"Based on a true story"...

[Quincey]

A thread for films that are based on a true story but take liberties with the source material, such as Argo which turned out to have lied about the British actions in the smuggling out of six American diplomats from Iran.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/9622647/Ben-Afflecks-new-film-Argo-upsets-British-diplomats-who-helped-Americans-in-Iran.html

Yet not only does Hollywood's account write out the British officials who sheltered the Americans but it also claims, falsely, that the US staff were "turned away" from the British embassy in their hour of need.
The film's director, Ben Affleck, claims to have depicted it "as best I can, factually".
But Sir John Graham, 86, who was Britain's ambassador to Iran at the time, said: "It is not the truth that they were turned away from the British Embassy. We gave them all help at the time.
"My immediate reaction on hearing about this was one of outrage. I have since simmered down, but am still very distressed that the film-makers should have got it so wrong. My concern is that the inaccurate account should not enter the mythology of the events in Tehran in November 1979"...

For all the British obsession with the "special relationship", Britain does seem to be the country most often depicted in a more negative light than is justified in  films based on a true story, in particular England.

Of course, the real losers are individual people who are incorrectly portrayed - Cracked has an interesting list: http://www.cracked.com/article_24395_7-reasons-never-to-trust-movie-based-true-story.html

[Serge]

'Argo' also invented a completely pointless strand about Tony Mendez having marriage problems mainly so that Affleck could have lots of scenes of him looking moody and brooding with his kid. Not to mention

Spoiler alert

the last-minute chase down the runway as the plane is taking off

[close]

, which simply never happened. Both of which are small beer compared to what you've already mentioned - and I like 'Argo' - but are still pretty annoying.

If I remember correctly, 'Trumbo' showed Edward G Robinson naming names at his hearing in front of the HUAC, which he didn't do in real life.

Funnily enough, given that both of the above feature Bryan Cranston, I've got 'The Infiltrator' on my pile of books to read at the moment, so I can see what liberties they took with that, too...

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Rescue Dawn depicts one of the POWs as a useless snivelling coward, when (according to something I vaguely remember reading somewhere) he was instrumental in the escape plan. Werner Herzong said that this was done to illustrate a deeper truth... than the actual truth.

[Ron Maels Moustache]

The one of these that always springs to mind for me is the liberties taken with the truth in "The Untouchables". Particularly regarding Capone's right-hand man Frank Nitti, who in reality was not a knife-wielding rat-faced thug and didn't get pushed off a roof by Elliot Ness. In fact he was the front man of Capone's organisation for many years after the main man got put away, and was apparently so terrified of enclosed spaces he eventually killed himself rather than risk going to jail.

[Shit Good Nose]

I haven't seen Argo yet, so I can't comment about that, but what annoys me more than true story films "taking liberties", is when loads of people criticise them for taking those liberties, despite those films, and the people behind them, being very up front about taking liberties with the truth to make them more entertaining as a film.  And The Untouchables is a pretty good example - if that was 100% accurate, it would have made for an incredibly dull film where nothing happened.

Even stuff like Schindler's List takes several extreme liberties with the facts.

There aren't that many true story films, in relative terms, that are really spot on where the source facts alone make for an "entertaining" enough film.  One that does spring to mind is the bullshit free 21 Hours at Munich, which a lot of people say is closer to the truth and more accurate than the documentary One Day In September.

Of course, sometimes the reverse is true where the films have to be toned down a little because the truth is SO ridiculous that the average person wouldn't believe it (cf. The Revenant).

[Steven]

Fargo.

It was not really true and was based on several incidents. There was a 1987 newspaper story about a woman named Helle Crafts, who disappeared in November, 1986. Crafts' husband told people Helle was visiting her mother in Denmark, but a friend telephoned the mother and discovered Helle was not there. A babysitter saw a rug with a dark stain in the Crafts home; it later went missing. A private detective found the rug at a landfill and took it to police—that along with other evidence indicated foul play, but where was the body? Finally, December 31, 1989 police discovered the truth: Helle's husband had fed her body through a wood-chipper. According to Ethan Coen, "the script pretends to be true."

[Black_Bart]

Psycho.

[Pepotamo1985]

'Argo' also invented a completely pointless strand about Tony Mendez having marriage problems mainly so that Affleck could have lots of scenes of him looking moody and brooding with his kid.

And sitting in his takeaway, booze bottle strewn apartment like a giant fucking cliche.

The Untouchables is a pretty good example - if that was 100% accurate, it would have made for an incredibly dull film where nothing happened.

Interestingly, you also have films like Bridge Of Spies which take massive liberties with the historical record and still manage to be indescribably boring.

[Thomas]

United 93 had that German.

[Crabwalk]

JFK is one of the most skilfully assembled works of pure bollocks ever created.

