Can ther really be a non-fiction movie?

[tw]

That is the question.

Not talking about newreels or documentaries. Talking about the big blockbusters.

Theoretically, "yes" - depending on the amount of detail you consider to be non-fiction.

If, for example, you consider "non-fiction" to be that everything happened exactly as it did in real life, then the answer is "shit no" - at least not for anything we would consider a real movie. Imagine, for example, that the events in "American Beauty" transpired in real life the same way they did in the movie. If, however, the color of Lester's pants is off at all, or a hair on his head is combed differently than it were in real life, or a facial expression were a bit different, then already, you technically have a condition in the movie which conflicts with the actual truth of the matter, and is, therefore, fictitious.

If, however, you're willing to concede these points, then the answer is "yes" - you just need the proper story line. Directors and actors and bigshot movie execs are always wanting to add drama or comedy or whatever. I think the most "true to life" movie I've ever seen is "Fargo" - all of those events could *very easily* happen in real life. It requries no suspension of disbelief to enjoy that movie. In fact, the difference between the people who like it and those that don't is that the former "get it" - that the movie is just normal. Nothing special happens. Those who were expecting some great ending are let down. That's the way most things in real life are.

Now, given a proper story, a non-fiction movie could be made of it that still has all the dramatic elements the American public has come to know and love. A problem exists, however, in the loss of detail and the accuracy of memories. Memory isn't accurate, so the story, as related to the film makers, is likely to be different from the actual events. If you're willing to let this bit slip...

Yes, it can be done. But, as I said, one must find a compelling enough story. They certainly do exist - one that comes immediately to mind is that of Wyatt Earp, and Kevin Costner's attempt to produce a true-to-life movie about it. There are other little dramas that are undergone every day that a movie could be made of. I'm not sure if it really happened, but consider that maybe someone who died in the WTC attack had just reconciled with their lover after having a particularly rocky relationship for a number of years. That morning, as they left for work, they left a note on their partner's bed saying something dramatic, that they could "die today and still have known real happiness" or whatever. The movie ends with the survivor coming to terms with events and moving on. Who knows. But it could definitely be done, given the proper circumstances.

Okay, I have to get back to work now. But I hope this sparks some more discussion - definitely an interesting idea.

[Scopulus Argentarius]

It is called a documentary... nuf said....

Originally posted by Scopulus Argentarius
It is called a documentary... nuf said....

Originally posted by tw
That is the question.

Not talking about newreels or documentaries. Talking about the big blockbusters.

nuf said

[Scopulus Argentarius]

Take for instance the documentary film (somewhat embellished) 'The Memphis Belle' ... and to a lesser extent productions on TV such as 'America's Moist Wanted', 'Cops' , 'Big Brother' , and (ack) 'The Real World' - similar approach.


A Blockbuster or *Any* truly interesting film based upon real life would edit most of the 'real life' out. Things like the 'hero' or the 'heavy' taking a crap ( or other similar *crap* )would certainly make the cutting room floor as they fall into the category of 'mundane'.

Real life is mostly boring except for those small spaces in between mormal and crisis.

[tw]

Originally posted by Scopulus Argentarius
Take for instance the documentary film (somewhat embellished) 'The Memphis Belle' ... and to a lesser extent productions on TV such as 'America's Moist Wanted', 'Cops' , 'Big Brother' , and (ack) 'The Real World' - similar approach.

How to twist the question in order to get the desired answer!

First, if Memphis Belle was embellished, then it is fiction only based upon actual events. If Memphis Belle is non-fiction, then so is 'JFK' or 'Misissippi Burning'. Neither 'American Beauty' or 'Fargo' even claim to be based upon real events. Why then even mention them?

Non-fiction is not defined by what could be (ie. 'Fargo'). Non-fiction is what did happen - without embellishment.

Second, productions such as 'America's Most Wanted', 'Cops', etc are not movies let alone blockbuster movies.

Third, when was the last time a documentary dominated the box offices at theaters? For that matter, when was the last time a documentary ever appeared in box office theaters?

So far the answer appears to be NO. No blockbuster movie can be non-fiction. Ironic, to make the answer 'yes', the question had to be perverted. Name a major motion picture that was non-fiction?

[Undertoad]

<i>Fargo</i> claimed to be based on actual events, but that turned out to be a Coen Bros. joke.

I think the last movie called a documentary to get box office was probably <i>Roger and Me</i>. Surprised it didn't jump right out at you tw. On the other hand, there are plenty of people who say Michael Moore played with the timeline to suit his needs.

Some clicking around in IMDB points out <i>Startup.com</i> - which I somhow failed to see - which was released THIS YEAR and has grossed $1.28 million. <i>When We Were Kings</i> was released 1996 and grossed $2.66M. <i>Roger and Me</i> released 1989, grossed $6.7M. <i>Hoop Dreams</i> rel 1994 did $7.83M.

[jaguar]

In the name of the father coems to mind, although it played loosely with a few facts it was pretty accurate, just emotionally manipulating.

[warch]

Interesting question.

