a scene because the outcome of that interaction advances the narrative. If you don’t have a sense of character goals and you don’t have an interaction and you don’t have a resulting narrative drive… then it’s not a scene! Cut it from your script or figure out a way to turn it into a real scene.

It’s astonishing how many films have scenes that serve no narrative or character purpose. This can be fine if the artistic point of the scene is to undermine traditional narrative expectations, or the filmmaker is seeking an alternative impact, but the problem is that you see it all the time in films that are ostensibly traditional narratives. If you don’t have a proper scene, it just becomes “stuff happening” which is the path to audience disinterest.

What I’ll take away: Woody Allen sure knows how to write.

2012 Movie #21 - Aliens (1986) Last night I watched ALIENS for the first time, even though I was convinced I had already seen the film as a kid. “How is this possible?” you ask. When I was a child, I wasn’t allowed to watch R-rated movies. I didn’t see my first R-rated movie until I was well into my mid-teens. But as a result of this ban, I used to do something very strange. I would see posters for R-rated films in the video store or movie theater, and then I would have dreams or day-dreams about what the movie was about. I would have an imaginary version of the movie in my head based on a poster or whatever friends told me about the film. This happened with a lot of horror films like A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and FRIDAY THE 13TH. And apparently it happened with ALIENS. The side effect of this is that as I grew older I would forget that I hadn’t actually seen the film. And the imaginary dream version of the film would become the real film in my mind. So every few years I have this experience where I watch an R-rated film for the first time that I’m convinced that I saw as a child (even though when I think about it logically, I realize there is no possible way I saw the film). This happened with A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, and I was hugely disappointed when I finally saw the real movie because my memories of the dream version were much scarier. However, after the first scene of ALIENS, I realized that my dream version of the film was vastly inferior to James Cameron’s masterpiece. I suspect I’m going to rewatch ALIENS a few times this year, so I won’t write too much in this first blog entry. But I will say this. ALIENS is without a doubt one of the best action films I have ever seen. What I’ll take away: I want more movies to look like ALIENS. High-res

2012 Movie #21 - Aliens (1986)

Last night I watched ALIENS for the first time, even though I was convinced I had already seen the film as a kid.

“How is this possible?” you ask.

When I was a child, I wasn’t allowed to watch R-rated movies. I didn’t see my first R-rated movie until I was well into my mid-teens. But as a result of this ban, I used to do something very strange. I would see posters for R-rated films in the video store or movie theater, and then I would have dreams or day-dreams about what the movie was about. I would have an imaginary version of the movie in my head based on a poster or whatever friends told me about the film. This happened with a lot of horror films like A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and FRIDAY THE 13TH. And apparently it happened with ALIENS.

The side effect of this is that as I grew older I would forget that I hadn’t actually seen the film. And the imaginary dream version of the film would become the real film in my mind. So every few years I have this experience where I watch an R-rated film for the first time that I’m convinced that I saw as a child (even though when I think about it logically, I realize there is no possible way I saw the film). This happened with A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, and I was hugely disappointed when I finally saw the real movie because my memories of the dream version were much scarier.

However, after the first scene of ALIENS, I realized that my dream version of the film was vastly inferior to James Cameron’s masterpiece. I suspect I’m going to rewatch ALIENS a few times this year, so I won’t write too much in this first blog entry. But I will say this. ALIENS is without a doubt one of the best action films I have ever seen.

What I’ll take away: I want more movies to look like ALIENS.

2012 Movie #20 - The Adventures of Tintin (2011) The single-shot chase through the streets of Bagghar is one of the most stunning single-shot sequences I’ve ever seen. This moment alone is worth the price of admission. The look of the film is beautiful throughout, with my biggest quibble being that I rarely felt a spark of life in any of the characters. This is a pretty consistent problem with human characters in motion-capture animated films, and there’s no need for me to beat a dead horse here. In essence, something is lost in the translation of human performance-capture into human CG characters. I feel like I’m watching a moving doll, and am unable to truly project human thought and emotion on that doll’s face. What I’ll take away: Steven Spielberg is still capable of designing incredible action sequences. High-res

2012 Movie #20 - The Adventures of Tintin (2011)

The single-shot chase through the streets of Bagghar is one of the most stunning single-shot sequences I’ve ever seen. This moment alone is worth the price of admission. The look of the film is beautiful throughout, with my biggest quibble being that I rarely felt a spark of life in any of the characters. This is a pretty consistent problem with human characters in motion-capture animated films, and there’s no need for me to beat a dead horse here. In essence, something is lost in the translation of human performance-capture into human CG characters. I feel like I’m watching a moving doll, and am unable to truly project human thought and emotion on that doll’s face.

