The Naked Truth

When flicks clothe and embellish the orginal, it spoils the underlying ethos

If Robert McKee had presented the Oscar for best director, upon finding out that Martin Scorcese had won it, he probably would have punched him over the head with the golden statuette and then, Scorcese's bleeding corpse at his feet, launch into a vitriol about the poor man, using words like "sloppy" and "self-indulgent." He'd focus either on how good writing is ruined in the movies, or why bad writing manages to make a movie in the first place.But let's face it, would the world know much about Idi Amin (or even be thinking about him), if it wasn't for flicks like "Last King of Scotland"? Even fairly mediocre films like "Troy" make us want to dig up history/story books and revisit what really happened. But MacKee's argument is this: "The one responsibility of the writer is to tell the truth. In a world populated with lies, we don’t need writers adding to them."*

I'd soften that a little and suggest that there are plenty of delusions and deceptions circulating, perhaps many of them unintentional, some of them possibly benign. This is the result of writers and other commentators finding their truth off second hand arguments, without going to the trouble to find a firsthand experience of the "truth," or exploring the issue firsthand in the real world.The bottom line for this approach is succinctly summarized in a recent article (The plot should thicken*) on McKee, by the writer who posits: "good storytelling is worth agonising over...it can make a difference [because]... it resonates in the hearts and souls of human beings in a way that profoundly affects them."Have you ever walked out of a movie, almost in tears, having come face to face with an incontrovertible reality (truth) that is either, beautiful, or tragic, or awesome, or a mystical combination of these?For writers who feel their work is subpar, here's a tip. Order McKee's book "Story: Substance, Structure, Style and The Principles of Screenwriting," off Amazon.com.

McKee is one of the most respected commentators (for film) in the business.Have you never watched a movie though, and subsequently find out that half of it turns out to be bogus depictions of what really happened. Or worse, you read a really great story, and then go to watch the movie and you find the movie has been turned into a cheeseburger (with emphasis on extra cheese).Some directors (epecially when they are the writers too), do a credible job. Think of the movie version of "The Hours." Very artistic, very close to the book, but also entirely appropriate to the silver screen. But then what about "The Prince of Tides"?

Book and film are very different. What about the Harry Potter films? Now there's a tough one. Where the films went strictly according to the books they were based on, they were sometimes overly long, and arduous, sometimes even dull. "A Beautiful Mind" is a beautiful movie. It's intelligent, the actors and acting is top notch, and it's a heartwarming story that both inspires and enlightens. It's based on a true story, written by Akiva Goldsmith. I went out and bought the book, and was astonished to find that the book was several degrees better than the film. I'd give the film a very high rating, 9 out of 10, and the book is even better; a phenomenally good read. Part of the reason is because it is the true story of the exceptionally talented genius, John Nash, and also because it is such an incredible story. Goldsmith renders a complex story -- something like a deep and intricate algorithm -- with wit, intelligence and a skillfulness that is breathtaking. In the book are also photographs of the real John Nash, and after a while I found myself resenting Ron Howard's interpretation. Not because his movie is bad, but because it appears to be so false. For example, Nash never saw three apparitions following him around (as depicted in the film). Howard has simplified reality into a sort of candy box style. Yes, it's easy to understand and simple enough to consume, but it's not really factually correct. The only aspect that is correct is the broad theme of a woman who supports her husband despite his insanity, and his ability, through his own brilliance, to "solve the problem" of his schizoid disconnect with reality.After reading the book I found a Web site, and even e-mailed John Nash, since he was (at the time) still haunting the grounds at Princeton University. I don't recall receiving a reply.

I imagine thousands of people did exactly what I did, and probably overwhelmed his inbox. But I have seen people on film and TV, e-mailed them, and received replies. Now that's reality.The movie mentions nothing of Nash's problems with his own son (who also suffered from a mental disorder), or his homosexuality, or his athletism (he was built like an Olympian). As far as I can recall (from reading the book), his wife left him for a period, and they were then later reunited, which makes that amazing gesture (his wife decides to not commit him to a sanitarium but to care for him herself instead) in the movie seem quaint and fanciful, and pretty damn unlikely. If the sentence above bothers you, because it is a bit vague and unsure of itself, then the movie ought to bother you too.

