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.

Obamanably partisan

A couple of days ago radio talk show host Dan Caplis unburdened himself of his ideas about President Obama's Veterans Day remarks at Fort Hood. He asked why the President did not condemn Major Hasan as an Islamic terrorist. Throughout the presidential campaign and from day one of Obama's presidency, Dan has been on the attack against Obama. My response to his latest comments:

Dan, here's the answer to your question. President Obama did not "speak the truth" on Veterans Day about the Fort Hood shootings because he is smarter and more savvy than your one-dimensional question implies. First of all, no official finding has yet been made to support the kind of statement you think the President should make. Perhaps Hasan himself will state his motive. Until then, you are free to draw the conclusion you like and state it on the radio, something you can easily do as a mere talk host whose opinions and statements do not carry the weight of Presidential remarks.

The President's premature public conclusion about the arrest of Harvard Professor Gates last summer has undoubtedly taught him to be a little more circumspect about commenting during an ongoing investigation. The evidence in the Fort Hood shootings clearly points to the possibility the shooting was a terrorist act by an Islamic extremist, but I find your remarks disingenuous to say the least. You merrily jumped on the bandwagon to criticize Obama over his Cambridge police remarks. Now you'd like him to pronounce judgement against Hasan while the investigations are only just beginning. Remember, the President has a higher responsibility to "calibrate" his remarks than does a mere media commentator.

I believe your criticism of the President in this matter is simply another case of your insincere posturing to score political points. The truth is that nothing the President does or says about anything will win your approval, because your dogmatic partisanship overrules any ability you might have to offer credible commentary on his actions. Worst of all, you have no qualms about using the tragedy at Fort Hood to do nothing more than take political potshots at the President. The predictability of your opinions about the President offers no insight, but only the diversion of a parlor game for listeners to guess what negative spin you will conjure up against Obama, no matter what tragedy or triumph occurs during his Administration.