Any film/video, documentary, blockbuster, newreel or afterschool special is a constructed interpretation of events. The newsreel captures only one frame of the event and only what is visible. documentaries are framed and edited. Certainly in a the narrative of a scripted film there are multiple interpretations projected by the various creators and perceived by the diverse audiences.

So, no two people will ever experience or recount an actual incident in the exact same way. So from the second some event occurs and then becomes a memorable account- its a slippy, shifty, thang.But they may come to agree on a shared collective memory.

So there are blockbuster movies based on actual events. but there are a zillion ways to spin the story- but that keeps it kinda interesting, eh?
My vote: Yes, there are non-fiction movies if we agree to believe that it happened that way.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
I think the last movie called a documentary to get box office was probably <i>Roger and Me</i>. Surprised it didn't jump right out at you tw.

I thought of Roger and Me earlier today. When We Were Kings would probably be another valid entry - I have not seen it even though I wanted to.

(How many remember Howard Cossell's rants on the ABC radio network about how wrong the boxing commission, et al were in those days? Howard was FIRE at 6PM - "Speaking of Sport". Back then he was a trouble maker. Today he was correct. A tribute to the man who would stand up like a man.)

When to see Roger and Me in the only area theater (that I could find) that showed this excellent movie. Penn's Landing. IOW was it really a box office theater movie when (I suspect) so many movie theaters did not have the balls to show it. I believe When We Were Kings played to more theaters but got less return? Those who would remember the wild days, the attacks on Cassius Clay / Mohammed Ali just are not today's big movie goers.

But it does proven that some box office movies can be non-fiction. Reality is a problem. Reality is too boring for a clockbuster movie.

Did not see The Perfect Storm so I don't know how accurate that was.

[tw]

Originally posted by jaguar
In the name of the father coems to mind, although it played loosely with a few facts it was pretty accurate, just emotionally manipulating.

In the Name of the Father? Synopsis?

[jaguar]

It’s about a group of falsely accused Irishmen.
History:
As you know there was a large spate of bombings in Brittan by the IRA in the 80s (don't ask me exactly when) which led to the passing of a law that allowed the cops to hold a suspected terrorist for up to 7 days without pressing charges or access to a lawyer etc.. (Oddly similar to laws they are looking at passing in the US?) This led to a large number of false arrests and imprisonments who claimed to have confessions tortured (mentally and sometimes physically) during those 7 days. The most famous case of this was the Guilford four. Basically they were two Irish guys who went to Brittan to escape temporary trouble with the IRA and stayed in a place near bombing and a few other strange coincidences which led to them being picked up by the police and having confessions forced out of them. In the process the rest of their families were indicted on bullshit evidence as well. Evidence was falsified, and witnesses lied at the trial.

Years afterwards a British lawyer started investigating the case and was obstructed by the police for access to documents about the case. Eventually she managed to get access to all the documents at once and found a folder with the words "not for the defense" printed on it. This. Really. Happened. So of course there was a big-ass case about it and they were eventually begrudgingly acquitted.

A few things were modified for the purpose of the story, the biggest being that the REAL bomber, who was actually caught on another charge and admitted to the bombing (which was ignored by the police) was placed in the same prison as the lead of the story and a few other smaller incidents etc.. But the overall story was almost totally accurate, fact wise. Emotionally it was very manipulating though, leading it to be titled "based on a true story"

I’ve missed allot of the story here but you get the gist. Intersting quote: on another of the trials after it came out they had been falsely imprisoned by Lord British, high court judge was “it is better than an innocent man go to prison than the power of the british legal system be questioned”

[warch]

In the spirit of Roger and Me, look for the video Hands on a Hard Body from 1998 or so, a work of non-fiction, highly entertaining about a truck dealership contest in East Texas. I have seen it on the video racks- worth a peek. You cant make that stuff up.

Other good big release flicks based somewhat on the real:

Norma Rae
All the Presidents Men
Schindler's List
Falcon and the Snowman
Lorenzo's Oil
Gandhi

[sockpuppet]

Since we've cashed in Free Will in favor of Marketing, movies shape our Reality. Life has become so vicarious it pretty well HAS to imitate "Art" if that's where those little pre-fab trend packages are created. So, if a movie starts off as fiction, it may well come to represent actuality.

Look at all these looping, jumpy, misthreaded film clips of the Post-Apocalyptic Technology (style), which gives the impression that it was created by a camera found in the ruins of a long-dead civilization... They use it on our local news program, even!

It's a contrived effect, and you can bet the truth will be lost on a coming generation-- not that some explanation will replace the truth-- but that nobody will ask. So, the fiction is upgraded.

Same thing that happened to that readheaded killa-kid from Pierre who's pointing a Glock sideways or 'execution style' at somebody. Same as all the deep 3-week long relationships created by Lesbian Chic. ("Wag the Dog" he said, ironically.)

Fiction is a matter of degree, like everything else. How the movie relates to Reality is one approach to the question. How the audience relates to the movie is another. I guess the clever way to wrap this up is to say "Fiction IS as fiction DOES" but that sounds like it must be a quote from some movie, sorta...

**sock**
(dramatic exit into broom closet)