The Sun-Herald

Even more disappointing were the Director's deletions from David Williamson's script of Balibo which removed all references to the Australian Government's prior knowledge of the impending attack on 5 journalists.

• by Warren Kennedy on November 07, 2009 at 01:39 PM

That a film should be believable is not the tenet of your original article at all. It is that a film should be factually true and all your objections are based on evidence that events portrayed in the films mentioned are not true. In the case of Mao's Last Dancer you refer to the autobiography that the film is based on, not to find out if a particular scene is believable, that is a purely subjective judgement, but to find out if the dancer's parents really did show up at a performance or not. You felt 'tricked' and 'worried' that this might not be true - and presumably hugely relieved to find out that in fact it was not true. You had to go and check on the facts to confirm your suspicions that the event was not true - that a work of fiction was not true. Obviously a work of fiction, a creative work, which is what a film is, does not make any claim to be true. Whether it is believable or not is an entirely different point. You seem thoroughly confused in your distinction between truth and plausibility. Again in 'Young Victoria' you go to some length - "I went to the history books (well, the internet, to be precise)' to establish if the assassination attempt portrayed in the film is true (actually happened) or not. Your research tells you that it is not true and you are indignant, going on to say that it would have "A fine dramatic ending if it were a work of fiction'. The film IS a work of fiction. It is not a documentary. I think that I have clearly made a case that political assassination is plausible and we know that it is something that happens all the time - ask Benazir Bhutto. So it seems completely reasonable that the director should 'take liberties with the truth' for his own ends. You go on to go on to give, as another example of untruth in cinema John Nash's speech at the conclusion of the film 'A Beautiful Mind'. But damn it all, those pesky directors have got it wrong again. Your research tells you that Nobel winners don't give speeches. I am sure that every other member of the audience felt the same. Like you they did not let their emotions get the better of them and, as the lights came up at the end of the film they moved as one to the box office demanding for their money back. All $19.5 million of it. On the basis that Nash couldn't have given a speech at the presentation of his Nobel prize because Nobel prize winners aren't allowed to give speeches. Even in a work of fiction. Perhaps, when they make a film of your life, they might call it, 'A Literal Mind'. Stick to lists David, you are on firmer ground.

• by Francis Frank on November 08, 2009 at 01:10 AM

I thought I should add some substance to my sniping. Francis Franks irritates me because he is treating this as a black-and-white issue and does not recognise that there are valid viewpoints apart from that of the lecturer in his undergraduate, one-semester, film appreciation class that he regurgitates here.
Historical accuracy and �truth� in films and other works pop up in a number of different ways. Let�s see if I can put together a sliding scale. There is the out-and-out documentary or history text book which claims to present objective truth. Effectively, these purport to be journalism. Then you have works that provide a slant on the objective facts, like an opinion piece in a newspaper. Film examples would be Supersize Me, An Inconvenient Truth or anything by Michael Moore. Next might be the biography or biopic. Probably at the same level is the movie of true events: United 93, Raid on Entebbe, Schindler�s List. Mao and A Beautiful Mind fall into this category. After that we have �based on a true story�. The Great Escape, The French Connection, JFK, Apollo 13. �Inspired by true events� probably takes a few more liberties again. Then we have works that deliberately mess with history, like Shakespeare in Love, Keating the Musical, Chopper, Amadeus. I might also add fictional works that pretend to be true for dramatic effect or to mess with you: The Blair Witch Project, The Da Vinci Code/Angels and Demons, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind.
With there being so many categories (and much blurring between them) it is hopeless to try to apply one rule to all of them. Of course we can�t demand all these works be true and for many of them the whole point is a bit of embellishment. For an out-and-out documentary, similar standards should apply as we expect from journalists � a code of ethics. I�m quite happy with Michael Moore doing his thing as long as everyone understands he is taking liberties. With United 93, I understand Paul Greengrass tried to be as accurate as possible. He was up-front about his aims and the limitations he faced.
Another factor is the audience. A WW2 historian may well hate The Great Escape and any biographer of Mozart would hate Amadeus. But to the casual watcher, they are great films.
We also have to consider the closeness of the subject matter. United 93 was acceptable to a mainstream audience because it was made in an ethical way. If Arnold Schwarzenegger had been on the plane and he killed off all the terrorists before landing the plane, Francis Frank�s would have been a very lonely voice defending the filmmaker�s integrity.
If the creator of the work chooses to mess with the truth, I think the purpose is significant. If the desire is to deceive for a political purpose, we are talking about propaganda. If the intention is to bring a new point of view to events, to create a stand-alone artwork apart from the subject-matter, that will often be fair enough. If the creator fiddles with the truth just to make a happy ending or to portray a person in a better light than history might throw on them, I think an audience is entitled to feel cheated.
Coming back to your three main examples, TM, I think you are entitled to feel cheated by Mao and by A Beautiful Mind. It is particularly concerning in the case of Mao because the film has a strong political slant (starting with the title).
I�m not so sure about Young Victoria (which I haven�t seen) � it makes little sense to make propaganda about a monarch who has been dead for 100 years and whose legacy is unlikely to be affected by a piece of cinema.

• by Wendell on November 10, 2009 at 10:49 AM

I don't think you should lump Luhrmann in on the "truth telling" story. He has always stated that his movies are a heightened sense of reality, it is certainly not a naturalistic style of cinema, he is clearly dramatising events in an over the top way to create dramatic tension. He wasn't trying to create vivid realism, he is a creative and over the top director - you only have to see Moulin Rouge or Romeo and Juliet to see that - Romeo and Juliet was actually set in Verona, Italy, not Mexico, but I don't think anybody was calling for him to be more truthful in his film making.

Tribal Mind replies: You're right. Australia was a portrait of World War Two in the same way as Inglourious Basterds.

• by Beckala on November 12, 2009 at 05:57 PM