It began by saying ‘This film is based on actual events. Some of the detail has been added or altered.’ The problem is that it didn’t say which bits had been added or altered, but some scenes – the TV interviews, the film set locations etc – were obviously lifted from life. So what about the rest?
The problem here is that there was enough content and character to lead the viewer, subconsciously at least, to suppose that every word was true in spite of the disclaimer. This leads me to question whether it is fair and honest to make such a film, knowing that a certain amount of manipulation has gone on in order to make it more entertaining.
I can’t help feeling that if we’re going to present a story about an actual person and actual events, we should only do so in one of two ways: either as a straight documentary or as a drama-documentary that sticks strictly to the known facts. Simply adding a disclaimer to cover the undeclared bits of fiction doesn’t stop viewers believing things about the person and events that are false.
2 comments:
That's true. I always assumed they wouldn't make up too much though, because otherwise would that person be worth writing a documentary about anyway? It's clear that I will have to rethink this.
But even if they don't make up too much, we still don't know which bits they are. Seems to me that one statement or aspect of attitude could radically alter our view of a person, and it might be that bit they made up under the justification of dramatic licence.
Post a Comment