You neglected to mention that a HUMAN BEING GUILTY OF AN ESPECIALLY BRUTAL MURDER was put to death by the state; you know, like the movie did. Now we can agree to disagree about the death penalty and that would be another thread anyway, but the thread here is about misleading the public by claiming that the point of the movie is that an innocent person was executed when that was NOT the case here.
Well, with Fargo the Coens were basically just making a joke with the “True Story” tagline. Think about it this way: The “True Story” claim is a part of the film, not a statement of fact. In the world of the movie Fargo, all the events did take place. But, the movie isn’t real. It’s a work of fiction. I would just accept it for what it is. The Coens were just having a laugh.
Some relevant info here:
Oh yeah, and there are probably very few chickens crossing roads at any given time.
I think that’s the whole point of “my” side in this thread. When a film states that the story is true, it misleads people into thinking that it’s, well, true.
So you say that the tagline is part of the fiction of the film. So what if I make a film that’s really, really, honestly and truly true? How do I communicate that? Can I make the true disclaimer upon 3 false embedded ones? Ah, but then, those 4 taglines were all part of the film! Take it for what it’s worth! It’s fiction! 
If I go on Jay Leno and say that my film is absolutely true, can I claim that my appearance on Leno was part of the “totality of the artistic fiction”?
Sure, you can say whatever you want. Whether people believe what you say is up to them. You can really be telling the truth or not and call it performance art or something. See the recent Joaquin Phoenix stunt for example. There are even “documentaries” that are suspected or known to be intentional fabrications. Exit Through The Gift Shop is a recent example. Honestly, I really wouldn’t worry too much about it.
You should avoid all historical dramas ever.
I can like or dislike, agree or disagree with, various choices about the way history is fictionalized in film… I may even feel that some choices are ‘truer’ than others… but it is all fictionalized. Unless your movie is assembled entirely from actual documentary material, there’s no other way to do it.
Reduction to the point of absurdity, DigitalC?
It seems to me by your standards, you would feel free to make a Bugs Bunny movie and add the ‘based on true events’ tagline. What, if any, is the standard you would suggest to determine when the line should (or shouldn’t) be applied?
My standards? no, those are Hollywood standards. Movie after movie has made it absolutely clear that the “based on a true story” disclaimer is not to be taken seriously, and anyone who does and then claims they feel lied to is just downright silly. Those disclaimers are part of the movie, they are no more real than anything else and usually apply only to the smallest degree.
Why? I find many historical dramas to be generally accurate in all the important stuff and I’m not going to sweat the details. I only get annoyed by the minority of movies that rewrite history as the main theme of a movie.
Even the judgment of what the “important stuff” is to depict reflects a filmmaker’s interpretation, a viewpoint, often an agenda. That’s fine; I love historical dramas.
But virtually all of them rewrite history; that’s basically what they are.
Not at all. Schindler’s List was a good movie and it was generally true. Yes, Spielberg changed some of the details but the central theme of the movie was Oskar Schindler trying to protect Jews in Nazi Germany and that really happened.
Compare that to JFK. The central theme of that movie was that there was a vast government conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. And Oliver Stone just pulled that out of his ass. But a lot of people now believe that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Why? Because they saw JFK. That’s the harm caused by rewriting history in the movies.
Kennedy conspiracists existed before JFK, of course; the movie would not have been made without their fevered imaginations.
Of course there are different manners and degrees of fictionalization of history. I’m not at all sure that fancies like that are the most pernicious sort.
He pulled it out of Jim Garrison’s ass,
Garrison had a theory, Oliver Stone made a movie about that theory and there are, sadly, folks that don’t understand that [del]movies are not history [/del] “It’s not a fucking documentary.” (and documentary films are not journalism, and neither are history. Three very different things with very different sets of standards.).
CMC
Demolition Squid. Based on a true story.
Oliver Stone doesn’t have to invent his own lies to be morally responsible for them. He chose to take lies told by other people and chose to make a movie out of them - they therefore become his lies as well. And if you lie to people that’s your moral responsibility. You can’t shrug it off and say it’s the moral responsibility of the audience because they were the ones who believed your lie.
I neglected nothing. Guilty human beings are still human beings, and it is always a horrible injustice for the state to put human beings to death.
I’m sure I’ve mentioned this before.
No we can’t.
I wasn’t attempting to be responsive to what some people think is the point of the thread. I was responding to a single post which suggested that a horrible injustice did NOT occur.
I support the death penalty and I think it’s a horrible injustice when human beings who are guilty of a heinous crime are allowed to live for many more years, and on some occasions very happily (see the videos of the last years of Richard Speck). So yes we do disagree.
Well, I’m not agreeing that you’re merely disagreeing with me. You’re just plain wrong.
To support the death penalty, that is. You could conceivably be right about any number of other issues, such as that the Designated Hitter Rule is an abomination in the sight of the Lord.
And you continually assert that, as though it’s an obvious moral truth, without ever giving the slightest argument for that assertion. You are growing exceedingly tedious. People have moral disagreement with it. Back it up with an actual moral argument, or STFU, already.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: