So I just watched The Fourth Kind, which billed itself as being ‘based on actual events’ so heavily as to include (alledged) actual footage of the incidents portrayed, often in synch with the ‘fictionalized’ action in a split-screen presentation (which mostly succeeded in just being irritating).
Now, after the film ended, I thought to myself, well, that sure seemed like a load of poppycock, and resolved, using the amateur sleuth abilities the internet bestows upon all of us, to double-check the ‘actual events’ portrayed in the movie. What I found was there weren’t any. It’s completely made up, out of the whole cloth, despite explicitly claiming certain footage as honest-to-god real (though I must confess that I had my doubts when some police footage apparently showed a quadruple murder-suicide).
Despite not being terribly surprised, I can’t help but feel cheated a little. It’s one thing to stage a fake ‘documentary’ Blair Witch-style, but creating a fiction based on ‘actual events’ including claimed-as-real footage that’s a complete fiction in itself strikes me as a whole new level of not-quite-truth in advertising. Besides, the claims of this and that being real footage were so obvious and in your face (Milla Jovovich even did a little presentation in the beginning of the film, expounding on this) that I can’t help but wonder if it’s even legal to do something like this.
So, that’s my question – if a movie claims to be based ‘on actual events’, is there actually any obligation for it to be, in some part? Or can they just claim that the claim itself is a fictional one? Because to me, it does seem to be a bit of a con to collect people’s money based on false claims of factual accuracy; there might well be a good percentage of moviegoers that watched this film on the basis of a promise that in the end it didn’t deliver.
The movie Fargo claimed to be based on a true story, though it was pure fiction.
And every movie is based on actual events. If it weren’t, it would be a series of unintelligeible images.
The norm is that “based on actual events” means that sombody said something like this happened somewhere sometime and we’ve used that story to create another story.
I don’t know if you’re restricting your question to just movies or you’re including television.
I vaguely remember an article in TV Guide around 25 years ago. The article was about the ‘Based on actual events’ tag. The part of the article I do remember mentioned a specific move about 2 reporters who worked across from each other (their desks were set up back to back), one was a smoker the other wasn’t. The reporters worked at the same desks for the next 20 years or so.
In real life one of them died, I think it was the smoker. In the movie they killed off the other guy and make second hand smoke a plot point.
Sure, it’s based on actual events. They’re just changing a significant fact. Not a big deal, right?
I thought that might be how it worked, and you’re right in saying that in a sufficiently abstracted manner, everything is based on a true story; however, I’m still a bit boggled that you can actually fabricate false ‘evidence’ for the reality of your story without any repercussions. How’s that different from every other scam where you pay money for something based on false promises?
It’s called “fiction.” That means its made up. Basically, fiction is lies that tell a truth.
Part of the art of fiction is to make a good story. When the truth and the story conflict, any fiction writer worthy of the name will put the story over the truth.
The clearest example I’ve seen of this was when Ron Shelton was discussing his movie Cobb (which otherwise stuck completely with the facts). One of the dramatic moments in the film was when Cobb discovered Smitty was keeping secret notes of their encounters in order to give an unvarnished account (Cobb was a bastard, but his autobiography – written with Smitty – glosses over this).
In real life, Smitty did keep secret notes, but Cobb never saw them or knew about them. Shelton said that once you set up the idea that these notes existed, it was a dramatic necessity that Cobb find out about them.
So if the real life is less dramatic than fiction, you jettison real life and write a good story.
What RealityChuck said. You shouldn’t go to any movie with the expectation that it will be showing reality. Even if it’s based on real people or events. Movies are for the purpose of entertainment not conveying history. You get scammed by a movie if it’s boring not if it’s fake.
There’s a legal concept called “puffery” that allows restaurants to claim “the world’s greatest cheeseburger” or “America’s best chili.” Restaurants don’t have to do extensive testing to prove their claims. They can just post a sign. If you want to believe, clap your hands.
Fiction is allowed the same dispensation. Once it’s fiction, anything is fair game. The very purpose of fiction is to trick the reader or viewer. You can’t draw a line and say that certain lies are acceptable but certain lies are not. It’s all lies. If you don’t want to be part of the game, then don’t play. If you do play, accept the rules, which say that there are no rules.
Exapno Mapcase, to reflect on both your posts, in the movie Fargo the line that says it isn’t fiction is itself a fiction, like a little logical paradox.
Yeah, the real tip-off is at the end of the show that was “ripped from today’s headllines,” the part where it says that any resemblance to any actual person is entirely coincidental.
