text:
Readers Write In #1: Truth vs cinema
I keep getting emails about this and that, and some of these I am not able to answer in detail. So I thought I'd throw open the discussion to readers — aka, for a change, you, dear reader, do the yakking. Do chime in, if interested, and maybe this can become a regular feature.
This is the email that kicked this off:
Dear Mr. Rangan,
My name is Srikanth, and I'm an avid reader of your articles in The Hindu, as well as your ever interesting blog posts. I also like to think of myself as kind of a film buff, and I'm curious to get to know your opinion on a certain issue which has been racking my mind for quite a while now. I am aware that there is a section on your blog for such ramblings, but I think my post would be a bit too long, and might even be a bit out of place in such an environment. Since I found no other way of directly contacting you, a mail is the best I can do. I would appreciate it if you could take some time off to just go through this and respond to it if possible.
I recently watched "Midnight Express" and needless to say, I was quite blown away by it. I found it a gripping experience, and the ending of course made it worth my while. I was appropriately appalled by the treatment meted out to the main character by the authorities of the Turkish prison, and shocked by the general conditions he was made to live in. Imagine my incredulity, when I found out that a great part of this so called "torture" was exaggerated, and only a small fraction of it actually happened, as described in Billy Hayes' 1977 book of the same name.
Another similar example I could cite would be "The Hurricane (1999)". This film tells the unfortunate story of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, convicted and incarcerated for a crime he did not commit. However, the film invited a lot of criticism, claiming that it misrepresented the facts and that there was actually no evidence to prove that Carter was innocent (that to me, is a huge deal breaker).
All this brings me to my question, which is this – how are we to judge films like these? Should we simply look at the cinematic aspect of it (by this of course I mean, how well the screenplay has been written, how engaging the storytelling is, and how well it has been acted out) OR, should we look at it in its entirety (by this I mean, the film's responsibility towards the original story, towards the public, etc)?
I ask this because when considered individually, without the context, both these films are wonderfully made, in my opinion. Midnight Express was written by Oliver Stone (whose cinematic credentials can scarcely be doubted) and The Hurricane was directed by Norman Jewison (whose films "In the Heat of the Night" & "And Justice for All" are nothing short of masterpieces, I feel). But at the same time, we are taking away a certain image of a person or society from the film, and hence the film is responsible for projecting that image. I do agree that the filmmaker should be allowed a certain degree of artistic freedom (something which our country's directors are sorely in need of) but at what cost does that come, and where do we learn to draw the line? Is it all right to distort the facts so that we can make a better and more engaging film, one which possibly wouldn't be half as exciting if it were presented truthfully?
These are the questions which I haven't been able to get rid of, and it is entirely possible that they do not have answers, and I may have to leave it as it is – an ethical dilemma. But I would love to know what your stand is on this issue, as I'm sure that you would have had similar thoughts crossing your mind when you watched such films. This would help me view them in a different light, and probably move on, if that is the right thing to do.
I would very much like to hear from you in this regard – as a reply to this, or in the form of an article in your column/blog (both of which I follow ardently). I apologize if my writing was a bit too wordy or tested your patience.
And I briefly replied…
Thank you for your mail Srikanth.
I am of the opinion that film is art, and I am not looking for the "truth". All art involves an element of interpretation, and if this is how someone chooses to "see" something, then I evaluate the film based on what it shows me rather than what "really happened."
At the same time, I am also aware that this is JUST A MOVIE and that if I really wanted to learn about the life of the protagonist, then I would not depend on this film — I would read up on him separately. (Though, we must be aware that even a book, as well-researched as it may be, is going to have some element of subjectivity and selective dramatization.)
The problem arises when people USE the film as a learning device — they want the film to be the equivalent of a Wiki page. IMO that is a rather useless way of treating cinema, but I am probably in the minority here.
Do you mind if I put this up on my blog and get a discussion going around this?
And he said…
Thanks for your prompt response, Mr. Rangan.
