Based on a False Story

I was just watching a movie. It claimed to be based on a "true story." I acknowledged this declaration, assumed that it lacked real meaning, and changed the channel.

While this may seem cynical, it bears remembering that very rarely do the words "based on a true story" actually carry any weight. Take Remember the Titans for example. Great movie, heartwarming message, truly a masterpiece. Unfortunately it is a masterpiece built upon questionable interpretations and dramatizations of historic events. When I first found this out, my heart was crushed and a little piece of my innocence was destroyed.

As a result, I developed a cynical attitude towards that phrase, "based on a true story." How could I not? After all, adaptations of fiction rarely hold true to their source, so why should adaptations of real events? Disrespectful as it may be, expediency, simplicity, and personal agenda will almost always take precedence over the truth, especially when money is involved.

That is the world in which we live, I suppose. It wasn't always that way; words once had meaning. By no means do I wish to return to the past. But, and here I paraphrase Peter Hitchens, I wish we had chosen a different future.

As I changed the channel, I found myself wanting to produce a movie. It will be a biopic of President Obama's tenure as Commander-In-Chief, and it will be titled "Fistful of Change." It will be directed by Clint Eastwood. The attention to detail will be like unto nothing previously seen in the history of cinema. No expense will be spared. No fact will be unchecked. It will be the most faithful adaptation of anything ever.

And the tagline? The tagline will be "Based on a False Story". It will appear at the end of every trailer in big, bold lettering, narrated by that guy with the charismatic voice who always narrates trailers.

People will question the meaning of those words. I will say nothing, and it will drive them nuts. Steadily, hype will build until the opening day, when the curious masses will flood into theaters across the world and fill the seats with uncertain anticipation.

They will leave the theater unable to speak and will have to process the experience for weeks. President Obama himself will leave the theater in a daze, having watched eight years of his life relayed back to him with more accuracy than his own memories could ever muster, and he will be filled with a sense of wonder and shame.

When people ask, "how did you do it?", I will turn over hours and hours of footage showing the meticulous process that the film crew endured to make sure every detail was correct, that ever blade of grass and lock of hair was in the right place, and that every word was spoken in the exact pitch and tone that it should have been.The critics and public will marvel and say, "There has never before been such a faithful adaptation of real events, and there never will be again."

But one thing will bug them. What does "Based on a False Story" mean? Why that? Is it some sort of damning indictment of the Obama years? Is it a secret code to activate an army of Russian sleeper agents? They will be desperate to know, and they will ask me again, "What does it mean?"

I will say, "Oh that? No reason. Why?"

And they will respond, "Well, that's false advertising, isn't it?", to which I will shrug my shoulders noncommittally and say no more. It will bug them for years and years. I will continue to make biopics over my lifetime, each one more astounding in its attention to detail and factual accuracy, each one emblazoned with the words "Based on a False Story."

 Long after I am dead, when each of my films are recognized as the definitive representations of the events they covered, networks will desperately try to have the words "Based on a False Story" stricken from the title sequence, but it will all be in vain.

They will go to their graves, asking "Why? It didn't reflect the contents of the movie at all. It was perfect, none of it was false! None of it!" And then, like a bolt of lightning out of the blue, the epiphany will strike. The irony will no longer be lost upon them. They will understand that "Based on a False Story" was a meaningless platitude all along, put there for the simple purpose of tormenting them, just as the meaningless tagline "Based on True Story" tormented me.

Perhaps, if only for a moment, they may be bewildered by the lengths to which I went to prove a relatively minor point, but that bewilderment will be replaced by horror. They will understand at last that this was the future they chose for themselves.

So what's the moral of this story? I don't know, but what I do know is that I have said my piece. Stay classy out there, folks.

Another 11 Films You Ought to See

Here's some more movies that you can save for a rainy day. Here's the previous list.

11. That Thing You Do



That Thing You Do is a movie about The Wonders, a band from Erie, Pennsylvania that never existed. Starring among others Steve Zahn and a pre-Lord of the Rings Liv Tyler, That Thing You Do is a fun, fast-paced movie that covers the rise and inevitable fall of the band without taking itself too seriously. The movie has likable characters and a great soundtrack, and wraps up with a satisfying conclusion.

