Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Siegmund, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:14 PM.
They did. It was called THE INCREDIBLES.
Haven't read all posts but:
The Elephant Man
Even documentaries are not 100% factual. Last night the BAFTAS awarded the Best Documentary award to a documentary that includes more than 60 provable lies and inaccuracies. But then I suspect the producers paid for the award!
I did enjoy it though.
And the mum was a good sort!
Speaking of dishonest BAFTA-winning documentaries: there's also Searching For Sugar Man, which severely torques the story of singer/songwriter Sixto Rodriguez in order to tell the story the filmmakers wanted to tell.
Fiction, yes, but "inspired by actual events," so, if the movie depicts a sunrise, the sunrise was an actual event at or around the time the movie took place.
That's exactly it - filmmakers deciding what the story is, thereby riding roughshod over the truth. In fact documentaries are often the most dishonest films because they try to claim to be honest.
Just to correct myself in my previous post - the BAFTA category was Best Factual Series (not Best Documentary). And there was really nothing factual about it at all.
If you are going to make a real documentary, you should do what the winner of this award didn't do:
1. You should consider other points of view.
2. You should conduct research to ensure that the story you are telling cannot be debunked by other versions of 'the truth' that are already in the public domain.
3. Particularly in a documentary where you are accusing someone of sexual abuse you should not be heard answering the questions on behalf of your interviewees.
4. If you want the public to believe you are making a serious documentary about child sexual abuse it is advisable not to follow the social media accounts of people with an unhealthy interest with such abuse.
"Ladies and gentlemen: the story you are about to hear is true. Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent." Dragnet
The Lord of the Rings makes New Zealand look like it is full of dangerous Orcs. Not so in reality.
Yes...pretty sexy for a cartoon character. Sexier than Jessica Rabbit.
JFK by Oliver Stone
Know that not only fictitious films have a point of view,a documentary must first have a point of view. It just must.
JFK is basically a conspiracy theory (or, rather: several conspiracy theories) turned into a film. I enjoyed it the first time I saw it, but on my one subsequent viewing, I can remember thinking: ‘What a piece of horse’s ass!’
Stone’s subsequent political films appear to have stayed closer to the established facts (not difficult), though I don’t think any of them are any good.
Richard Attenborough’s film about Chaplin (1992) doesn’t so much distort the facts as sugar-coat them. But how else could you make a film about a man who liked ‘barely legal’ girls and still get a 15 certificate?
Bohemian Rhapsody? I understand it distorted a few things to add to the drama.
and the Doors
Spielberg's "The Paper". It really bugged me how they promoted this and tried to palm it off as history. Doubly so because simply telling the true story would have made for a more nuanced but absorbing film. Note to Tom, Meryl and Steve: making well heeled and connected Washington Insiders "heroes" is never more than propaganda. I think the audience smelled that from 10 miles away.
Spielberg’s ‘The Post’: Good Movie, Bad History
For that matter, All the Presidents Men does a convenient end around re: the Grand Jury Investigation into Watergate. Did Woodward and Bernstein perform a great service? Maybe. One could argue that letting the Grand Jury play out would have been better for the Country, and more judicially moral. Nixon wasn't going to get away with anything.
Why Bradleegate Matters: Woodward and Bernstein's Deception
We have a tie for 'first prize'!
It effed with the timelines and exaggerated some things for dramatic effect, but I don’t think it was dishonest in the sense the OP is going for.
I would argue that we couldn't/can't say the same thing about "The Buddy Holly Story" compared to "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood".
The two central characters in "Once Upon a Time..." are fictitious people, where Buddy Holly was an actual young man, so right there's a big difference to me anyway.
While I do think that a lot of "The Buddy Holly Story" is basically a fairy tale, if it was the same type of film as "Once Upon a Time...", The Crickets never would have broken up, Buddy never would have went on the Winter Dance party (and if he did, the tour would have been exceptionally well thought out and equipped with top notch, warm transportation), Buddy would have lived thru the 60s and experienced a huge resurgence in popularity, would have lived to play with The Crickets at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction, and would be a ripe old age of 84 this year.
But, of course, "The Buddy Holly Story" wasn't/isn't that kind of film- It passed itself off as a biographical film, and as such, is supposed to be at least somewhat factual. It really isn't.
PS: I know the other rock bio-films aren't top notch info either.
You could certainly debate whether the classic documentary Gimme Shelter had a point of view.
Beat me to it! "JFK" is remarkable as a film, but it's jam-packed with dishonesty...
I HATED that film
It wasn't meant to be a documentary.
Most film versions of real events take considerable artistic license with facts. They have to, whether it's a 90 minute film or a 3 1/2 hour film.
Separate names with a comma.