In fact-based films, how much fiction is OK?
NEW YORK
(AP) - The scene: Tehran's Mehrabad airport, January 1980. Six U.S. diplomats,
disguised as a fake sci-fi film crew, are about to fly to freedom with their
CIA escorts. But suddenly there's a moment of panic in what had been a smooth
trip through the airport.
The plane
has mechanical difficulties and will be delayed. Will the Americans be
discovered, arrested, even killed? CIA officer Tony Mendez, also in disguise,
tries to calm them. Luckily, the flight leaves about an hour later.
If you
saw the film "Argo," no, you didn't miss this development, which is
recounted in Mendez's book about the real-life operation. It wasn't there
because director Ben Affleck and screenwriter Chris Terrio replaced it with an
even more dramatic scenario, involving canceled flight reservations, suspicious
Iranian officials who call the Hollywood office of the fake film crew (a call
answered just in time), and finally a heart-pounding chase on the tarmac just
as the plane's wheels lift off, seconds from catastrophe.
Crackling
filmmaking - except that it never happened. Affleck and Terrio, whose film is
an Oscar frontrunner, never claimed their film was a documentary, of course.
But still, they've caught some flak for the liberties they took in the name of
entertainment.
And they
aren't alone - two other high-profile best-picture nominees this year, Kathryn
Bigelow's "Zero Dark Thirty" and Steven Spielberg's
"Lincoln," have also been criticized for different sorts of factual
issues.
Filmmakers
have been making movies based on real events forever, and similar charges have
been made. But because these three major films are in contention, the issue has
come to the forefront of this year's Oscar race, and with it a thorny cultural
question: Does the audience deserve the truth, the whole truth and nothing but?
Surely not, but just how much fiction is OK?
The
latest episode involved "Lincoln," and the revelation that Spielberg
and his screenwriter, the Pulitzer-winning playwright Tony Kushner, took
liberties depicting the 1865 vote on the 13th amendment outlawing slavery. In
response to a complaint by a Connecticut congressman, Kushner acknowledged he'd
changed the details for dramatic effect, having two Connecticut congressmen
vote against the amendment when, in fact, all four voted for it. (The names of
those congressmen were changed, to avoid changing the vote of specific
individuals.)
In a
statement, Kushner said he had "adhered to time-honored and completely
legitimate standards for the creation of historical drama, which is what
'Lincoln' is. I hope nobody is shocked to learn that I also made up dialogue
and imagined encounters and invented characters."
His
answer wasn't satisfying to everyone. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd
called on Spielberg this weekend to adjust the DVD version before it's released
- lest the film leave "students everywhere thinking the Nutmeg State is
nutty." One prominent screenwriting professor finds the
"Lincoln" episode "a little troubling" - but only a little.
"Maybe
changing the vote went too far," says Richard Walter, chairman of
screenwriting at
the
University of California, Los Angeles. "Maybe there was another way to do
it. But really, it's not terribly important. People accept that liberties will
be taken. A movie is a movie. People going for a history lesson are going to
the wrong place."
Walter
says he always tells his students: "Go for the feelings. Because the only
thing that's truly real in the movies are the feelings that people feel when
they watch."
Carson
Reeves, who runs a screenwriting website called Scriptshadow, says writers
basing scripts on real events face a constant problem: No subject or
individual's life is compelling and dramatic enough by itself, he says, that it
neatly fits into a script with three acts, subplots, plot twists and a powerful
villain.
"You
just have to get rid of things that maybe would have made the story more
truthful," says Reeves, who actually gave the "Lincoln" script a
negative review because he thought it was too heavy on conversation and lacking
action. He adds, though, that when the subject is as famous as Lincoln, one has
a responsibility to be more faithful to the facts.
Screenwriter
and actor Dan Futterman, nominated for an Oscar in 2006 for the
"Capote" screenplay, has empathy for any writer trying to pen an
effective script based on real events, as he did.
"This
is fraught territory," he says. "You're always going to have to
change something, and you're always going to get in some sort of trouble, with
somebody," he says.
Futterman
recalls seeing "Lincoln" and wondering briefly why Connecticut would
have voted the way the movie depicted it. On the other hand, he says, he has so
much admiration for Kushner's achievement in writing an exciting movie about
19th-century legislative history that he's inclined to overlook the alteration.
Futterman
also doesn't begrudge the "Argo" filmmakers, because he feels they
use a directorial style that implies some fun is being had with the story.
"All the inside joking about Hollywood - tonally, you get a sense that
something is being played with," he says.
He
recalls his own object lesson in the difficulty of writing about real people
and events: In "Capote," he combined three of Truman Capote's editors
into one, for the sake of the narrative. He ended up hearing from the son of
New Yorker editor William Shawn, actor Wallace Shawn, who wasn't totally
pleased with the portrayal of his father. Futterman says he was sympathetic to
those concerns and would certainly have addressed them in the script, had he
anticipated them.
Of the
three Oscar-nominated films in question, "Zero Dark Thirty" has
inspired the most fervent debate. The most intense criticism, despite acclaim
for the filmmaking craft involved, has been about its depictions of
interrogations, with some, including a group of senators, saying the film misleads
viewers for suggesting that torture provided information that helped the CIA
find Osama bin Laden.
There
also have been questions about the accuracy of the depiction of the main
character, a CIA officer played by Jessica Chastain; the real person - or even
combination of people, according to some theories - that she plays remains
anonymous.
Mark
Boal, the movie's screenwriter, said in a recent interview that screenwriters
have a double responsibility: to the material and to the audience.
"There's
a responsibility, I believe, to the audience, because they're paying money, and
to tell a good story," he said. "And there's a responsibility to be
respectful of the material."
In a
later interview with the Wall Street Journal, he added: "I think it's my right,
by the way, if I firmly believe that bin Laden was killed by aliens, to depict
that. ... In this country, isn't that legit?"
The
debate over "Argo" has been much less intense, though there has been
some grumbling from former officials in Britain and New Zealand that their
countries were portrayed incorrectly in the film as offering no help at all to
the six Americans, whereas actually, as Mendez writes, they did provide some
help.
And as
for the Canadians, the Toronto Star detailed late last year how Affleck (who
also stars as Mendez) agreed to adjust the postscript to his film to more
generously credit Canada and its ambassador at the time, Ken Taylor, who
protected the Americans at great personal risk.
To
Walter, the screenwriting professor, keeping track of all the historical
details is a losing battle.
"When
I am hungry and crave a tuna fish sandwich, I don't go to a hardware
store," he says. "When I seek a history lesson, I do not go to a
movie theater. I loved 'Argo' even though I know there was no last-minute
turn-around via a phone call from President Carter, nor were there Iranian
police cars chasing the plane down the tarmac as it took off. So what? These
conceits simply make the movie more exciting."
---
Associated
Press writers Jake Coyle in New York and Josh Hoffner in Phoenix, and
investigative researcher Randy Herschaft in New York contributed to this
report.
No comments:
Post a Comment