10. Three Days of the Condor



Three Days of the Condor is one of several films that inspired The Winter Soldier. A political thriller that plays on the whole theme of not being able to trust anyone, Three Days of the Condor stars Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway, as well as a memorable roll from Max von Sydow, which I believe was probably the chief inspiration for Jean Hamme's character The Mongoose in XIII. This movie does a great job of building paranoia and has several good twists.

9. A Life Less Ordinary



 This movie is sort of like The Adjustment Bureau but much, much more zany. In it, a young man snaps and decides to kidnap a young heiress and hold her for ransom. He is comically inept, and soon she has to step in and help him. Romance ensues, which is mucked up by a pair of angels who arrive to try and set their relationship straight. It's weird. Really weird. But definitely worth watching.

8. Richard III



This is an adaptation of Shakespeare's famous play set in an alternate 1930's Great Britain. Featuring Ian McKellen as the titular character, this is one of the more clever adaptations I have seen. Richard's famous "Now is the Winter of Our Discontent" is used as a political speech. His brother and sister-in-law are patterned after the famously fascist King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson, which is a particularly interesting way of reconciling the play with the politics of Britain in the 1930's. But regardless of whether you appreciate those particular nuances or not, it is just a good film and adaptation in general.

7. The Court Jester



This movie never ceases to crack me up. I love The Court Jester. Danny Kaye does an excellent job of balancing the delivery of razor-sharp wit alongside slapstick comedy throughout the movie. The other characters are excellent as well, ranging from what I can best describe as a Musical Batman to a hilariously incompetent evil King who makes Disney's Prince John look like Machiavelli.

6. The Third Man



A mystery film set in post-WWII Berlin, The Third Man features a number of excellent plot twists and one of the more interesting antagonists of cinematic history. Not a happy or feel-good film by any means, The Third Man is an interesting film which encourages you to think and try and put the pieces together yourself.

5. Source Code



Directed by Duncan Jones, aka Zowie Bowie, the son of glam rocker David Bowie, Source Code is an interesting look at time-travel; sort of an especially intense Groundhog Day scenario. For whatever reason I hardly ever hear about this film, which is a bummer since it is pretty good. I first watched this with my cousin and sister and I was skeptical at first, but over time I have come to appreciate it.

4. The Fantastic Mr. Fox



Another Wes Anderson film? Yep. Apparently there was a lot of curiosity when it was announced that Anderson was going to be directing a stop-motion film. Would his idiosyncratic style translate to the new medium? Well, The Fantastic Mr. Fox was an emphatic yes to that question. Maybe I should not post this here, since it is well known, but dang it, if you have been sitting on the fence about watching this film, bite the bullet and check it out. At the very least it will give you something to talk about.

3. The Great Race



This 1965 movie is the ancestor of all bizarre, crazy race films with wacky over-the-top villains. That's a very specific genre, I know, but it is what it is. Much like The Assassination Bureau, The Great Race is a period piece with an excellent cast, great score, and non-stop action and humor.

2. Better Off Dead



Better Off Dead was a movie which mocked 1980's teen films that was actually made in the 1980's. It is very hard to describe. It starts out sort of normal before quickly breaking free of the bonds of realism and sanity. When I first watched it I had no idea what to expect, every scene topped the one that came before that. Some of the many things that are featured include: A Korean high-schooler who learned English by listening to Howard Cosell, a newspaper boy who may be able to transcend space and time, a burger which comes alive and sings, and a bunch of other stuff I have forgotten. That doesn't begin to quantify this movie. Just watch it.

1. Gattaca



One of my favorite movies and one of the best sci-fi films of all time, Gattaca investigates the potential cultural consequences of human genetic manipulation and one man's attempt to subvert the expectations placed upon him by society's elite and to succeed. There are numerous social metaphors that can be applied here, but even without those in mind, this is a poignant film with interesting characters that provide a great deal of food for though. Check it out.

Star Wars: TFA (This Fan's Analysis)

Another Hope?