I guess you're right in saying that we should not take cinema too seriously and start treating it as absolute fact. As I said, I'm all for creative freedom and the filmmaker has a right to say whatever he wants. Its just that in the examples I cited, I felt that maybe they took it a bit too far. But I enjoyed watching them anyway, and in the end I think that's what matters.
And yes, it would be great if you could share this on your blog. That way we could get a few more opinions on the issue and probably start an interesting debate.
And you say?
Posted in: Readers Write In
← "Happy Ending"… Hip surfaces, but downright clichéd at heart
42 Responses "Readers Write In #1: Truth vs cinema" →
srijithunni
I agree with you movies should be watched for entertainment I guess and the truth is if one really wants to watch a film to know the truth, maybe one should watch a Documentary feature
ramitbajaj01
I wonder what it would be like to portray the riots of 1947 in a dramatic light, using it as a concluding event towards the independence of India. Gandhi from one side and Jinnah from the other, making their way from the bloody protesters towards Lord Mountbatten. Security being thwarted by the mobs. Various elements trying to stop the leaders from reaching the meeting to sign the partition of India, which would give the administrators enough power to control the riots. Nehru and Patel, coming on the same page finally, trying to give cover to Gandhi but still a trained shooter in Godse managing to hit Gandhi's abdomen. The frail Gandhi showing enough strength to reach the dias in time to sign the historic document, ending the life of Mahatama and from his body rises the Chacha and delevers the historic speech.
Say, a competent filmmaker like Bhansali be able to squeeze every ounce of drama from this scene and giving us multiple orgasamic epiphanies in personal sacrifice, patriotism, statesmanship and what not. Would we lap it up or would we be left throroughly embarrassed and appalled at the glaring factual inacuracies?
If we are going to make a case that the collective conscience can't be presented in a different way then I wonder how we differentiate between different groups. Say, an isolated riot in Hyderabad bearing no toll on the nation as a whole but marking enough spots on the local continuum of the city. Can a filmmaker tweak the facts in this case and bring home a larger point? Is it okay to bypass the memories of Hyderabadies?
What about the violations of a certain family- say, Rang Rasia? Was it fair to show Ravi Varma in a differen light? ( let us assume that art has not been compromised.)
Well, movies should be thought of as only entertainment. BUT, a movie is a very powerful medium and its influence is profound; and insidious. I feel very uncomfortable when a movie maker plays with facts about a real person.
Ashoka is considered to be the greatest king ever. But the movie reduced him into a mere Shahrukh Khan. (Though I didn't mind at all about an Akbar 'reduced' to a Hritik Roshan 🙂 )
It's still alright when it is about historical (before 20th century) and mythical characters. But about contemporary characters? Wouldn't like it much.
neena
Cinema is art, of course, and is certainly not a wiki page. But, like all art, isn't it part of culture and hence, part of our public/social life? Especially being 'popular culture' and usually following a narrative structure, cinema perhaps gets scrutinised more for its 'message' or 'story' than other forms of art. So, for me, it's certainly important to see the kind of politics a film or filmmaker seems to exhibit. That could enrich the experience, as with "Madras", or be a disappointment, as with Rang de Basanti or Roja. If films deliberately stretch the truth or exaggerate for the sake of their politics, then it is all the more of a problem. I think this has been pointed out many times, in this blog, in the case of Tamil films which villify the city and romanticise the village. I do not know about Midnight Express, but it is easy to see how it would have fit the image of an oppressive, barbaric Eastern government in North America and Western Europe. One of the reasons I'm curious about Jon Stewart's 'Rosewater'. Seen the film yet?
burcidibollyreview
Cinema is not just an art but a powerful medium to put forward our ideas and worldview. Some filmmakers are only interested in the art part, others do have an agenda they would like to fulfill through their films.
Although I do agree that films like these should not be taken too seriously or seen as the absolute truth about a real-life incident, I also do not believe that all audiences are capable of understanding this. I believe that a great majority of the audience would not bother googling about the real life story or characters. They would accept the film as the truth and go home believing that.
