Wednesday 30 November 2005
I commented on Andrew Montin's latest peice Enlightenment at Hold That Thought.
Wednesday 16 November 2005
True stories...
Saw Wolf Creek last week and more or less enjoyed it. As a horror film it works on a number of levels, though misses something that I haven't yet put my finger on - perhaps it lacked impact because traditionally Australians don't have the same anxieties about non urban environments and the people who inhabit them as people from other cultures do.
Anyway what I found myself pondering after the film was not the actual film itself but the brief intro about missing persons in Australia that ended with something like, "The following is based on a true story".
The fact that it was based on two true stories, taking the setting - well the isolation of the setting at least - from one and some of the more gruesome details from the other, meant that its connection to 'the facts' was extremely tenuous. Of course it is not the first time that a horror movie has been based on a true story; both Psycho (1960) and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) are based on the story of, serial killer, Ed Gein. Ironically Psycho, which does not claim to be a true story, is closer to the truth than The Texas Chain Saw Massacre which does.
What I found myself wondering about was whether it is right to claim a work of fiction is based on a true story when the purpose of the work is not to explore the truth, but to entertain. If the purpose of a movie (or novel) is to explore some aspect/s of a real event and or share any insights with an audience, it makes sense to indicate its basis in fact, even if - for creative reasons or to protect the innocent - much detail has been changed. But I think there is a problem with making such a claim if the only reason for doing so is to generate media interest in order to enhance commercial prospects.
I vaguely recall that the Coen brother's superb, off beat crime film, Fargo (1996) began with a caption claiming that it was based on a true story. If I am remembering correctly I noted the claim at the time and after watching the film thought something along the lines of, 'people really get themselves mixed up in some terrible things'. I later read in an interview with the brothers that it was not based on a true story - which of course doesn't change the fact that people get mixed up in terrible things - but that they had included the 'true story' claim for playful reasons. I don't remember feeling particularly 'angry' about being hoodwinked. That might have been because I thought ( and still think) that the Coen brothers are great film makers.
It occurs to me now that it is not a good sign for Wolf Creek's horror movie credentials if that's what I was left thinking about when it finished. Perhaps I should leave questions of truth and responsibility aside - difficult questions that I am disinclined to pursue too thoroughly due to laziness - because the real issue might be the film's failure as a horror movie. I'll conclude by downgrading my original assesment of the film and say that for me it failed.
Anyway what I found myself pondering after the film was not the actual film itself but the brief intro about missing persons in Australia that ended with something like, "The following is based on a true story".
The fact that it was based on two true stories, taking the setting - well the isolation of the setting at least - from one and some of the more gruesome details from the other, meant that its connection to 'the facts' was extremely tenuous. Of course it is not the first time that a horror movie has been based on a true story; both Psycho (1960) and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) are based on the story of, serial killer, Ed Gein. Ironically Psycho, which does not claim to be a true story, is closer to the truth than The Texas Chain Saw Massacre which does.
What I found myself wondering about was whether it is right to claim a work of fiction is based on a true story when the purpose of the work is not to explore the truth, but to entertain. If the purpose of a movie (or novel) is to explore some aspect/s of a real event and or share any insights with an audience, it makes sense to indicate its basis in fact, even if - for creative reasons or to protect the innocent - much detail has been changed. But I think there is a problem with making such a claim if the only reason for doing so is to generate media interest in order to enhance commercial prospects.
I vaguely recall that the Coen brother's superb, off beat crime film, Fargo (1996) began with a caption claiming that it was based on a true story. If I am remembering correctly I noted the claim at the time and after watching the film thought something along the lines of, 'people really get themselves mixed up in some terrible things'. I later read in an interview with the brothers that it was not based on a true story - which of course doesn't change the fact that people get mixed up in terrible things - but that they had included the 'true story' claim for playful reasons. I don't remember feeling particularly 'angry' about being hoodwinked. That might have been because I thought ( and still think) that the Coen brothers are great film makers.
It occurs to me now that it is not a good sign for Wolf Creek's horror movie credentials if that's what I was left thinking about when it finished. Perhaps I should leave questions of truth and responsibility aside - difficult questions that I am disinclined to pursue too thoroughly due to laziness - because the real issue might be the film's failure as a horror movie. I'll conclude by downgrading my original assesment of the film and say that for me it failed.
