IAN D RICHARDSON'S celebrity interviews, random chat and news of publishing, films and broadcasting.
Showing posts with label cinema. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cinema. Show all posts
Sunday, 28 June 2020
How true are film or television "true stories"?
I've learned through bitter experience that scepticism is required when coming across a movie or a television drama that is "based on a true story". Sadly, many are more fiction than fact, often unnecessarily so.
Saturday, 10 December 2016
How true are "true stories" on TV and at the cinema?
Jonathan Oates, the
highly-respected local history organiser and researcher at Ealing
Library in London, has written to the Ealing Gazette challenging the accuracy of the current BBC1
drama Rillington Place.
As some of you know, I have an axe to grind over the way television and cinema dramatists often use "based on a true story" to play fast and loose with the facts -- usually for no honest purpose -- and in the process, re-writing what is the accepted historical record. I recently turned my back on the prospect of a large payment when I refused to extend the film rights to my book God's Triangle because one of the producers was promoting a script that outrageously and farcically ignored the true story.
Anyway, here is Jonathan's letter:
As some of you know, I have an axe to grind over the way television and cinema dramatists often use "based on a true story" to play fast and loose with the facts -- usually for no honest purpose -- and in the process, re-writing what is the accepted historical record. I recently turned my back on the prospect of a large payment when I refused to extend the film rights to my book God's Triangle because one of the producers was promoting a script that outrageously and farcically ignored the true story.
Anyway, here is Jonathan's letter:
In the interests of balance, here is the BBC blog on the background to the series:
***************
More on this topic. My bitter experience with a film maker who didn't care
about the truth in a true story. Go HERE
.
Thursday, 1 January 2015
Cinema: how breaking the rules can work
IN PRAISE OF LOCKE:
For a creative industry, the movie business can be extremely conservative. From the time I became interested in writing for the screen, I was frequently told "you can't do that", often without any rational explanation. It seemed to be a simple case of rules being passed down as the received wisdom from one generation of writers to another without a recognition that these rules are often there to be broken.
One of the first things I was frequently told was that it was wrong to have a one-sided telephone conversation, because that would mean the audience would not be able to understand what was going on. In many cases, yes. But not necessarily so. These people have obviously not heard the hilarious telephone conversations that took place in the excellent American TV series, Hill Street Blues, between Detective Belker and his interfering and possessive mother. We never heard her side of the conversation, but we always got the drift because of the way he responded.
Another instruction I was given was that as the cinema and TV are visual, I must keep changing scenes, so that boredom doesn't set in with the audience. Reasonable advice, but again not necessarily so. Further, I was told that in structuring a film and drafting the scenes, I should insert the dialogue last, and the dialogue must be kept to the absolute minimum. Above all, the dialogue must not tell the audience what it can see for itself. In other words, "show; don't tell". That is good advice in most screenplays, but again not necessarily so.
This leads me on to heap praise on the British feature film Locke, which I have only just seen. This is a brilliant movie, but I wonder how difficult it must have been to pitch to producers and financiers: "So this is a story about a guy who is supposed to be pouring cement, but is going through a marriage-wrecking emotional crisis. He is the only person we see in the film as he drives along a motorway at night, constantly on his mobile/cell phone to workmates, family and his pregnant former one-night stand." Not a grabber, you must admit, but the end result is an outstanding film with a stream of flawless dialogue and never a dull moment. It is arguable the most wonderful, imaginative rule-breaking film I have seen in the past year.
Finally, back to the rigid advice often handed out to those hoping to become screenwriters. Your must-read is William Goldman's Adventures in the Screen Trade. His message is "Nobody [in Hollywood] knows anything". Just keep that in mind next time someone tells you what you can and cannot do in screenwriting.
For a creative industry, the movie business can be extremely conservative. From the time I became interested in writing for the screen, I was frequently told "you can't do that", often without any rational explanation. It seemed to be a simple case of rules being passed down as the received wisdom from one generation of writers to another without a recognition that these rules are often there to be broken.
One of the first things I was frequently told was that it was wrong to have a one-sided telephone conversation, because that would mean the audience would not be able to understand what was going on. In many cases, yes. But not necessarily so. These people have obviously not heard the hilarious telephone conversations that took place in the excellent American TV series, Hill Street Blues, between Detective Belker and his interfering and possessive mother. We never heard her side of the conversation, but we always got the drift because of the way he responded.