I believe that we as individuals have a responsibility for our thoughts, words and actions and any kind of output that reaches people and has the potential to influence them. I also believe that being in control of an incredibly impactful tool like cinema with an unbelievably large scope to reach people, filmmakers have an even greater responsibility to make sure that their work does not distort the truth or malign people who have lived or continue to live. Cinema is too beautiful to be made into a propaganda or slander tool.
Does this mean that filmmakers cannot make engaging films with their unique interpretation? Of course they can. But they have to make sure that they label it a fiction and change some aspects of the story enough so that it is not associated with the real-life event or persons. If one goes about making a film about a real-life incident and markets the film as being a reflection of the true set of events, that film better live up to its name. Not doing so, is a huge breach of ethics in my opinion. There is definitely something called moral film-making and I personally always look for this quality in what I watch.
ramitbajaj01: Well, if a good filmmaker can make a convincing — not truthful, but convincing — film from that fictitious reimagining, then more power to him.
Shakespeare's family knows that "Shakespeare in Love" has nothing to do with the Bard, but that's what art is sometimes — taking liberties with the "truth" and fashioning something that exists solely in the realm of… fiction, as opposed to reality.
Reblogged this on BollyReview and commented:
Here is a wonderful discussion on Baradwaj Rangan's blog about cinema and the degree to which films need to maintain accuracy. I personally think it all boils down to ethics. Do follow the comments section and contribute your opinion. I think it's important to discuss these topics because whether we realize it or not, we all have a basis for analyzing films and their quality. This is one major factor that plays into that basis for a part of the audience. From time to time, I talk about prejudice and misrepresentation of individuals and faiths in Indian films. This is another related aspect. Do films based on real-life stories and events need to maintain accuracy? Or does it not matter because it's just art and an interpretation?
While I don't have issues with makers making changes to the storyline as per their wish, I do have a problem when they go with the based on the true story tagline for that extra mileage.
I remember watching the recent american film 'Captain Phillips' all the while rooting for the Captain. It was an engaging film too. But once I read that the film was heavily twisted to make the Captain a saviour the whole film lost its integrity in my mind. It took a while for me to adjust to the reality that it is just a film. While I agree to the freedom of artistic liberty, isn't it a cheap act if you are going to change the core? I thought artistic freedom is required when you need something effective while jumping from one point to another. If someone changes the core events of a true story according to his/her whims wouldn't it become a reimagination – sort of a storyteller's version? Why bother hanging on to the true story tag and not be faithful to the living/death when the creator can go the Mani Rathnam way and have all the freedom they want?
Since the makers only had dollars in mind while making a saviour out of the Captain, could it still be called artistic liberty? Or shall we call it henceforth as business liberty?
And, since the makers had the liberty to extrapolate things, I would like to do so in the next few lines. Let's for a moment consider Captain Phillips as an Indian film and the Captain is a big time politician now – will you see it as just a movie now or a propaganda film by the supporters of the Captain to get seats in the next election? Will this scenario be called as politically liberty?
These ulterior motives of the makers makes me wonder whether we need to prefix 'art' to these liberties anymore.
*Spoiler alert*
While on the same spectrum of cheating the audience, I want to put forth a question to this forum. Isn't negative criticism for the tamil movie Pizza and the american film The Usual suspects driven by the same emotional betrayal by the maker? Here we were emotionally travelling with the protagonist for 120 odd mins and at the last 10 mins when the maker says all this is a lie isn't it justifiable on the audience part to be angry at the maker for manipulating them blatantly?
PS: I look at it an equivalent of magician's trick – the creator's ability to surprise us at the 'tada' moment of the trick.
Ram Murali
I would like to bring up a tangentially related issue – that is censorship. Filmmakers in India rarely have the kind of freedom that is accorded to filmmakers in the US. For instance, an "Iruvar" went through quite a bit of "censorship" (it's a testament to Mani's filmmaking skills that even though some key scenes like Nasser's funeral were drowned by the background score at the behest of the censors, they played well) whereas a "Wag the Dog" or "Primary Colors" were released the way the filmmakers (or at least the way the studios!) wanted them…
A filmmaker tries to tell a story effectively. If he takes elements from real life people and tells the story the way he interpreted it, that's his prerogative. To me, "Iruvar" did a damn fine job of giving us two very memorable characters. Similarly, "Hey Ram" was a very different way to look at Gandhi. They were narrated very well…that's all that matters. But censor boards in India I guess have to worry about repercussions of religious and/or political groups so they have to be careful to an extent…after all, Mani Ratnam's house was attacked post the release of Bombay even though the film played it pretty safe in the second half (or at least, you would think). You and I can say that that was not fair at all. But it happened. That's the sad reality.
Its great that the original question I posed to Mr. Rangan has already sparked so many responses.
Harish makes a valid point with his Captain Phillips example in saying that he almost felt cheated in a way. I had a similar feeling after learning the truth about Midnight Express. But the sheer brilliance of the film overwhelmed me later on and I feel inclined to forgive it for its shortcomings.
I'm not sure I feel the same way about Denzel Washington's The Hurricane, though. That film seems to have made a hero out of a man who was in all probability guilty, and did not face as much racial abuse as the film makes it out to be.
With Indian films, its needless to say that controversy follows any topic that even tries to scratch the surface on a sensitive issue. I'm not sure we can even dream of making a film where all the characters are real, distort the facts, and then hope to get away with it. Vanayuddham got into trouble for portraying Veerappan's life in a bad light! I mean, if we can't say HE was a bad guy, then we can surely forget about making a film like Midnight Express.
@Harish– But I think you're talking about two different things. Leaving out parts of the story and deciding which pieces of information the audience will have access to is a great way to create the element of surprise. Being disappointed about the ending of a fiction is far different than misrepresenting people and events in a film based on reality. In the former, I'd just say the filmmaker is annoying, in the latter, that's a far more serious decision. By the way, I never felt so disappointed with the ending of a film as I was in Sadma. Total heart-wrenching disappointment. But that's the storyteller's preference. When portraying something that really happened, the filmmaker shouldn't change things to his whim.
Dear SriKanth,
You arise a question after seeing the suffering of a Western youth in the other side of the divide. Good questions.
I wonder if you have seen Road to Guantanamo, of course it is not a full drama, its part movie and part docu. But still. What am saying is (bear my English language and writing inabilities, please) the western world is aghast at seeing the treatment meted out to a Westerner in the opposite world, and this movie is quite prominent. However, how many of the west and even Eastern world has seen R to Guan.. which many claim, is still not able to show even half of the real torture that occurs there. A very exaggerated version of western view point is seen all over the world and lots and lots of people take it as absolute truth. However, even closer to truth versions from the other side dont reach anybody. There are more than a couple of Turkish films, made during the Iraq war, which US managed to ban, even in Turkey. For me, lies/exaggerations travel one way and truth is blocked both ways.
If you have seen Captain Phillips, but not The Hijacking (Dannish movie), please watch Hijacking. You can see how two world approach a same subject, one fully exaggerated with little truth the other completely realistic and artistic, and how different the end product are, how it is possible to combine art and real life, without losing the engagement factor. Everyone knows C Phillips and believes it is perfect truth, only people who are really into International cinema have heard about or watched the classic – The Hijacking.
But you know, sometimes, even from the bastions of art, we hear mild protests against artistic freedom. Say, casting of Priyanka in Mary Kom. Why were we against such casting? Why do we want compliance with regional touch in such cases? Maybe we want to say that commercial desires don't come under art. But then, Priyanka is also a good actor. Why was it hard for us to lap her up initially?
Harish makes a good point about taking shelter under the artistic licence umbrella after banking on the "based on a true story" line to generate interest in the project. Once the film purports to closely mirror or even replicate events that actually happened, it ceases to be a mere work of fiction. It's not without reason that the makers of a film give the disclaimer "any similarities to persons or incidents are purely coincidental". I would go one step further and they ought to clarify that their depiction is not intended to be a 'version' of the truth if they have taken liberties with the truth…referring specifically here to films made on controversial incidents with the names of the original parties to the event retained. While an artist ought to have the right to offend, he should not have the right to malign or defame somebody else's reputation or distort the true picture of an incident by playing fast and loose with the facts (would like to further emphasise the word facts here….because facts, unlike opinions, cannot be subjected to multiple interpretations). If you are not telling the truth, don't claim you are. That's dangerous. And in a medium with the reach of cinema, it's like playing with fire.