Years back I can remember George Lucas saying that there was no chance that a sequel to Star Wars would ever be made. Well, it is 2015 and Episode 7 has hit theaters. George Lucas probably feels pretty stupid right now.

When I first heard that Disney had bought Lucasfilm and that they were working on producing a sequel trilogy, I was living in Nova Scotia and had no access to the internet. At first I was sure it was a prank, so surreal was the news. When it was announced that JJ Abrams was going to be the director, I was cautiously optimistic. Abrams, who at that time was probably best known as the man who breathed new life into Star Trek's corpse, admitted that he was a huge Star Wars fan while growing up (when you re-watch Star Trek with this in mind, it becomes readily apparent). Not only that, but I really liked his previous work.

I did wonder if Abrams was going to let feelings of nostalgia for the original films get in the way of doing something new and exciting.  It was always a gamble, and I was never sure. As time passed and promotional materials surfaced showing familiar scenes with desert planets, X-wings, Tie Fighters, and a guy with a scary mask and a red lightsaber, I resigned myself to the apparent inevitably of Episode 7 being a throwback to the original trilogy. But, I figured, what the heck, it still could be good.

The month prior to the release of the film was crazy. Star Wars fans came crawling out the woodwork, and it was pretty awesome. Everybody was freaking out; it was almost like the Second Coming had been announced to land on December 17th.

After waiting a few days for everything to calm, I drove into town, bought a ticket, sat down in front of a row of old hippies, and leaned back. Good vibes were all around.

I relaxed. It's going to be good, I thought, all your worries were misplaced. It's gonna be great.

Two hours and twenty minutes later, I left the theater. I drove home, texted some friends to let them know I had just seen the movie, and I thought somewhat deep thoughts. And then I decided to write them down. So, without further delay, here's my analysis of Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

Oh right, and there will be spoilers.

The Good:

About a half-hour in it struck me that in a lot of ways The Force Awakens is a call-back to the scifi serials that inspired George Lucas to create Star Wars, like Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers. I don't know if this was deliberate on JJ Abrams's part, but the more I think about it, the more I am convinced it is so. The Force Awakens moves quickly and does not spend time on politics or lore-building, but instead hits the ground running. You know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. The characters are likeable, the story is easy to follow, and it moves along with blazing speed till you hit the credits. Out of all the Star Wars films, it is probably the most straight-forward and easy to jump into.

Additionally, the casting for The Force Awakens was great. The movie introduced four major new characters in the form of Poe Dameron, Finn, Rey, and Kylo Ren, who were all played by relatively low-profile actors, which works out very well.

 
The returning actors also do a great job. Harrison Ford is having the time of his life playing Han Solo, which makes his death an especially hard pill to swallow. Leia returns, now as the General leading the Resistance. Luke appears for about a minute at the very end and says nothing, but hey, he looks great. I was a little disappointed when the immeasurably great Max von Sydow was slaughtered in the first five minutes or so, but overall all of the veteran actors had a good showing.

If I had to pick one character which stood out to me, it would actually be Kylo Ren. He is presented with surprising depth and character development, especially in regard to other characters in the movie. I sort of expected him to be a clone of Darth Vader (what with the mask, red light saber, deep voice, etc.) but he is actually the anti-Vader.

In fact, he fears that he is too weak to follow in the footsteps of Darth Vader, whom he worships, and is constantly tempted by his inner good, as opposed to his inner darkness. Try as he might, he is not able to become the villain that he so desperately wants to be. Over the course of the film, you are actually able to watch the progress of this struggle and learn more about where he came from and how he got there. It works very well, and the character turned out to be my favorite, much to my surprise.

Oh, and I have mention Supreme Leader Snoke. Played by Andy Serkis (a.k.a. Ulysses Klaue a.k.a. King Kong a.k.a. Gollum), Snoke is the tragically named leader of the First Order, who, as best I can tell, apparently shares plastic surgeons with Lord Voldemort. I'm not sure why I liked him, though if I had to say, it'd probably be the name. Just imagine the New Republic propaganda:
 
“Don't Be a Dope, Join the Fight Against Snoke!” 

“You may laugh at Snoke, but he ain't no Joke!” 

