The main problems with the movies «on real events»
Lately filmmakers around the globe conspire — off only «real story to reality that have little. Annotation «based on real events» have become displayed even in the openly quack movies, no matter how good they are. Recently, we saw this phrase in a horror movie, who talked about obsessed! Imagine that on the screens possessed by a demon possessed girl who speaks Aramaic, chairs fly, blood everywhere, the priest conducts the rite of exorcism, and you’re still thinking about why it’s a movie based on a true story. The first thought in my head simple as tincture on cranberries: Directors blatantly lying for the sake of box office. The second thought is more difficult: use only the backbone of the story, and the plot of the film is fictional. But if you analyze these films under a microscope, we find that distinguish completely fictional story, based on real events, today, almost impossible.
Influence on reality
There are a number of movies that are told about events that happened recently, or continue to happen now. These events have not yet been given an objective assessment of historians, political scientists or biographers. But to film them profitable, after all, «everybody’s talking about it». For example, the film «the Fifth power», which tells the story of Julian Assange, not bad, but it gives emotional assessment of the person who lives here and is now hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy from the American and British authorities. A movie about Assange destroys the objective perception of his figures, from which, in the case of catch the wrestler with the system, it can bring a wrong verdict.
There is a good example on this topic. The Clint Eastwood Movie «Sniper». This movie is a true story about a very cool American sniper, which radical Islamists called «the Devil of Ramadi. Such a terrible nickname given for a reason — the guy killed 255 enemies. Unfortunately, he died of a treacherous (or accidentally?) bullets are your best friend already in the States on a regular shooting range in Texas. The film was released in 2014, he praised the American character. Adjudication, in turn, is held in 2015. It is known that among the jurors at least two people watched a movie Eastwood. In the end, the killer received a life sentence without parole. We love Clint — he’s a great Director. But what if the film influenced the court’s decision? What if the sentence was too harsh, and the film is too idealized?
A narrow circle of initiates
It’s one thing if all these movies «on real events» was filmed by a wide variety of Directors with different backgrounds and views. And another thing, when even in Hollywood (about Russia and say scary) such films do specific people. What’s the problem? That take historical events and each time serves them under a certain ideological reasons, therefore, we see that in almost every historical movie based on the same premise.
If you take the films of Oliver stone (a great lover to introduce documentary elements in the films), you will see that their views, this three-time Oscar winner doesn’t change. It’s a good Director, but his talent becomes dangerous from the point of view of the adequate perception of specific events. Misrepresentation is everywhere, so no need to be even to big names with an extra confidence. However, if you like history, it is possible to sacrifice the truth, isn’t it?
Beautiful story against the truth
Continue my opinion. How often filmmakers sacrifice the truth to make the story stronger? You know the answer: always. On this subject there is a wonderful film that is also «based on real events» — called «True story». In this film show a lie that sounds more convincing and more elegant of the truth, but a movie with a happy ending — the truth wins out, which happens less than we would like.
Americans can be forgiven. At least they make a beautiful history and take the money for justice for our pleasure. But what happens to us? Given that our cinema, especially the historical, is on his knees in front of the Ministry of culture and the state budget, all plots must be «correct» those who disagree with the order of the state. It sucks when rigged events are issued for historically accurate. More shitty when you cover such mistakes are strong in all the world — led by the chief fellow from the Ministry of culture with dubious moral values. Think you’ve guessed who we are.
But let’s not put pressure on the sore and try to squeeze the abscess younger, namely the movie «Viking» with a budget of 1 billion 250 million rubles (I wonder how much of that money was taken from taxpayers?) The film claims to historical accuracy, but is not tenable. Director if it is necessary, in some episodes, he is really reliable, but if the party said to do otherwise, about the reliability of all of a sudden forget. Well, what the hell, widespread human sacrifice among the Slavic pagans? It’s fucking pure absurdity that will cause pain in the fifth point of any historian who specializiruetsya in this era. Why exaggerate? For the sake of artistic images? If so, then great — more power to you. But we must not say that «Viking» is based on real events, otherwise the same movie can be called «the Lord of the rings» or «Star wars.» Okay, evidence of human sacrifice is, in the «tale of bygone years», but how can you use one of the most Christianized of the Chronicles as an objective source on this issue? Clearly, the Gentiles in it to congratulate you will not.
The truth about money
But in General you should understand, what not from good life, the producers agree to make movies that are based on real events. And they do it to reward your historical knowledge, uncover the mystery and shed light on the truth. Money and fame, because cinema is an industry that does not tolerate mistakes. In the course are various marketing techniques, some of which are «real events». Such films do not require large budgets (nothing to design the Death Star for the movie about a real person), regularly get into prestigious nomination, originally have large advertising potential. If you shoot an autobiographical film about the founder of the Islamic state (organization banned in Russia), the excitement provided without any advertising budget.