‘Dishonest’ Films

I liked ' The Crown ' . Distorted reality ? Naturally but entertaining and not over the top which it could have easily been.

 

What about movies based on books that are claimed to be a true autobiographical account?

The first movie that comes to mind is Papillon (1973). I love the movie, but anyone with any sense of reality can see that the storyteller (Papillon) is embellishing truths with falsehoods in order to make himself and his feats look more impressive. (I didn't see the recent remake, so I don't know about any differences in that.)

The only things from the book/movie that have been verified to be accurate are:

1. Henri Charrière (Papillon) was a real person born in France in 1906.
2. There was a penal colony in French Guiana from 1852 until 1946.
3. Conditions were severe at the penal colony and most new arrivals died and never made it through their incarceration or never make it back to France after incarceration.
4. Most inmates who attempted escape died from either the elements, wild animals, bounty hunters, or drowning.
5. Papillon did get sentenced in 1936 for murder and sent to the penal colony and later escaped.
6. Became a Venezuelan citizen, opened a restaurant and wrote a book.

But everything else in the book/movie cannot be verified as accurate. People who knew Papillon (before, during and after incarceration) did say that he was a good storyteller, thus raising questions of whether or not it is truly autobiographical and not partially made-up. Also, accusations of Papillon plagiarizing parts of a similar book about an escape from a French Guiana penal colony that was written 30 years prior.

 

I think distorted a kinder word than dishonest. The fabrications in that series are legion. But yes, very entertaining.

 

Good choice of film and I like it very much as well. Neil Armstrong apparently thought it was terrible...even though he liked Apollo 13. They both take liberties but Apollo 13 gets the important facts correct. The Right Stuff has a lot of comedy in it and it’s closer to Braveheart with the ‘facts’ but it’s still a great movie because enough of the ‘what happened to get man into space and what kind of men it took to do so’ is there.
As far as Gus goes...he had the last laugh I hope as the capsule was retrieved from the Pacific a few years ago and I’m pretty sure his version was proven.

Movies based on factual events and characters are always full of fallacies it seems. I consider the what and when and who and then consider the cinematography, score, acting and such before I toss it out as ‘dishonest’.

Braveheart is a great film for these reasons to me. JFK is crap because the director had an agenda as Stone often does, and we were talking about stuff that happened a few decades ago, JFK, not events that happened 700 years ago, Braveheart, way before the printing press was even invented. The Right Stuff is somewhere in between those two IMO.

 

Granted but my question stands.

 

I liked your post, *not* because Apollo died, but because you pointed that out... It wasn't all fun 'n games in the "Rocky" universe.

 

I'll say !
" Cut me , Mick. Cut me !"

 

I just watched Gray Gardens. I think the Maysles tried hard NOT to have a point of view, or at least not make it obvious. One could argue that objectivity is impossible in this context, but at least they were cognizant and tried to minimize their intrusions as much as they could.

In the case of the Gimme Shelter, the Stones do kinda come off as oblivious, irresponsible arseholes but I don't think that was the Maysles fault.

 

Gods and Generals - recently watched n epic take down of this trash

 

Bohemian Rhapsody. Actually made me angry.

 

Obliquely accusatory. This is based only on one scene near the end, when the picture freeze frames and zoomed in on Mick as the ominous strains of “Gimme Shelter” kick in.

 

...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Mississippi Burning was a terrific film but hardly factual on a number fronts.

 

Eh, this is not the first time a script bent the facts. But Billy Hayes, the author of the book on which the movie was based, has groused that they veered too far from the truth and didn't really tell the real story, just in order to make it more dramatic (or make the story easier to tell). There's a partial list of the book/movie differences on Wikipedia:

Midnight Express (film) - Wikipedia

He's been complaining about this for almost 40 years, and actually tours the country with a one-man show talking about the film and his own life...

Billy Hayes: Midnight Express

I see both sides of it, and I know a movie is not reality, and when it says "based on a true story," the reality is that it may only be loosely based on the truth. Whenever I've mildly criticized a director for a pretty obvious mistake in a movie or show, like a song being 3 years off from the story or a pop culture ad being anachronistic, they generally roll their eyes and say, "kid, we're not making a documentary here."

I can think of 903 million reasons why Disney doesn't care than any fans are angry about the Freddie Mercury film. Also not a documentary.

I think Freddie Mercury's life was so interesting, you could easily make a 4-5 hour documentary that told the whole story, warts and all. There wouldn't be a single dull moment. But it'd be a rough film to make, let alone show on mass-market television (streaming, home video, whatever).

 

The Great Caruso
The Jolson Story
Jolson Sings Again
Rhapsody in Blue
Song of Love
Blossom Time
Funny Girl
Funny Lady
The Great Ziegfeld
Trader Horn
The Hindenburg
The Red Tent
Edison The Man
Young Tom Edison
Wilson
Nixon
Tennessee Johnson
Titanic
Immortal Beloved
Copying Beethoven
Amadeus
The Young Toscanini
Florence Foster Jenkins
Saving Mr. Banks
Words and Music (1948)
Three Little Words

 

I'm descended from Vikings and I assure you that we would have raped everyone and plundered the church but not burned it down with everyone in it. That would have been a waste of potential wives, rowers, and farm hands.

 

I don't think your ancestors could have brought home all that plunder AND all those enslaved men and raped women in their tiny boats

 

There's a line somewhere about little men in boats but I think I will leave it out.

 

I've never seen "JFK" to be honest. It's never seemed worth my time. Put me down for one the few, apparently, that liked "The Doors". Yes, a lot of it was dopey and seemed to follow the Sugerman "No One Gets Out of Here Alive" book, but whatever. I found it entertaining. I thought the casting was good (except, perhaps, Kevin Dillon as Densmore). Kilmer was great.

 

Ever seen 15 people in a Volkswagen?
Besides, we would've stolen all of their boats too.

 

I thought that was a great travelogue!