“Choke Snoke: Buy War Bonds Today!” 

It practically writes itself.

Anyways, the special effects, to no one's surprise, were amazing. Absolutely gorgeous. The dogfights and spacebattles were intense, the alien monsters were suitably weird, and there was a good mix of animatronics and puppetry with CGI to create the alien characters. Almost all of the scenes with the Starkiller Base were incredible, whether it was firing its main laser or absorbing a star.

In terms of directing and edition, there weren't a whole lot of scenes that absolutely stood out to me, though there was nothing I found particularly bad (minus a few bizarre scene transitions). There was one scene that I really liked, where Han Solo confronts Kylo Ren, who earlier was revealed to be his and Leia's son. I didn't just like this scene, I loved it; This scene is perfect. It actually caught me off guard by how great it was. I will do my best to break it down.

Earlier in the film, Leia had asked Han to bring their son back, to which he agreed. So when he is faced with the choice of revealing himself and risking death, or escaping from the enemy base, he chooses the former. Why? Because Kylo is his son, and he loves him.

What results is a surprisingly nuanced confrontation with some good symbolism. Han walks out on the bridge to talk to his son, who is standing in a slowly fading pillar of light. After a moment, Kylo removes his helmet and they speak face to face. Han pleads with Kylo to leave the First Order behind and come back to his family. The struggle on Kylo's face is palpable, and he finally asks Han if he is willing to help him, to which Han readily agrees. Kylo extends his lightsaber, seemingly in surrender, and Han moves to take it. And then the pillar of light, which has been fading the entire time, disappears entirely, leaving only the red lights inside the station to illuminate Kylo's face.

At that moment, I seemed to me that the darkness inside Kylo had won, and that there is no more light to tempt him any more. Whether he genuinely intended to surrender to Han, or if it was only a ploy all along, he makes his final decision and kills his father, whose last action is to reach out to him before falling away.

I don't know; maybe I'm an easy sell when it comes to this sort of thing, but in retrospect I still think it was surprisingly poignant. Was I happy that Han died? No, which is why I was so surprised that it ended up being, in my opinion, the most well constructed scene in the whole movie.

The Bad:

Like I mentioned, prior to the release of The Force Awakens, I thought it might end up being a throwback to A New Hope. Well, I was right. The Force Awakens is just one step away from literally being A New Hope, as told by JJ Abrams. It was almost as if they hired Christopher Paolini to write the script. In case you don't follow my meaning, I am going to provide you with a nice infographic someone else put together.

I will be the first to say that not all of the comparisons drawn in the above picture are necessarily valid as criticisms but the point still remains that the parallels between The Force Awakens and A New Hope are pretty blatant.

Why did JJ Abram do this? I have no idea. My best guess is that he felt that getting back to the basics was the only way to get around the stigma that the prequels had left on the Star Wars franchise. And, truth be told, that is not wholly a bad idea. Unfortunately, the execution was not well done, and we didn't get anything really new.

In terms of the characters, once again I have no problem with the actors. What I do have a problem with are some of the directing and scripting decisions taken, especially for the new characters. Not much character development happened. Admittedly it must have been hard to even manage the characterization that we did get, what with the relatively short running time of the film and large ensemble cast. But some decisions that were taken not only prevented character development from happening, but actively took away from the characters.

For example, opportunities for character development were eschewed in favor of comic relief. Finn, who actually does have an interesting back story and motivation, was a victim of this. Don't get me wrong, humor is fine (the one scene where I laughed out loud was when Finn was interacting with BB-8), but when overdone it comes at a character's expense, especially one who was not intended as comic relief.

And lest I forget, I have to talk about the Space Nazis. In the Original Trilogy, it was pretty apparent that the Galactic Empire was influenced by Nazi aesthetic and dogma, yet it was subtle enough that you didn't think "Oh, space nazis! They're totally space nazis!" while you watching the film, which was good since that would have been disengaging.

