NEW QUESTION:
What is the responsibility of the filmmaker when a film is based on a true story or real events?The question came up in regards to
Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story and how little that film is based on Lee's actual life or the biography written by his wife (even though her character narrates the film.) Ebert talked about
In the Name of the Father, a film that is also quite different from the real events though a lot of people don't know that because the real events are not as well known as Bruce Lee. Ultimately, Ebert decides that "accuracy always finishes second to the devices of drama, pacing and storytelling. The film critic can only review the film, not the facts."
This is a policy I apply to documentaries, which is why I can say good things about Michael Moore. He's very good at using the documentary medium to make an entertaining film. However, there's always a problem when the filmmakers try to present their film as fact. FroHam
had this problem with
The King of Kong, while I
enjoyed the underdog aspect a lot. I had a problem with
Mississippi Burning, which throws away 90min of a great film for an amped up 3rd Act because the truth was dull. Except the film's climax was way too twisty to feel real.
Then there's
Fargo, which the Coen Brothers sold as based on real events. That helped make the movie great. Then when we learned those 'real events' was part of the fiction, it somehow made the film better.