I'd like to make specific references to the book but I have lent it out so many times that I don't have it with me anymore, and whoever does have it has probably decided not to return it.Another excellent movie based on a real person is "Shine," about the talented Australian pianist David Helfgott. Once again, if you find it hard to forgive me for not being accurate, you ought to be very upset at how Helfgott has been rendered. First of all, Helfgott is bald. He doesn't look at all like the charming and funny actor that represents him. Secondly, his wife, who seems sweet and genuine in the movie, in reality, is despised by Helfgott's family as a gold digger who basically uses him -- he is apparently a zombie unable to make sense of the world -- to perform at concerts and she pockets all the proceeds.

When I was in South Korea he performed there. I wanted to attend a concert, until someone said to me, "He is very overrated. Technically he's actually not very good, he's just a celebrity because of the movie." Apparently he makes plenty of errors in a performance. I'm sorry I missed him play though. I'm no aficionado, but I would have liked to have seen and heard the real person for myself. The other thing was the photo of Helfgott that I saw on the Internet depicted a rather sorry looking fellow. He had none of the triumph or charisma of his movie double. At least the movie "Shine" does capture the essence of being pushed to breaking point, of raw talent becoming ruined and shipwrecked, but finally resurrected once again in time (which also happens in "A Beautiful Mind").

Isak Dineson's book, "Out of Africa," is about the life of the Danish aristocrat Karen Blixen in Kenya (around Ngong). Much of what happens in the movie corresponds to the book, and I think Meryl Streep does an awesome job of representing Karen Blixen. But Robert Redford looks nothing like Denis Finch Hutton. Finch Hutton is very tall and very very bald.

The worst (best?) example of fiction being far worse than the real thing, is Luc Besson's movie, "The Messenger," based on Joan of Arc. He casts ex-model Milla Jovovich in the role of Jeanne. Before this film emerged, in fact, well before, I studied real court documents that included actual words Jeanne was said to have spoken. There's an incredible amount of data and dialogue -- lots of Jeanne's own words about herself, her beliefs, and her motivations -- from her year long trial in 1429-30. (In fact, they are the world's oldest complete trial documents), including doodles that suggest what Jeanne looked like. Interestingly, in all the information that we have on Jeanne (and there is a fantastic amount with far more specifics than we have for Jesus) nowhere is any mention made of Jeanne's appearance. Nothing about her hair or eye color, or her beauty. It is amazing to me that such a powerful woman in history, a girl really, who led armies into battle, and basically brought the country of France into existence through her courage, passion and inspiration, was admired for qualities that had nothing to do with her appearance. What a difference to the world of today!The film, when compared to the literature we have on Jeanne, is awful, especially the numerous appearances of Dustin Hoffman as the "Devil."

There are many others movies, and most are fascinating real life stories. Julia Roberts doesn't really resemble Erin Brokovitch (but, does it matter?) -- she does a damn good job showing off her boobs) and Keira Knightley only has short hair and an English accent in common with recently deceased Domino Harvey.Movies about reality do at least bring the tips of the iceberg of human experience into our quadrants of the universe. It's up to us -- as writers -- to find the truth behind the pictures, and explore and uncover the meaning their lives may hold for us. The good news is, there’s often a lot of meaning to be found, but good writers need to allocate additional space to agony, and the gnashing of teeth to do credit to the stories that are out there.
McKee
View : 3 , 0
Dona, 2007/03/02 07:58
What I recall from McKee's 3-day course in New York many years ago is that the closer to excellence in the original genre, the harder it is to make a good movie from the material. That's why McKee uses Casablanca as a excellent example of scriptwriting. It was written as a movie script. Please note there were never documents of passage required as the script suggests. That was not fact, but a plot device. It's doesn't make the movie less true. Enjoyed your article!