In the Force Awakens, however, the Nazi themes are upped to an egregious degree, complete with the stiff-armed salutes and a fascist speech courtesy of General “Totally not Tarkin!” Hux. A couple people actually started laughing at this part, and I was myself was thinking, "Yep, they are totally space nazis." This stylistic choice was obviously intended to convey just how villainous the First Order really was, but that was redundant since they had already slaughtered a village full of innocents at the beginning of the movie and were preparing blow up a solar system.

Interestingly enough, The Force Awakens does not have any standout or iconic designs, which is something the Original Trilogy and prequel trilogies both did well. Most of the spaceships in the film are variants of designs from the original trilogy. None of the costumes look especially striking. While I certainly expect to see kids dress up as Kylo Ren in the future, I cannot imagine he will ever match Darth Vader or Darth Maul in popularity.

Another complaint I have is that the film made the vastness of outer space seem really small. Now, I know that Star Wars has never been a hard science franchise – it is better viewed as science fantasy, rather than science fiction – but it is very odd how JJ Abrams made astronomical distances seem very compact. Hyperspace travel takes place almost instantaneously in The Force Awakens. Finn looks up into the sky and watches the capital of the New Republic get blown up while standing on what I thought was a relatively isolated planet. It just feels weird.

By contrast it took hours, at least, for the Millenium Falcon to travel between Tatooine and Alderaan in A New Hope. Even though only three planets appear in A New Hope, the film manages to make space feel big and convinces the audience that the Empire and Rebel Alliance are fighting a massive battle spread across an entire galaxy.

The reason that The Force Awakens does not feel equally grand in scope is not only because it operates on a tiny scale where all of the relevant planets seem to be scrunched together, but also because it lacks context.

I mentioned earlier that The Force Awakens is fairly free of politics beyond “good guys vs evil empire”, which is why it is so accessible. But because of this, we have no idea how the Empire became the First Order. Are they locked in a Cold War with the New Republic? Was the Starkiller Base the means to break galactic detente? Are the Resistance privateers with plausible deniability? I can make guesses, but there is no way to know for sure. And while some questions, like who Rey's parents are, can be drawn out for storytelling potential, basic questions about the setting of the story should instead be answered straight-away.

The prequels are often criticized for their focus on politics, and perhaps rightfully so. That is probably why JJ Abrams devoted little time to explaining the background of the story and instead focused on the action instead. But it is important to remember that politics and lore-building were important to the original Star Wars films because they provided a context for the events contained within. JJ Abrams may have wanted to avoid the pitfalls of the prequels entirely in his attempt to provide a fresh start, but the movie ended up suffering because of it.

The Future:

So was this a good movie? It was. Was it a good Star Wars movie? It was a heck of lot better than the prequels. Was it as good as it should have been? Probably not.

I know that a lot of fans will not really care about the issues that I brought up, or that they may think that I am nitpicking. Maybe they are right. But that's the way I feel, and here's why:

I remember my first experience with Star Wars. I couldn't have been more than six or seven years old. I saw a Darth Vader toy in a Sears Catalog and I asked my mom what it was. She had seen the original movies when they first came out, and she was pretty excited to explain Star Wars to me. I was hooked and became an unconditional fan. I saw all of the prequels. I bought a bunch of the books and joined the official Star Wars fan club (mock if you will, but it was great). I even took my copy of The Star Wars Encylopedia (the big hardcover one) to class for show-and-tell.

Eventually I grew up and became more cynical. I realized that the prequels were not particularly great and George Lucas was more concerned about money at that point in his life than crafting a good story. I quit buying books, let my membership expire, and so on and so forth.

But even then, when I heard that there was going to be a Sequel Trilogy, the fan within me rejoiced. I wanted it to be perfect. Or failing that, really, really good. That was what Star Wars deserved. But, as it happened, it was just passable. The Force Awakens is better than the prequels, yes, but it just doesn't have that same energy and spirit found in the Original Trilogy.

The good news is that Rian Johnson, director of The Brothers Bloom and the time-travel film Looper, has signed on direct and write Episode VIII. Though his body of work is small, it has been well received. He has been given a box of toys and interesting characters to take in whatever direction he sees fit by JJ Abrams. The possibilities are truly endless. And I, for one, am optimistic. Though Episode 7 was less than what I hoped for, the future remains bright for Star Wars.