[Noodle Lizard]

If I remember correctly, 'Trumbo' showed Edward G Robinson naming names at his hearing in front of the HUAC, which he didn't do in real life.

Trumbo's apparently based largely on a very "friendly" biography from the 70s.  I mean, it should be obvious from watching it that it's likely simplistic bollocks, but it's actually worse than that!

Aside from its cartoonish depictions of "the baddies", it whitewashes basically everything dodgy about the real Trumbo's ideology (being a huge supporter of Stalin and the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe until death, supporting Hitler until 1941, supporting North Korea's attacks on South Korea) etc.  In fact, his entire ideology is summed up in the movie by him explaining communism to his daughter as being "If you saw someone who didn't have any lunch, wouldn't you share yours with them? That's it!"  Yup, simple as that, audience!  And who could argue with that except for EVIL John Wayne and EVIL Hedda Hopper, who practically melts like the Wicked Witch Of The West when she's "defeated"?  Then that fucking speech at the end, with everyone crying.  For fuck's sake.  I half expected Louis CK's ghost to be there, giving him the thumbs up.  That's more just cloying though.  Terrible movie.

[Noodle Lizard]

Of course, sometimes the reverse is true where the films have to be toned down a little because the truth is SO ridiculous that the average person wouldn't believe it (cf. The Revenant).

I can't think what you mean, they included pretty much all the most outlandish aspects of that story (also, nobody really knows the truth of most of it) and added some.

I think if they'd kept to the way the real story ended, with Glass unable to get revenge on Fitzgerald on account of him having joined the army, it would have been far more believable, far bleaker and far better.

[Ron Maels Moustache]

I haven't seen Argo yet, so I can't comment about that, but what annoys me more than true story films "taking liberties", is when loads of people criticise them for taking those liberties, despite those films, and the people behind them, being very up front about taking liberties with the truth to make them more entertaining as a film.  And The Untouchables is a pretty good example - if that was 100% accurate, it would have made for an incredibly dull film where nothing happened.

Thanks, I'm well aware of the need to make a film entertaining rather than truthful, but why use the name of a well-documented historical figure like Nitti for a character that was nothing like him in any way, and doesn't even serve the same role in Capone's mob? Why not just invent a new villain character with no connections to real life?

[Serge]

There aren't that many true story films, in relative terms, that are really spot on where the source facts alone make for an "entertaining" enough film.  One that does spring to mind is the bullshit free 21 Hours at Munich, which a lot of people say is closer to the truth and more accurate than the documentary One Day In September.

Really? That's interesting, as I think 'One Day In September' is one of the greatest documentaries ever made, and I'm not sure in which ways it could really be too inaccurate, given that it's largely made up of footage of the events unfolding!

[mr beepbap]

In Donnie Brasco he almost 'turns' to the point of him being seen as almost doing a hit IIRC. However , in the book he constantly takes great pride in his attitude towards the mobsters as scum etc never changing and he doesnt relate to them at all

[Gulftastic]

In Donnie Brasco he almost 'turns' to the point of him being seen as almost doing a hit IIRC. However , in the book he constantly takes great pride in his attitude towards the mobsters as scum etc never changing and he doesnt relate to them at all

Yes, that annoyed me too. I read the book first, and they took shocking liberties.

[Noodle Lizard]

I can't quite be bothered to properly look into it, but it feels like there are a ton more "true story" films based on something which has basically only just happened.  And it's probably gonna be Tom Hanks in it, if it's about a hero of some sort.

Problem I have with this is that there's really not enough distance for it to be particularly accurate, and usually the fact that the people it's based on are still alive and (often) involved to some degree means that you're unlikely to get a particularly objective picture.  History written by the victor etc.  I understand having to take some liberties to make the film more interesting, but that becomes ethically dubious when it comes to direct telling of true stories, especially if the bodies are barely cold, and people will come away thinking they've had a history lesson regardless.  It's misinformation at the end of the day.

[great_badir]

Wrong post.

[great_badir]

Double wrong post

[Shit Good Nose]

Interestingly, you also have films like Bridge Of Spies which take massive liberties with the historical record and still manage to be indescribably boring.

B'boom.

Although I liked Bridge of Spies.  But point taken.

JFK is one of the most skilfully assembled works of pure bollocks ever created.

Taken purely as a work of fiction set within an accurate historical context and featuring accurate historical characters, it is indeed an immense film.  JFK and its kissing cousin Executive Action both also back up what I said in the conspiracy thread - no matter how outlandish or flimsy a conspiracy theory is, if it is interesting then it's worthy.  If it also happens to be based within some form of factual context, it's a bonus.  JFK is also helped by the fact that Stone remains 100% convinced that his version of events is entirely factual, so it's "out-there" conspiracy from intense sincerity.

