Inspired by a True Story? Then Expect Some Scrutiny

As someone who has at different times covered the entertainment industry as a reporter and also worked in the business, I feel compelled to raise a few points about Patrick Goldstein’s surprisingly studio-friendly column that appeared Dec. 19 (“History Is Only the Launch Pad”).

His subject: films inspired by real-life events that come under attack (rightly or wrongly) by the media for playing loose with the facts--pictures such as “The Hurricane,” “JFK,” “Amistad” and “The Insider.” Goldstein jumped almost wholeheartedly to the defense of producers and studio executives whose pictures were slammed--some would say analyzed--for their alleged inaccuracy. They complained that this criticism unfairly hurt both the commercial and Oscar chances of their films, and Goldstein’s column seemed unusually sympathetic.

He includes “JFK” as a movie lashed by the media for its dramatic license. True, the Oliver Stone film probably got more heat for its revisionism than any other film of the modern era. Yet, if memory serves, “JFK” managed to weather the attacks and achieve solid success at the box office. (I also recall that Stone stood up to the questions and answered them directly, without much whining.)

Goldstein then cites “Erin Brockovich” as a picture that escaped criticism and gained widespread popularity. But I also remember news stories at the time examining claims that the picture distorted reality. Both examples, as Goldstein used them, would seem to undermine his basic argument.

Is it possible that some of the other pictures he named failed commercially for other reasons, and that media skepticism--something most reporters consider a virtue--has just become a convenient scapegoat? And isn’t it true that the studios often exploit the controversial nature of such films to sell them--but then want to turn off the controversy when it becomes troublesome?

Goldstein also failed to make an obvious and important point: These same execs who feel their films are above reproach spend literally millions of dollars convincing the public that these projects are based on fact. They use words like “real-life drama” and “true story” and “history at its most exciting” in their press kits, press releases, trailers and advertising. They trot out historic figures portrayed in the films (usually for a fat paycheck) to give interviews, further bolstering the notion that these are accurate representations of actual events. The only disclaimers--if that--come briefly at the beginning of the picture, when ticket buyers are already in their $9 seats.

I have no problem with taking dramatic license when telling a story, fact-based or wholly fictional, for dramatic purposes. I write articles and documentary television programming for a living, but I also write mystery novels and sold an original screenplay as recently as last week. I appreciate the need to sometimes create composite characters, change dialogue to make it more succinct and compelling, or alter the plot for the sake of entertainment.

But I also understand the right--indeed, the responsibility--of a robust press to scrutinize these mega-million-dollar movie projects with their mega-million-dollar marketing and promotion campaigns that are rarely, if ever, fully honest and forthright.