Posted on 03/10/2005 1:59:03 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
But that's just what I said. Why was Goebbels so well received - years before anyone suspected death camps and the like? Manipulation. Emotionalism. It was the Venice Film Festival, which is still an annual event - correct? I certainly don't think such is in CLINT's future. He's no Nazi. So please don't get me wrong. But it seems a striking parallel to Goebbels' award winning film, and particular for all the tears that likely were shed. Why WAS Goebbels' film successful if NOT for all that sensationalism and manipulation? Again - correct? And you're saying the same thing, here. And I was suggesting why Eastwood plays so well to the Hollywood crowd; where maybe Gibson, and his Passion, CLEARLY did not. One message was the same as before, and comfortably conformist to their reigning ideology and agenda - the latter was not.
I understand the need for movies to compress stories and use composite characters to make the storytelling work in 90 minutes.
What I don't understand is changing key facts that are at the heart of the story.
Some reasonably good adaptations I have seen are "Seabiscuit" and "October Sky". Both of these keep pretty true to their source while squeezing some of the characters and plot points.
Well this film didn't claim to be based on a true story. Again if the original fiction was it was news to everyone else.
Stories claiming to be based on "true stories" might require the approval of the original participants, perhaps even payments.
The problem here is that there is a true story parallely to the fictional story, and the filmmakers could not have been ignorant of the true story.
Suppose when Hollywood does the 911 story it changes the perps to right-wing extremists inspired by a well-known talk radio host-- and claims it's OK because it's fiction?
I'm saying I think they were ignorant of it. I didn't know about this story. Did you? It wasn't exactly big news. Female boxing hardly ever is.
I think if I were making a major motion picture about a female boxer who sustains a serious brain injury, and such an event had happened within the past five years, I'd be aware of it. If only through the researches of the studio legal department.
Fair enough. We will find out for sure if there is a lawsuit.
I don't think there will be alawsuit. The story is presented as fiction, and the facts have been changed.
I do think, though, that this changes my perception of the movie and the moviemakers. Before, I merely say this as an extension of the Cider House Rules school of filmmaking. Now I see it as a deliberate perversion of a real story.
It could be that both stories are being spun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.