I can't think what you mean, they included pretty much all the most outlandish aspects of that story (also, nobody really knows the truth of most of it) and added some.

I think if they'd kept to the way the real story ended, with Glass unable to get revenge on Fitzgerald on account of him having joined the army, it would have been far more believable, far bleaker and far better.

I've not seen it since it first came out, so perhaps I've misremembered, but, if we assume the existing account IS accurate, then didn't the film massively shorten the distance he crawled and how long it took him?  If not, then I take that back.

Thanks, I'm well aware of the need to make a film entertaining rather than truthful, but why use the name of a well-documented historical figure like Nitti for a character that was nothing like him in any way, and doesn't even serve the same role in Capone's mob? Why not just invent a new villain character with no connections to real life?

I guess it goes back to JFK - the fact that it has a historical event as its backdrop requires a few real life characters - even if by name only - to make the fictional drama a bit more catered towards those who know a little bit about it, without totally alienating the casual cinemagoer.  Besides, although it's often credited with being based on Elliot Ness' anecdotes, it has far more in common with the original TV series, which also took liberties with the actual events to make it a better TV drama - it had its own fun with the Nitti character as well.

Really? That's interesting, as I think 'One Day In September' is one of the greatest documentaries ever made, and I'm not sure in which ways it could really be too inaccurate, given that it's largely made up of footage of the events unfolding!

I completely agree with you - I think One Day In September is a fantastic documentary (and 21 Hours at Munich is a great film as well, as long as you can get past all the American accents).  But the fact is that there is a huge portion of criticism against it for not being very even handed and also allowing sympathy/justification for the whole thing by including (so-say) testimony from the sole surviving terrorist.  I've never really understood where those criticisms have come from and actually think that those critics are peeved that the guy was given a voice in it at all.  But then that just contradicts their complaints because, by including him, it is exactly what they say it isn't.  In any case, there's a shit load of stuff on the webs that explains it all far better than me.

[Pepotamo1985]

I like JFK and think it's a very well made film indeed. However, Stone is a fucking idiot for including so many made up scenes in the movie - he gifted its detractors ammunition on a plate.

[Serge]

I completely agree with you - I think One Day In September is a fantastic documentary (and 21 Hours at Munich is a great film as well, as long as you can get past all the American accents).  But the fact is that there is a huge portion of criticism against it for not being very even handed and also allowing sympathy/justification for the whole thing by including (so-say) testimony from the sole surviving terrorist.  I've never really understood where those criticisms have come from and actually think that those critics are peeved that the guy was given a voice in it at all.  But then that just contradicts their complaints because, by including him, it is exactly what they say it isn't.  In any case, there's a shit load of stuff on the webs that explains it all far better than me.

I will have to check out '21 Hours At Munich' now anyway, having been unaware of it before! I wonder what those people think of Spielberg's 'Munich', a film I like a lot, but whose events I take with a massive pinch of salt (beyond the fact that the guys who were killed in the film did die in real life, but whether this was how it was done is massively open to question.)

Yeah, I think it's fair to say that including Jamal Al-Gashey in the film doesn't really make you sympathise with what they did, however you may sympathise with their cause. By putting the focus on Andre Spitzer, the moment you find out they all died does hit you like a punch to the stomach.

[Ignatius_S]

Thanks, I'm well aware of the need to make a film entertaining rather than truthful, but why use the name of a well-documented historical figure like Nitti for a character that was nothing like him in any way, and doesn't even serve the same role in Capone's mob? Why not just invent a new villain character with no connections to real life?

One reason is because Nitti was a recognisable name thanks to other inaccurate portrayals, particularly the TV series of The Untouchables - a show not noted for its realism. Most public knowledge of Nitti comes from those portrayals.

[mrpupkin]

The Imitation Game is a great one for this, I remember reading the Wiki page after watching it and going "oh right so literally none of that stuff ever happened or bore any resemblance to reality whatsoever".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imitation_Game#Accuracy

[Pepotamo1985]

B'boom.

I really didn't like it at all - thought it was plodding, unexciting propaganda for American valour, benevolence and general superiority, and the evil of those pesky Russkies. In fact, given the political milieu of today, it almost certainly was greenlit for propaganda purposes.

Bizarrely, I read some reviews which credited Spielberg for resisting the urge to distort things, and not turning the plot into a mega espionage caper totally divorced from reality. Yet, Bridge features much that is outright fabricated, and much that is exaggerated to the point of fantasy - it's a shame these embellishments fail to make it remotely interesting.

[Serge]

While it's plainly all bullshit anyway, the events inside the alien spaceship in 'Fire In The Sky', whilst effectively scary for a movie, bear absolutely no relation whatsoever to the story that Walton peddles in real life.