What I’ll take away: Steven Spielberg is still capable of designing incredible action sequences.

2012 Movie #19 - Killer Elite (2011) I’m trying to keep the posts in my film 2012 series positive and instructive, so I will not talk much about the quality of this film. However, I will talk about the idea of “based on a true story” when it comes to narrative filmmaking. KILLER ELITE was released with “based on a true story” as part of its marketing campaign, and gives that clear message in the opening credits of the film. Many of the characters have the names of real people, including one of the characters being Ranulph Fiennes (yes, he’s related to Ralph Fiennes), the author of the book THE FEATHER MEN, which the film was based on. THE FEATHER MEN has alternately been marketed as fiction, non-fiction, and “faction.” In this interview at The Daily Beast, Ranulph Fiennes describes this decision as being relatively mercenary: The idea was to sell more books and at the time, the person who was going to put new books in the bookshop was told to put it in the “fiction” side of the shop or the “non-fiction” side of the shop, and at the time people only read one or the other, so if you put it on both sides of the shop you got both sets of book buyers. The book was originally published including real photographs of the characters in the books, and presented as if its contents could be based on a true story. Today, Fiennes says the book is a work of fiction, but the truth is muddied by the various ways the book has been marketed since its original publication in 1991. In my opinion, some incarnations of the book crossed the line in promoting the “non-fiction” elements of the story, rather than taking on the more responsible genre of “faction.” The film, on the other hand, clearly departs significantly from the plot of the book. It goes so far as to actually drastically change the storyline of Ranulph Fiennes’ character, who is the one person whose participation can be easily verified. Given this huge departure from the book, a source of already dubious veracity, it is clear that the filmmakers have no reasonable belief that they are actually creating a work “based on a true story.” The movie presents real deaths, war actions, and crimes performed by characters with real-world living counterparts, and it presents them under the guise of being “based on a true story.” This is despite the following statement from Fiennes: The publishers and literary agents have written to them and said it was quite clear that they shouldn’t have done that, and that they should change it to words like “inspired by” instead of “based on.” Maybe they’ll change it, but I don’t know. Personally, I find the presentation of this film as being “based on a true story” to be reprehensible. Here’s the weird thing… I have no problem with a work of fiction pretending to be real. I’m fine with it in the case of FARGO and I’m fine with it in the case of the many “found footage” horror films or mockumentaries. These are cases of presenting predominantly fictional characters and situation as being real. They are wholly fictional works being presented as “true” as part of their fiction. However, it’s totally irresponsible to do this once your characters are real people, especially real people who are still alive. I think it’s deeply unethical, and in many cases could considered to be illegal. I assume that the people who made the film feel they are adequately protected legally in their claim that the film is “based on a true story” but that doesn’t relieve them of their ethical obligation of not presenting real people as war criminals and then claiming they’re telling a “true story.” There are actually plenty of suitable alternatives to “based on a true story” that cover situations like this. Some obvious alternatives would be “inspired by a true story” or “inspired by true events” which both weaken the connection to reality. An even better alternative would have been just changing the names of the characters, so they aren’t directly claiming that real people committed unsubstantiated murders and war crimes. This should have been an obvious choice once they changed the story from what was presented in the original book. Of course, the most responsible choice would have been to just present the film as a work of fiction, but then you don’t get the “true story” marketing and publicity hook. The nature of film is that it has a power of becoming real to the viewer. We experience what the characters are going through as if we are going through those same situations. We feel their emotions and think as if we are in their shoes. There is a level of trust implicit in this; that we, the audience, are willing to let you, the filmmaker, control our experience for the next two hours because we trust you will treat that honor with the responsibility it deserves. We want to believe the things we are watching are real, and when you tell us that yes, we did actually watch something real, we take that information with us when we leave the theater. At the very least, we hope that if you are going to mess with the implicit contract between audience and filmmaker you are going to do it for a compelling artistic reason. Not just as a way to market your movie, with the side-effect of causing members of the audience to believe damaging lies about real people and real organizations long after leaving the theater. What I’ll take away: “based on a true story” can provide an interesting marketing hook for a film and can help draw an audience into a film, but should be used responsibly. High-res

2012 Movie #19 - Killer Elite (2011)

I’m trying to keep the posts in my film 2012 series positive and instructive, so I will not talk much about the quality of this film. However, I will talk about the idea of “based on a true story” when it comes to narrative filmmaking.

KILLER ELITE was released with “based on a true story” as part of its marketing campaign, and gives that clear message in the opening credits of the film. Many of the characters have the names of real people, including one of the characters being Ranulph Fiennes (yes, he’s related to Ralph Fiennes), the author of the book THE FEATHER MEN, which the film was based on.

THE FEATHER MEN has alternately been marketed as fiction, non-fiction, and “faction.” In this interview at The Daily Beast, Ranulph Fiennes describes this decision as being relatively mercenary:

The idea was to sell more books and at the time, the person who was going to put new books in the bookshop was told to put it in the “fiction” side of the shop or the “non-fiction” side of the shop, and at the time people only read one or the other, so if you put it on both sides of the shop you got both sets of book buyers.

The book was originally published including real photographs of the characters in the books, and presented as if its contents could be based on a true story. Today, Fiennes says the book is a work of fiction, but the truth is muddied by the various ways the book has been marketed since its original publication in 1991. In my opinion, some incarnations of the book crossed the line in promoting the “non-fiction” elements of the story, rather than taking on the more responsible genre of “faction.”

The film, on the other hand, clearly departs significantly from the plot of the book. It goes so far as to actually drastically change the storyline of Ranulph Fiennes’ character, who is the one person whose participation can be easily verified. Given this huge departure from the book, a source of already dubious veracity, it is clear that the filmmakers have no reasonable belief that they are actually creating a work “based on a true story.”

The movie presents real deaths, war actions, and crimes performed by characters with real-world living counterparts, and it presents them under the guise of being “based on a true story.” This is despite the following statement from Fiennes:

The publishers and literary agents have written to them and said it was quite clear that they shouldn’t have done that, and that they should change it to words like “inspired by” instead of “based on.” Maybe they’ll change it, but I don’t know.

Personally, I find the presentation of this film as being “based on a true story” to be reprehensible.

Here’s the weird thing… I have no problem with a work of fiction pretending to be real. I’m fine with it in the case of FARGO and I’m fine with it in the case of the many “found footage” horror films or mockumentaries. These are cases of presenting predominantly fictional characters and situation as being real. They are wholly fictional works being presented as “true” as part of their fiction.

However, it’s totally irresponsible to do this once your characters are real people, especially real people who are still alive. I think it’s deeply unethical, and in many cases could considered to be illegal. I assume that the people who made the film feel they are adequately protected legally in their claim that the film is “based on a true story” but that doesn’t relieve them of their ethical obligation of not presenting real people as war criminals and then claiming they’re telling a “true story.”

There are actually plenty of suitable alternatives to “based on a true story” that cover situations like this. Some obvious alternatives would be “inspired by a true story” or “inspired by true events” which both weaken the connection to reality. An even better alternative would have been just changing the names of the characters, so they aren’t directly claiming that real people committed unsubstantiated murders and war crimes. This should have been an obvious choice once they changed the story from what was presented in the original book.

Of course, the most responsible choice would have been to just present the film as a work of fiction, but then you don’t get the “true story” marketing and publicity hook.

The nature of film is that it has a power of becoming real to the viewer. We experience what the characters are going through as if we are going through those same situations. We feel their emotions and think as if we are in their shoes. There is a level of trust implicit in this; that we, the audience, are willing to let you, the filmmaker, control our experience for the next two hours because we trust you will treat that honor with the responsibility it deserves. We want to believe the things we are watching are real, and when you tell us that yes, we did actually watch something real, we take that information with us when we leave the theater.

At the very least, we hope that if you are going to mess with the implicit contract between audience and filmmaker you are going to do it for a compelling artistic reason. Not just as a way to market your movie, with the side-effect of causing members of the audience to believe damaging lies about real people and real organizations long after leaving the theater.

What I’ll take away: “based on a true story” can provide an interesting marketing hook for a film and can help draw an audience into a film, but should be used responsibly.

2012 Movie #18 - I Saw The Devil (2010) This was my second viewing of Jee-woon Kim’s masterpiece, and I loved it even more the second time. This movie is a cinematic miracle. Every technical and creative department are given the opportunity to elevate the film and work in unison to present a singular and powerful vision. It’s the approach to filmmaking that I most admire, and the approach that I fear is starting to fade away within the current incarnation of the studio system. What I’ll take away: On this viewing I was able to really focus on the brilliance of the costume design of the film. The costumes always feel functional, unique to character, cohesive within the world of the film, and are often used as real storytelling devices. High-res

2012 Movie #18 - I Saw The Devil (2010)

This was my second viewing of Jee-woon Kim’s masterpiece, and I loved it even more the second time. This movie is a cinematic miracle. Every technical and creative department are given the opportunity to elevate the film and work in unison to present a singular and powerful vision. It’s the approach to filmmaking that I most admire, and the approach that I fear is starting to fade away within the current incarnation of the studio system.

What I’ll take away: On this viewing I was able to really focus on the brilliance of the costume design of the film. The costumes always feel functional, unique to character, cohesive within the world of the film, and are often used as real storytelling devices.