entertainment

Fact v fiction: can doubts torpedo an Oscar movie?

19 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2015 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

19 Comments
Login to comment

@ gkamburoffFeb. 20, 2015 - 07:23AM JST

A motion picture has to take some liberties, otherwise it won’t win the viewers emotionally,” he said. What? Does this person need to bend facts to make a good story?

Have you seen the war-movies for the last 50 years? they all bend the facts.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

“It doesn’t help a movie to have controversy over it,” said Tom Nunan

WRONG! That silly movie that SONY made about Kim Jong Un "The Interview" was on it's way to being a bomb. Next thing you know it's in the news because of security threats. Look at it's sales after that. Any publicity is good publicity for a movie.

Look at 50 Shades of Gray. I've heard it's a horrible movie. Yet it has made millions!

Such things are like cigarettes. We want the truth twisted up. Even if they say that little bit of depth supposed to be cancer free, we just light another up.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Best Picture is for the best "movie", not best documentary. There's already a separate category for that.

You have to take certain liberties when adapting a true story because you have around 2 hrs to tell it, not 8. If you made a dramatic retelling of an event or person just trying to cover every well known fact in 2 hrs then the dialogue would sound like news bulletin points. Even documentaries omit facts to fit their narrative, or fit their time or budget constraints.

It's a movie, people. It should encourage you to learn more if you're interested, not be used as a source for a term paper in history class. Entertainment.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Films are entertainment first and foremost.

Even if they are presenting what they say is fact as fiction?

Unless it's a documentary, treat it as entertainment. Even Schindler's List.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"Voters might want to help an American hero if they feel he’s under attack." - article

"For the best picture Oscar, this year with eight nominees, the 6,292 voting members of the academy are asked to rank the movies in order of preference."

reference: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-oscar-voting-20150218-story.html#page=1

How members of the Academy vote, based on their own motives, easily discounts the fact or fiction present in a movie. Obviously, a motion picture has a story to tell and every story has elements that contribute to the effect the Producers and Directors conceive as their goal. The Academy's voting members are well aware of this, probably more so than their audiences.

So, this year's Oscar, like last year's and everyone previously, weren't made or broken on the fact v. fiction scale. And as nice as the Oscars are, they rarely entertain truly important films, because that wouldn't be entertainment, and that's not the tune Hollywood dances to.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Aren't we confusing the term "movie" with "documentary" here? Movies are an escapist construct. People go to see them to be entertained, horrified, uplifted, etc. Have we really arrived at the day when movies have become a device by which we both analyse and record history? If that is the case, then the heathens have won.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Not letting facts get in the way of a good story? Wonder if Brian Williams know that he's been in the wrong business all these years?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Well this isn't surprising at all. Since about 2006-08, there has been an over-focus on the actual story, rather than the visual elements of a film that make it so different from a book. This trend has continued to such an extent that non-fiction-type films are being distorted significantly from the facts in order to match with the expected strong storyline, and sacrifice on areas such as cinematography and script.

As most people understand, the storyline itself is only one part of a film. One recent exception to this was Gravity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A film is a work of art and as such can be whatever it wants to be or say whatever it wants to say.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

""A motion picture has to take some liberties, otherwise it won't win the viewers emotionally," he said.

What? Does this person need to bend facts to make a good story?"

I love The Wind Rises but I wouldn't love it nearly as much if it followed the facts. I found the love story incredibly touching when the woman never even existed in real life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Films are entertainment first and foremost.

Careful not to use them as textbooks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fact v fiction: can doubts torpedo an Oscar movie?

Not really. But political ideology can and does all of the time. Most of Hollywood has a very narrow and constricted worldview.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The onus is on the audience not to accept fictionalized movies as records of fact. Hardly a movie is made about a real event without altering it for dramatic effect. Sometimes it's necessary to fit the story into a manageable timeframe, sometimes it's regrettable when it's because of polemics or the need to appeal to a certain demographic, i.e., Americanizing something that happened with largely European participants. Although that can get you Steve McQueen buzzing around on a motorcycle as in the case of The Great Escape. Even documentaries select a viewpoint and cherry-pick facts or elements they want to present. But definitely, if you see a dramatized biography or period flick, do more research if you want to know more about how something really happened. After all, Salieri never drove Mozart to death. They were merely respectful rivals. But isn't it entertaining to see it otherwise?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interview with an actual, anonymous, female Oscar voter:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/brutally-honest-oscar-ballot-2015-773902

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sometimes changing the facts can be deeply insulting... as in U571...

The film was financially successful and generally well-received by critics in the USA and won an Academy Award for sound editing. The fictitious plot attracted substantial criticism since, in reality, it was British personnel from HMS Bulldog who first captured a naval Enigma machine (from U-110 in the North Atlantic in May 1941), months before the United States had even entered the war. The anger over the inaccuracies even reached the British Parliament, where Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that the film was an "affront" to British sailors. (Wiki)

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

“A motion picture has to take some liberties, otherwise it won’t win the viewers emotionally,” he said.

What? Does this person need to bend facts to make a good story?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@ gkamburoffFeb. 20, 2015 - 07:23AM JST

“A motion picture has to take some liberties, otherwise it won’t win the viewers emotionally,” he said. What? Does this person need to bend facts to make a good story?

Yes..... would you like to watch a movie when you are aware that it is, as the article calls it: "glorifying a mass murderer"?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Do filmgoers care if a movie takes liberties with facts?

Didn't hurt "The Titanic" now did it? Got nominated for dozens of awards, and won Best Picture and Best Director, and grossed around $2.0 billion worldwide. And call me crazy, but I don't think anyone actually made love in the back seat of car like in the movie.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Films are entertainment first and foremost.

Even if they are presenting what they say is fact as fiction? How would American cinema goers feel if "The Sands of Iwajima" was remade with an all-Australian cast? Raising the Australian flag?

Anyway, as someone above said, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites