The "Docu-Drama," a license to lie?

[Archae]

There was an article in TV Guide years ago by this title, and some examples of "docu-dramas" (dramas based on factual events) flat-out lying were shown.

The genre of "docu-dramas" has become more and more prevalent now in movies, the latest being "Game Change."

Before "Game Change" there was "Road To 9-11," "J. Edgar" and "JFK."

Are we Americans so jaded to actual facts that we *NEED* to embellish them?

[Bluenorthwest]

1. Some dramas are right wing propaganda. Thus, drama is lying?

J Edgar is not a docudrama. Nor was Game Change. Sorry. Game Change is an adaptation of a written source whose author was part of the story. Others portrayed in the film say it is accurate. Palin does not. It is a story in which she rides in on a white horse and sets fire to the town, so she's not going to like anything which recounts that time. The film is not shot as if it were a documentary, nor is it constructed to seem as if it is. For example, it uses actors as or more famous than the people they are playing. This shouts 'cinema' rather loudly.
I could go on and on. I do not see any specific complaints here, just a sort of 'some people lie, you are a person, so you are a liar' sort of take on the film. Which parts did you think were not accurate and what do you use as citation?

[Archae]

2. I'm no fan of Palin, believe me.

But how much of "Game Change" has been embellished?

One complaint I've heard already about the film was Ed Harris' language playing McCain.

McCain does have a temper problem, but does he really swear that much?

If a drama is based on actual events and people, it's a docu-drama.
How much embellishment is too much?
I say any embellishmet is too much.

[Atman]

3. Bad response. You didn't help your case.

"McCain does have a temper, but does he really swear that much?"

That's hardly a citation of fact contrary to Harris's portrayal. McCain is a crusty old veteran/POW...why is it so hard to believe that he would swear?

[pamela]

4. Yes, he does.

People who know McCain have said the movie actually toned his foul language down a bit.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. McCain swears like crazy. I did not notice that it was 'that much', still McCain does use

lots of language. Lots.

And a docu-drama is a specific form, not all historic or biographical films are 'docu-dramas'. A docu-drama feigns reality. It would not use a score, for example, and employs camera work that suggests hand held, in the moment present recording of the action. The biographical form of film is old, the docu-drama is a much more recent form.
And of course, first one has to show there is embellishment to take issue with it. You did not manage that. Also, any and all retold tales are subjective. Two honest people telling their own version of their mutual lunch will tell two different stories. This is the story as it is told from one of the players. Which is what it says it is. It does not claim to document, it claims to recollect. It is not 'the action as it happened' it is 'the action as I saw it'. Huge difference. Huge. A docudrama does not employ the 'characters' as story tellers, they are employed as things that are actual, and photographed, like a dog at play. The camera supplies the narrative, not the people in the story. The camera is the narrator, the point of view.
So aside from that, Mrs Lincoln, what do you think was trumped up?

[Archae]

6. For "Game Change," I have no idea.

So far.
And for McCain's cussing I was just going on what one of his aides said.

I have a jaded look at movies "based on real events," because of what TV did for so long, and movies like "JFK" did.
"The Road TO 9-11" was particularly bad also, taking real events and distorting or simply making things up.

Screenwriters do not *HAVE* to make shit up.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Again, making a claim that one film you saw sucked thus they all must also suck is not

logical at all. And JFK was a film which again did not claim to portray what happened, it was all about the central character, and told us what he thought, the conclusions he came to. The film itself did not come to a conclusion at all. It presented Garrison, and his experiences and ideas. It does not recreate the day and attempt to 'show what happened'. It shows that which Garrison found, as he found it. The film 'says' that the official story is not accurate, and that some people tell a different story. What the film says is true, no matter if Garrison is accurate or half so or not at all.
Road to 9-11 was a piece of shit, which played like a sack of shit, and got all the success due a pile of shit. It was also an actual 'docu-drama' and that was the greatest of it's offenses. It pretended to tell historic facts. The pretense is also what made their project a laughing stock. No one who made that sack of shit is associated with the film at hand. And John McCain swears like mad.
Speaking of pretense, what is the point you are out to make,since you keep not making one? McCain swears, you got footage. Any other concerns?