Another instruction I was given was that as the cinema and TV are visual, I must keep changing scenes, so that boredom doesn't set in with the audience. Reasonable advice, but again not necessarily so. Further, I was told that in structuring a film and drafting the scenes, I should insert the dialogue last, and the dialogue must be kept to the absolute minimum. Above all, the dialogue must not tell the audience what it can see for itself. In other words, "show; don't tell". That is good advice in most screenplays, but again not necessarily so.
This leads me on to heap praise on the British feature film Locke, which I have only just seen. This is a brilliant movie, but I wonder how difficult it must have been to pitch to producers and financiers: "So this is a story about a guy who is supposed to be pouring cement, but is going through a marriage-wrecking emotional crisis. He is the only person we see in the film as he drives along a motorway at night, constantly on his mobile/cell phone to workmates, family and his pregnant former one-night stand." Not a grabber, you must admit, but the end result is an outstanding film with a stream of flawless dialogue and never a dull moment. It is arguable the most wonderful, imaginative rule-breaking film I have seen in the past year.
Finally, back to the rigid advice often handed out to those hoping to become screenwriters. Your must-read is William Goldman's Adventures in the Screen Trade. His message is "Nobody [in Hollywood] knows anything". Just keep that in mind next time someone tells you what you can and cannot do in screenwriting.
Monday, 23 June 2014
Sub-titles: a simple solution - SECOND UPDATE
My wife and I watched a film on DVD a couple of evenings ago and it took an infuriating four tries to get the sub-titles to work.
Why do film-makers conjure up unnecessarily complicated "set ups" on their DVDs. There is, after all, a simple way to do this without irritation. One DVD we watched a while ago had the simplest of solutions -- an opening menu with just two options:
1) Play
2) Play with sub-titles.
Now, why can't all film-makers do this with their DVDs?! So much better than all the complicated and confusing instructions we usually see.
SECOND UPDATE:
We watched Grand Budapest Hotel the other night on a Blu-Ray DVD. The sub-titling instructions were infuriatingly confusing and after three unsuccessful attempts to get the sub-titles to work, we had to give up.
Sub-titling on live British TV programmes is also a continuing issue. You'll find the latest complaints here: http://bit.ly/1A1iJPZ
Why do film-makers conjure up unnecessarily complicated "set ups" on their DVDs. There is, after all, a simple way to do this without irritation. One DVD we watched a while ago had the simplest of solutions -- an opening menu with just two options:
1) Play
2) Play with sub-titles.
Now, why can't all film-makers do this with their DVDs?! So much better than all the complicated and confusing instructions we usually see.
SECOND UPDATE:
We watched Grand Budapest Hotel the other night on a Blu-Ray DVD. The sub-titling instructions were infuriatingly confusing and after three unsuccessful attempts to get the sub-titles to work, we had to give up.
Sub-titling on live British TV programmes is also a continuing issue. You'll find the latest complaints here: http://bit.ly/1A1iJPZ
Thursday, 12 June 2014
Films: Should they always be show, not tell?
It is a received wisdom that the best films are the ones with very little dialogue. In other words, let the action tell the story.
As a general rule, I agree with this, as there are few films more tedious than those that talk, talk, talk, rather than show, show, show. But it is not always the case. My wife and I recently saw an excellent Romanian film Child's Pose. It is a simple story about a domineering mother trying to regain control over her adult son.
In the opening minutes, our hearts sank when faced with a stream of dialogue, but it quickly became clear that we needed all that detailed dialogue to understand why the mother had such a dreadful relationship with her son. Although there was very little traditional action in the film, the words were the action and we quickly found ourselves engrossed by the story. We gave the film 8/10, which is a very high rating for us.
So, the message to screen writers is this: just because most films are written a certain way, there are always exceptions to a rule. Child's Pose is one of them.
As a general rule, I agree with this, as there are few films more tedious than those that talk, talk, talk, rather than show, show, show. But it is not always the case. My wife and I recently saw an excellent Romanian film Child's Pose. It is a simple story about a domineering mother trying to regain control over her adult son.
In the opening minutes, our hearts sank when faced with a stream of dialogue, but it quickly became clear that we needed all that detailed dialogue to understand why the mother had such a dreadful relationship with her son. Although there was very little traditional action in the film, the words were the action and we quickly found ourselves engrossed by the story. We gave the film 8/10, which is a very high rating for us.
So, the message to screen writers is this: just because most films are written a certain way, there are always exceptions to a rule. Child's Pose is one of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)