Yes, I know, nobody’s arguing that Shaffer’s point wasn’t biography, and Amadeus and Equus are two of my favorite plays of all time. However, he did malign the actual characters. (If it’s possible to malign de Soto, Royal Hunt did a worse number on him than Amadeus did on Salieri, and Atahuallpa pretty much deserved what he god [veddy veddy bad man].) Equus I don’t really count since he doesn’t use any of the actual names, just an event (it would be like writing a play about a school shooting but not using the actual names or details- there’d be really no need for an “inspired by” label.)
On a similar note, Bonnie & Clyde tried to make Texas Ranger Frank Hamer (played by Denver “Uncle Jesse” Pyle) as the bad guy. Hamer’s widow and son, who were still alive when the show premiered, actually got hate mail from fans of the movie! In fact killing Bonnie & Clyde was a public service that he had every right to be proud of- they were joy-killing scum. (Hamer has been trashed in the press for “stealing” most of B&C’s [stolen] arsenal, though I think he deserved it.)
You’d have to ask him. Heck, you could address that same question to anyone in this thread. Or to the guys who made I, Robot, after disregarding Asimov’s book.
Undoubtedly, they’re assuming the public interest in the topic will drag people in to see the work. And I don’t mean just in a crass, commercial way. If your screenplay is based for the most part on the life of Thomas Edison, you’ll calo the damned thing edison, because people will come to see it. If you called it Smith, people wouldn’t have the slightest idea what it was about, and you wouldn’t get the audience.
I note that, even when the authors deliberately avoid saying it’s about a particular incident, people still characterize it that way. Inherit the Wind thus wasn’t about the Scopes Trial in Dayton, it was fictional. They changed all the names. Of course, everything was so similar (right down to the names – Darrow changed to Drummond, etc.) that everyone treats ITW as if it was about the historical incident, and complain about the inaccuracies.
Of course, they wanted to comment on the Scopes trial and the attitudes of all involved, but they did fictionalize it, right?
The emperor Nero in Quo Vadis. (Yes, I know, the book came first)
Granted that as a human being, Nero was not exactly worthy of much praise. He was incredibly vain, had a violent temper, and allowed much of the empire to go straight to hell while he built an astonishingly lavish palace and a colossal statue of himself.
But I will defend him on one point. He was not responsible for the burning of Rome. In fact, he went to great pains to have the fire put out, then he opened his own estates to house the newly homeless and artificially lowered the price of grain to keep people from starving. The rumors that implicated Nero for causing the fire started even before the ashes had grown cold, and though few (if any) scholars accept them, they are popularly believed even today.
Patch Adams … the film was so highly fictionalized that to this day Patch himself hates the movie since he feels it gives the completely wrong impression of what he’s all about.
How about Marion Davies’ portrayal in Citizen Kane? In the movie, she’s a money gubbing, talentless hack. In real life, she was a talented actress who loved Randolph Hearst enough to loan him money when he hit a low patch…
It doesn’t immediately follow his appearance. The cartoon is later in the film – about 20 minutes later, IIRC.
Back to the original subject, most of the ones I know have been named already. But I do have an obscure one – although Richard Wagner certainly had his faults, he wasn’t literally a blood-sucking Nazi as portrayed in Ken Russell’s Lisztomania.
Similarly, Cosima Wagner (nee Liszt) probably didn’t really use a voodoo doll to curse dear ol’ dad.
For what it’s worth, I have, several times. I couldn’t agree more with Rik. The treacly saint in the movie bears no relationship to the man. The movie was far too kind. I do appreciate the work he does, but as a person I found him to be an insufferable ass.
Haven’t seen Lisztomania so I don’t know how far they streteched the truth. But Wagner was virulently anti-Semitic. He wrote long ranting diatribes (under a pen name) expressing his disgust that Jews were allowed to claim German citizenship.
Actually I must amend this. I have no idea if he does any actual work, and from the link cited it appears he doesn’t. Furthermore his methods don’t seem to have any evidence that would lead me to believe that they are effective, in short I don’t have much good to say.
Why does a doctor who founds a free community clinic deserve a “hatchet job”?