[Archae]

12. By your own post, "JFK" and "Road To 9-11" are the same.

Both movies took actual events and distorted them them WAYYYYY beyond the actual facts.

For "JFK" the "bad guys" were Garrison's imaginary "conspiracy."

In "Road To 9-11" the "bad guys" were an imaginary Bill and Hillary Clinton and their White House.

[nanabugg]

17. One thing, we lived through the McCain-Palin saga. Just use your memory. nt

[cthulu2016]

7. Some docu-dramas are more truthful than some journalism...

...and more truthful than some history.

The recent case, GAME CHANGE, is a fine piece of work and the viewer comes away better informed. Since I followed the 2012 election quite closely there was a lot the movie had to integrate into documented reality to pass the credibility test and it did, with flying colors.

Since it is a portrait of a personality in time the dramatization was an effective way to present something subtle. Most of it was based on things said (sometimes off the record) by people who were in the room.

On the veracity meter it was probably a little more true to life than Alan Pakula's ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (a great film).

A docudrama can, because it can portray character in an unusually vivid way, hypothetically be the most true version of history. It can also be utter fabrication., which is more commonly the case.

It's all in who's making it, and why, and how...

[Archae]

8. But just how accurate is it?

I still say a screenwriter does not *HAVE* to embellish.

[cthulu2016]

9. Are we talking embellishment or dramatic license?

I don't know that there were many distortions in Game Change. McCain does swear that much, Palin is that crazy and dumb.

There are places a screenwriter condenses--a character will often say something he didn't say to provide background or continuity, but it's in the interest of exposition, not deception.

There were two McCain mini-speeches that showed him in a good light and were probably embellished (IMO), but by the sources, not the film-makers.

It's pretty darn true to the book. So the question is, how true is the book? And that question takes us away from the docu-drama question.

[Archae]

10. What's the difference?

[Bluenorthwest]

13. The book is a work of journalism written by journalists.

The film uses the book as source material. It is an adaptation of the book.

[Archae]

14. Like "Lord Of The Rings" and David Lynch's "Dune" were adapted?

[sabrina 1]

15. I thought Game Change was very well done. I wasn't surprised at all by what was revealed

about Palin, ie, her ignorance of, well, just about everything relating to world affairs. We knew that.

My critique of it relates to the fact that you get the impression that Palin was responsible for everything, for the failure of the campaign etc while Schmidt and Wallace are portrayed as 'principled' individuals.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Palin was a monster they created and lost control of. They created her in order to 'win' at all costs. They didn't care how unqualified she was so long as they won, 'changed the GAME'. Because the future of this country was nothing more than a game to them.

If she had been smarter and had not gone 'rogue', they had no problem with such a person being a heartbeat away from the WH, regardless of how 'mentally unstable' she might have been.

The record, in the form of emails between them and Willian Kristol and the media, shows a different side to these two political operatives. The ACTUAL record.

What it shows is a bunch of people with few principles willing to do anything to have their team 'win' with little concern about the country.

While I think the portrayal of Palin was probably pretty accurate, the portrayal of the Repbublican strategists was far too kind and of McCain himself.

The truth is that if they all had cared about this country they never would have chosen someone like Palin. It was a cynical choice at best. It was using a woman to counter their adversary. It had little to do with what might be best for this country.

And it revealed something very disturbing about our electoral processs. It revealed that a few political operatives whose own qualifications for such an important job, are questionable, or should be, actually have the power to maybe determine the future of this country and the voters have little control over that.

And since those operatives have proven they care more about their team 'winning' and the immediate 'battle' than the country, the message of this documentary to me is 'we have a seriously flawed system of choosing who might make it to the most powerful position in this country'. Something needs to be done about it.

Palin is Palin, she was merely a tool of some pretty cynical people whose motives regarding this country are questionable at best.

However, they are now being lauded, even on the left, as 'people of principle'. So I guess the movie achieved its goal.

[grasswire]

16. also the recent movie about the bank bailouts

I've forgotten the name of it. It portrayed Paulson as a sympathetic figure, and set forth a narrative that was questionable in fact.