I have not watched either film mentioned by Srikanth so I cannot comment on whether those films did indulge in 'creative truth-telling' (like creative accounting). My comment is a general one on the topic. One last point. If there is a situation where the truth of a subject is shrouded in mystery due to a lack of evidence, it again falls upon the filmmaker to make it clear at the outset that he is not trying to claim his film as the 'real truth behind blah-blah-blah'. Doing that if nobody except official sources is in possession of the truth would only be mischievous and attempting to sensationalise actual events to help the film run. Nobody would support this, not even in the name of freedom of expression, if they were at the receiving end of it.
Unnnghhhh!!! It took me a while to figure out where I stand on this one and I am still wrestling with this… Artistic freedom is something that ought to be sacrosanct and nobody should be allowed to screw with that. A book or a movie is well within its rights to draw inspiration from real life characters or events and reconstruct the elements however they see fit, provided it does not violate the constitutional rights of individuals.
So it would be cool to surmise about the identity of Jack the Ripper or the Zodiac killer, but not if you are going to point fingers blindly or out of spite and do a whole lot of damage. It would not hurt to add a pinch of ethics to artistic license, would it? Plus it is always smart to do your research and get the facts straight so as to be able to do your thing without having to deal with an angry mob armed with Molotov cocktails on your doorstep. How about that?
Ashutosh
It seems to me that all films have a point (maybe unconscious, and good filmmakers have the ability focus on the point). So, the difference between a news report and fiction is that news makes the point factually while fiction makes it emotionally. Trying to evoke and ensure this emotional response in a diverse group of audience is probably at the root of all fictional techniques.
So, imagine I'm making a biopic about someone who was highly sensitive, much more sensitive than the average person. In real life, someone slapped this person, and this made him a bit mad, and eventually, evil. If I stuck true to facts, I'd recreate this in the film; but, it it might not generate approximately the same response in the viewer who might wonder why the person had to turn evil–he simply could have bitched about the incident and then moved on with his life. So, now I have two ways to make sure that the viewer is still in empathy with the protagonist: (1) have a boatload of commentary about how bad the incident was for the character or (2) economically have the character both slapped and spat on in front of his child or something like that. With (2) *maybe*, the viewer can get a sense of the internal emotional reaction of the character.
Similarly, if I were making a story about spies and terrorists, I have to amp the stakes up a bit for the viewer to feel the anxiety and adrenalin, especially when violent images have become commonplace .
If we are willing to look at art as a tool to emotionally understand, and rationally enquire into an experience, it is still–in the right hands–telling the "truth". If we choose to view art as basically recreated fact, then we will only "get" something but we will never "feel" it. No leap from the known into the unknown, only hypnotic circumambulation around familiar knowns.
Our mental image of someone we have seen only on a photograph/video and someone whom we have physically interacted with is different. There is a "transformation" of impressions from 2-D to 3-D and further more of it when we pick up information using other senses. This might sound very precious, but art ideally is trying to give us the whole experience in all it's dimensions by distorting a "flattened" canvas… sort of like how we get 3-D images with 2-D projection or how we place speakers at different spots producing different sounds to get a sense of space. If a camera cannot capture how evil someone is, I will ask him to glint a bit more; if it cannot capture how happy he is, I will ask him again to exaggerate; this cannot be pandering with truth: if a two year-old child asks you whether she is beautiful you don't tell her the factual truth that she is pretty average, you tell her the emotional truth that she is; notice how I used a female child asking about her beauty in order to make it more complicated for you refute my assertion that literal truth is lower truth–this sort of a thing is hard to avoid in fact and fiction.
sirishaditya
Whenever someone picks up a topic like this, about the responsibility of art when dealing with real ( and sometimes, living ) people, I can't help but think of Arundhati Roy's scathing review of Sekhar Kapur's Bandit Queen.
