If you are the kind of person that goes to the movies a lot (like me), then you know that it is no strange occurrence to see maybe two or three trailers that contain the words: “Based on a true story”.
For some people this means that the film being advertised is an almost documentary style presentation of the truth.
While I am not discounting the amount of people who are well aware of the boundary that lies between interpretation of the truth and the truth itself, I have come across quite a few people that seem to not be able to make the distinction.
I had this experience last November when the film “Lincoln” came into theaters. I had numerous discussions with people who had seen the film and quite a few people remarked, “You actually think that Daniel Day-Lewis is Abraham Lincoln. He looks and sounds like him!”
Wait…huh? He looks and SOUNDS like him? I would love to know how that particular friend knows what the 16th President of the United States sounded like, considering the fact that Lincoln lived in the age before recorded sound.
I am well aware that Daniel Day-Lewis heavily investigated the mannerisms and mechanics of President Lincoln in preparation for what could be his third Oscar-winning performance; including trying to replicate Lincoln’s voice which is often referred to by historians as being “reedy” and “a high tenor”.
But isn’t a bit presumptuous to say that Day-Lewis nailed exactly what Lincoln sounded like? It is a great performance, which is probably why so many are eager to say that Day-Lewis nails Lincoln perfectly, despite the fact that we know nothing of the physical and vocal characteristics of good ol’ Honest Abe.
But while Day-Lewis had much historical context to go on in order to prepare for his role, Oscar winning screenwriter Mark Boal (“The Hurt Locker”) had very little historical record to go on while crafting his screenplay for “Zero Dark Thirty” – a gritty depiction of the events in between the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the raid on a compound in Pakistan that would lead to the eventual death of Osama bin Laden.
Chicago Tribune film critic Michael Phillips hailed the film as the best of 2012 and “a first draft of history”. While I will agree with Mr. Phillips point that “Zero Dark Thirty” is a rich and fulfilling movie, complete with thrills at every turn, I do find it a bit presumptuous to call this film a “draft of history”.
There are scenes in “Zero Dark Thirty” that ring with truth – especially the wonderfully/brutally executed films featuring torture – but there is so much that we don’t know about the bin Laden manhunt and raid carried out by the still mostly nameless and faceless Seal Team Six.
I wonder still how many people will take the words written by Boal to be gospel truth. I am not discounting the historical context that films can give their audiences. For example, George Clooney’s brilliantly written and directed film “Good Night & Good Luck.” provides its audience with a jarring presentation of the paranoia and fear that many United States citizens probably felt during the years of McCarthyism.
While every word of Clooney’s script (co-written by Grant Heslov) may not be true, certainly the spirit of the work is true; same goes for Tony Kushner’s “Lincoln” and Boal’s “Zero Dark Thirty”. That is ultimately what is important when a film claims that it is based on a true story. Not if it records history as it happened word-for-word, but if the spirit of the material rings true with the time period it is reflecting.
Sometimes when a film tries to record history it ends up losing sight of the important aspect of the spirit of the events it is recording. Such is the case of Michael Mann’s “Ali” – a film that tries to take its audience into every back room conversation that the famed boxer Muhammad Ali had during his prime.
The film becomes a stale recitation of events as opposed to a coherent narrative. While I’m sure Michael Mann can claim a lot of the things that happen in the film “Ali” mirror that of the life of the real Ali, he cannot boast a successful film (with the notable exception of the brilliant performance of Will Smith in the titular role and Jon Voight as Howard Cosell).
Again, there inlays the tricky distinction of entertainment from accurate information. Perhaps that’s why so many films that are based on true stories leave events out or overly dramatize them; sometimes history only makes perfect sense with a narrative arch running through things to join them together. (One exception that I can think of is Ron Howard’s brilliantly executed “Apollo 13”; during that film’s production Jim Lovell’s insight and consulting was used in great frequency.)
Yet, there are people who have a hard time separating sheer entertainment from a delivery of information. Another friend of mine upon viewing Quentin Tarantino’s World War II pulp-fest “Inglourious Basterds” was livid and angry, insisting that the things Tarantino put on screen never actually happened.
I will not spoil the ending of the film for those of you have not seen the picture – shame on you that haven’t – but the film’s climax is obviously historically inaccurate and that’s the point. Tarantino’s pulp fest is obviously an exception. Few filmmakers would dare to bend history in such a blatant, yet bold way in the same vein as Quentin Tarantino.
Films can be a great tool to show the attitudes and spirit of a historical event, but seldom should they be believed as absolute truths. I just hope one day my kids (should that day ever come) don’t walk up to me and tell me how they learned Abraham Lincoln ended the establishment of slaver, won the Civil War, restored the Union to its fullest AND killed vampires.
By Brian Laughran
Crusader of Sanity
About Post Author
