Where Credit Is Due

Based on a true story. Inspired by real events. Phrases like these used to predicate the origin of a film’s narrative before it begins to me are almost like an homage. When I see them, I don’t assume that the film I’m about to watch is necessarily historically accurate. What I assume is that the general premise or story is based in reality, but the details may have been invented or changed to fit the medium. To me it doesn’t make sense to treat artistic works that are not documentaries and are obviously artists’ reinterpretations of events as historical renderings. How can they be? Dialogue is always going to be made up, facts are always subject to interpretation depending on who’s reporting them (eye witness testimony, for example), and emotions and internal thoughts are unverifiable.

So I don’t take history from biopics or historical movies, unless they’re HBO or Discovery Channel specials that tell me to.

I find the use of phrases “based on a true story” and “inspired by real events,” rather than to be misleading when the films that follow are not necessarily true to history, to be classy. Yes, classy. It’s like citing your sources, admitting that you didn’t come up with this idea yourself—you took it from something else, and you’re not claiming you didn’t. A film like Hurricane doesn’t say in bold letters “THIS IS A TRUE STORY.” It’s based on one. A base is a foundation, and you can’t argue that Hurricane’s foundation was a true story. Facts were changed to suit the dramatic structure of the story, characters were amalgamated, motives were invented. But I don’t think that’s unethical unless the film purports to be 100% accurate. And the qualifiers “based on” or “inspired by” take care of that.

In fact, I’d be okay with more films tossing those labels on them. If you read a news story and write a film about it, even if you change the details, why not give credit? We don’t live in a vacuum; some ideas will just spring like nothing out of your head, but many times you’ll pick them up other places. To me it isn’t an ethical issue of misleading viewers when the story changes—it’s an ethical issue of content origins.

The ethical issue I do have with a movie like Hurricane is leaving a real life character recognizable, but demonizing him, as in the case of Della Pesca/DeSimone. I understand that the film needed an antagonist, and having four separate ones would confuse the structure, so melding them into one seems like a fine idea. But leaving that megaladon villain with a name that points directly to one of the real-life characters he was based on is sketchy. People are going to associate him with DeSimone, and that isn’t fair to him or his memory. You can change things; don’t vilify real people.

Non-Fiction Filmmaking in a Non-Fiction World

In non-fiction filmmaking, the pesky question of “are you altering or influencing the truth by filming?” unavoidably comes up. This becomes more relevant when the filmmakers have the opportunity to become part of the film. Cameras record truth, so does stepping in front of the camera to intervene or interact with the subjects of the film create an ethical issue of manipulating the truth? In Man Bites Dog, were Remy, Andre, and the rest of the crew culpable of some ethical misstep from the moment they appeared in their own documentary, even before they partook in the crimes?

I don’t think so. Because to me, becoming part of the film doesn’t somehow obscure the truth; it just creates a new truth. You now are part of your own subject, and you may be changing the direction the film goes, but I don’t see that as unethical.

I keep thinking of the movie Broadcast News. It portrays an ethical dilemma that is similar to the question at hand, of altering the truth in non-fiction, and in this case, I think it’s absolutely unethical. One of the reporters, Tom, is doing an interview with a subject, a one-camera operation that keeps the focus on her. Tom tears up at one point when the subject is talking, and afterwards, repositions the camera on himself and makes himself cry. He cuts the footage together so that in the final product, while the woman is talking we see him cry, for the purpose of trying to evoke more emotion from the audience. In this instance, he was inserting himself into his non-fiction work and really was altering the truth—because what he inserted didn’t actually occur at the time he is pretending it did, and he’s doing it to manipulate. But in a documentary like the one supposedly being made in Man Bites Dog, the filmmakers are part of the world within the frame, so I wouldn’t say they’re altering the truth they’re recording—they are the truth they’re recording.

But what if you’re completely acting as a third-party witness (as much as that can be done following a subject with a camera), and something happens that you have a choice to respond to or not—the subject gets hurt, commits a crime, etc. Do you have a responsibility to step in? For me, because the realm is non-fiction—real life—then you’re really you, and you have the ethical responsibilities of a human being, not just those belonging to the subset of filmmaker. I’m imagining a scenario: say I was filming a documentary about some guy’s life, not interacting with him at all, just being a presence. It’s me, the guy, and a camera in a room, and the guy has a heart attack. You can bet your bottom dollar and the bottom dollar of your best friend that I would step out from behind the tripod and do what I could to help him, even if that’s making me part of the world of the film. What it comes down to is that it’s just a movie. Maybe it would make a great dramatic arc for the guy to die on camera, but if I’m just a girl behind a camera in the same reality as this guy, I don’t see how the connection and responsibility can be ignored.

And let's get real: a world in which people don’t go to the aid of others in times of need isn’t one I’d want to document, anyway.