As much as I believe that art is only a subjective interpretation of an existing reality ( assuming there is an objective world out there ), I also have to admit that Cinema is a fantastically potent medium to make an everlasting image in the mind of an unsuspecting viewer. NTR, MGR or Rajkumar became such powerful forces to reckon with in the political landscape of their respective states simply because of the image created by the cinematic medium. Despite being repeatedly criticised, for various reasons, a large section of people could not come to terms that their demigods could be imperfect. But having said that, it is important to note that we have come far from those times and I think I can safely assume that most of us won't sacrifice our lives for our superstars ( Some Rajni fans are probably an exception ). Not many of us really believe that whatever is shown on screen must have really happened; Digressing a little bit, I have to say that this more of a reason for worry because I don't watch movies as awestruck as I once did. It is becoming harder and harder to suspend disbelief because of an overdose of film news as well an increase in availability of digital technology that is undermining the 'magic' of movies.
Moving on, I don't think films should sell themselves on the claim that they are based on true stories. What isn't based on 'truth'? What is 'not' plagiarism? Has any artist, however great, been able to conceive something that didn't have its roots in reality? And no, this fact does not disappoint me, but only shows how much skill it takes for an artist to shape the known in such a way that the audience is surprised and moved by it in the end. Like Godard once said, it's not where you take things from- it's where you take them to. If need be, take real-life stories but make cosmetic changes so that people get it but self-proclaimed censors can't do much about it. ( I guess Mani Ratnam did it with Iruvar but ran into problems anyway. )
The more contentious a person's life and his actions are, the more is the need for a public discourse. We want their live stories to enter the mainstream so that we can start talking about things that truly matter to us as a society. For me, the primary responsibility of art is to evoke feelings and start arguments- with the self or otherwise. And I'm glad we've started a debate. Who cares what the truth is, as long as we are waking up from intellectual slumber and having fun kicking each others' arses.
Devarsi Ghosh
I think the only responsibility the filmmaker has is to tell a good story to the audience. The only responsibility he has is to stick to whatever 'truth' HE and he alone feels is true.
There's a reason cinema is art and art is 'interpretation', right?
What we find acceptable artistic license and what we find unacceptable artistic license depends on soooo many factors.
Local Heroes (Known): It is better to tell the truth and stick to just the truth. Omitting some truths do not classify as lies and the writer/director can choose to omit the parts that are not quite required for his/her narrative. If the artist gets the mother's name and the number of children correct and plays around with everything else then that is frankly unacceptable. People are going to take the movie as the literal truth. There is no point in explaining artistic licence in interviews.
Eg. Kamaraj, Periyar, Bharathiyar etc.
Local Heroes (Unknown/Non Heroes): Not many people know about this character anyway. So artistic license is almost a given here, for you can't make an entire movie based on a single climax scene. Stay true to the character, that is all we ask for.
Eg. Kaadhal, Seevalaperi Pandi, NKPK etc.
Local Heroes(Female): The character is painted completely in white. No other shades at all.
Eg. Avvaiyaar.
National Heroes: Do very good research. Take into consideration factors of Caste/Region/Sexual Orientation/Religion of both the protogonists and the antogonists. And then use some good sense.
International Heroes: The wikipedia entry is informative for those who want it and so you can use your license a lot. And if your relative becomes an International Hero, better get used to people saying whatever they please about your granddad.
International Heroes(Female): Do not use your licence too freely. You can say that Che Guevara had eight girlfriends whether he did or not. But you can't say that Eva Peron had three boyfriends if she did not.
Mythological Characters (Minor/Male): For some reason, you'd be expected to stick to canon. This is weird as they are fictional and in public domain anyway.
Ex: Noah, Moses, Vishwamitra, etc
Mythological Characters (Major/Male): There are about a hundred books about them already. No problem if you say things that are not strictly canon.
Ex: Jesus, Krishna etc
Mythological Characters (Minor/Female): They are good eye candy. They are eager to strip
Ex: Delilah, Bathsheba, Apsaras, etc
Mythological Characters (Major/Female): Don't bother.
