Hollywood and history

When I see a movie that's supposed to be a "true" story, I often ask myself, during the movie: how much of this stuff is true? Did that really happen? Holy cow! Sure, I want to be entertained, but if the story is being presented as "true" or as biography or history, I would like to think--better yet, I would like to know--that what I'm watching is a fair representation of the best understanding of what really happened. If I want to see a made-up story, I'll go see Star Trek or Avatar or Michael Clayton or Drive Angry 3D. If I see a "true" story, I want it to be as faithful as possible to the main characters and events. Sure, true stories have to be simplified and a lot of excess detail has to be cut, but major thematic elements, events or characters should not be changed--or fabricated.

The film about Facebook, "The Social Network," is, for my money, a poster boy for major distortion of a true story. The main character was shown as deeply isolated from female companionship, a portrayal that is patently false, as the simplest biographical research shows.

I understand, but feel queasy about, the argument that a lesser-known true story can more readily be doctored. I say to screenwriters: treat that true story with the same respect you would a very well-known true story (assuming you're doing that). Don't perform genetic engineering on an obscure true story just because you think you can get away with it. If you can't help yourself, give it a new title and don't pretend it's something it's not.

Don't knowingly mislead the audience when presenting a "true" story, whether it's famous or obscure.

A lot of screenwriting discussion revolves around "research": making things accurate, or at least, credible. Having studiously done all that, why would a screenwriter then cavalierly add, subtract, multiply or divide major characters or events in a real story? Note that I am consistently talking about "major" stuff, not minor characters or events that may be needed for plot mechanics.

If the actual story is already sufficiently compelling and thematically powerful to motivate a writer to do a screenplay, why make up stuff about it? The writer's skill should come into play to emphasize and dramatize the true story's themes and events without making up new ones out of whole cloth. If writers feel compelled to dream up non-existent elements of true stories, they should simply make up their own stories, not distort the real ones.

I regard movies of true stores as "dramatizations," not as documentaries or even as "fictionalizations". Note the word dramatization. The kernel is drama. That's the proper perspective. I'm not looking for a movie of a true story to be "educational" (although it can be), or to be a documentary. I'm looking for drama, and I'm expecting honesty.

"The King's Speech" seems to meet the standard. Were there any fabricated major characters or events? Did it need any?

Hugh Hewitt Suffers Crisis Over Chrysler

My message to syndicated radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt:

You've added a new chapter to your repugnant commentary about U.S. car manufacturers with your foolish remarks about the Chrysler Super Bowl TV commercial. But I suppose it was only a matter of time. I vividly recall your odious remarks back when GM got a government bailout. "Don't buy GM cars!" you wailed on your program. "Don't buy GM, anything but GM!" or words to that effect. Your recurring rabid partisanship, which had seemed somewhat in remission, reared its ugly head over GM, and now again with Chrysler.
 
The formulation is clear, but you really should spell it out: "I want all those despised union workers and their leaders to lose their jobs and go away. I don't care about them, their families, their communities, or the myriad suppliers and their families who will lose their jobs or businesses when GM folds or Chrysler folds. I don't care that a vital and strategic element of American infrastructure and manufacturing will vanish. All I care about is seeing those damn union workers and their leaders get fired and disappear."

Incredibly, I continued to listen to your program intermittently even after your GM tirade. But I count that commentary as the single most irresponsible and despicable thing I've ever heard any broadcast talk host say about anything. Now you've shown your colors again by bashing Chrysler.

It's ironic: in past years, Republicans embraced an America First attitude. Now it's International Capitalists first and American union workers last--a point President Obama hinted at--politely--in his speech yesterday to the Chamber of Commerce.

No doubt, you're discomfited that the movie "The Company Men" focuses on the plight of the upper corporate echelon instead allowing you to revel in the loss of thousands of union jobs at the shipbuilding works. I marvel at your ability to simultaneously extol American Exceptionalism while eagerly encouraging the toilet flush that will send hundreds of thousands of American union workers down the drain along with their employers and businesses. Such cavalier, elitist and shortsighted callousness boggles the mind.