Ex: Mary
Well, would it be alright for a great artist to draw a potrait of an important polictical/social figure but then improvise a little for artistic reasons and ultimately produce a picture that looks nothing like the original person?
@Ashutosh, in fiction, if you are not able to capture the evilness then surely you would add something more to it. But if we are unable to capture the real life event in its full essence then it means that we have not invested our script much with the character. In your slapping example, maybe I would need to build that moment with series of other temperamental problem. The daily schedule. Behaviour with others. Things that piss him off. His reaction. And it's not that that it would not be economical to do so from storytelling point of view. I am saying maybe we need to tune our script accordingly. Ofcourse this is only if it's a real life event. If it's fiction, then we can easily resort to other storytelling tropes.
Raj Groups
Rohan Nair
Heard of something called the 'documentary'?
@ramitbajaj01: My point was not that adding spitting is the best way to justify a sensitive reaction, but that an artist doesn't go for what is actually true, he goes for what feels the truest (for him, given his worldview) in his medium.
Let A be fact
Let B be a work of art
Let C be emotional reaction to A that the artist felt, i.e A—->C
An artist is trying to do: A—–>B—–>C
You're examining whether the artist got A right. The artist is only worried about getting C right; if he can get A right in the process, it is a bonus: useful as advertisement. Because A is hidden by B, there is really no meaning in worrying about A; it's tedius… like wearing sunglasses and constantly trying to mentally subtract the tint.
Of course, if you're talking about ethical and social implications, because art is embedded in society, I agree that artists bear some responsibility. But, the discussion then is not really about art. It is closer to topics like the ethics of product prices, the ethics of giving alms to beggars, the ethics of talking back to elders etc. where we try to regulate things that might lead to social instability; not really a question of truth.
I think two things are very important when dealing with facts interpreted into different medium. One, as previously discussed, whether the core of the event is intact. I am still ambivalent about adding events to a true story that heavily veer away from the true story just because it gives way to more strong emotional reaction. There are different aspects within this issue itself. An event could be studied from different points of view. For example, there is Munich that was heavily from the Mossad's point of view but still an extremely well done film. Again, the core of the issue is something I consider to be important to be comfortable with the end product rather than trying to come to terms with an extremely manipulative product that is heavily abridged. One example would be Argo. A lot of things were dramatized for effect. for example, the final airport run, the jeeps chasing the flights about to take off etc. Now that's an issue with the medium and I am comfortable with that and it is even necessary most times to get the effect. The core of the story was still intact in most of Argo.
That brings us to the second thing. I think the medium people operate in makes a hell lot of difference. Not talking about true stories or facts for a minute, why do Chetan Bhagat's much maligned stories/books seem to so work well on screen? I mean I'd say the core is still intact, they are the same plots but something about a change in medium and of course a deft handling of the events give us a completely new product. It's worth pondering on that front too.
@Rohan Nair You do know that documentaries, just like fiction films, go through the same process called "post-production" which includes the vital act of film editing, where you get footage worth 80 hours and you can shape it as you please to make a 90 min film? And at such the final product will invariably be a biased, skewed version of events based on the ideologies and fancies of the film-maker.
So like I, said cinema is all about interpretation. The only responsibility the director has is to tell a story and to tell it well. That's it. Finished.
Lie, cheat, whatever but don't they dare bore us.
Sanjay Shankar (@sanjayshankar)
This is a great topic for a discussion and one that bothers me whenever I see movies 'based on real events'.
I agree that a movie is not a Wiki page. However, the usage of real names for characters should be based on how much of a gap there is for the creator to fill.
Almost everyone who watched 'Iruvar' in Tamil knew that the film was based on the Karunanidhi-MGR story. We may have snickered when we saw the 'Idhu unmai kadhai alla' on the screen before the movie started, but I thought that was the responsible thing to do (and also the safer option in India anyway).
Aaron Sorkin's screenplay for 'The Social Network' was a brilliant piece of writing, but most people watching it are going to judge Mark Zuckerberg. The movie makes him out to be an asshole and that is IMHO a big reason for the general public thinking he is a bad person.
If a creator is going to use real names, they should stick to the documentary format, where they can't make up evidence/facts. And if there is no opinion presented for the other side, at least the creator's bias will be out there for everyone to see, Filling in the gaps with fictional material makes the audience project that on the real person and form an unfavorable opinion of that person. It is very unfair.
Srikanth Mantravadi
At the outset, it's important to again restate that we are only discussing those movies which purport to be based on "real life" events. I believe that when a movie represents itself to be based on "true life" events it assumes a burden to be *truthful* about those events. Now we will not go into the issue of what is *truthful* for now because for now we'll assume there is one truth. Say the one written in an eye witness account or a historical document (This debate as I see it was not anyway about the nature of truth itself). Here's what my problem is – When a movie says it's based on such events, I go in with a feeling of anticipation. I don't see the movie only for its "entertainment" facet. But I am also curious about its "educative" aspect. And especially since cinema is an influential, immersive medium where true and fictitious events might meld into each other, the movie has a responsibility to keep the true events as less distorted as possible. It can play around with things which are left to the director's (and everyone's) imagination. Scenes which are not there in the account. It can heighten/amplify emotions. But not twist/distort them. Because that is cheating.
I will explain amplify to make things clearer. Let's take the same example where a character was being tortured. According to the book, he is hit badly. The movie based on it can heighten/amplify the emotion by adding a powerful background score, make the lead actor cry etc. But it cannot show waterboarding. It cannot show electrocution. This is not to be done least because, in the movie, the subsequent actions of the actor were determined by what was meted out to him and I as audience member evaluate his actions based on what was meted out to him. By altering that, you are doing a disservice to two things – the source material and the audience. You are plainly misrepresenting.
We enter murky territory when the *truth* itself is under question. Or there are various versions of it. I think a good example to take here would be Haider. Was Haider truthful? Yes, it was. For me it passes the test because it was "truthful" to the Kashmiri POV. It didn't twist that. Movies can be arguments too. But arguments should be based on facts. So it's okay if Haider didn't show the Army's side of things. It's okay if it didn't show the plight of Kashmiri Pandits. As long as it didn't distort the Kashmiri POV. Because that's what it set out represent. That I think is the subtle distinction between what people clamour for when they say "balanced POVs" and "Truthful POV" A movie needn't be balanced because that is not a burden it assumed but it has to be truthful about what it set out to represent.
In sum, when cinema purports to be an educative experience, it assumes an additional burden which it must discharge.
Srikanth Mantravadi: Well articulated. This is more or less my position too. I don't necessarily ask for the whole, comprehensive truth on all aspects ( a la a fact finding exercise) in a film that is based on true events and claims to be so. I just want all reproductions of actual incidents to be factually accurate. And I am not going to nitpick here and say that if XYZ was driving the car at 100 kph in reality at the time of running over a homeless kid on the pavement , then the movie has failed by showing the speedo reading at 150 kph. But if the movie pretends he wasn't at the wheel whereas he was in reality, that is a serious flaw and no matter how well the film may be made from an artistic, technical point of view, it would be a difficult one to overlook.
@Madan:
But if the movie pretends he wasn't at the wheel whereas he was in reality, that is a serious flaw and no matter how well the film may be made from an artistic, technical point of view, it would be a difficult one to overlook.
Well, if you put it that way I have to agree, because that sounds like gross, willful changing of facts driven by an agenda… it has nothing to do with artistic reimagining. That it's wrong is moot.
@Srikanth Mantravadi: There is no objective way to assess that a PoV was truthful. Kashmiris are not a single cohort, there must be factions for whom Haider's PoV was unacceptable. I agree this discussion isn't really about the philosophical underpinnings of truth, but when we seek for truth in fiction, we need to have a better definition of it than 'truth is what I think corroborates with what I already think to be true based on what I've already read/seen/believed'.
So, I guess, subjectively one can assess that a movie wasn't truthful enough; especially easy in cases where facts were willfully misrepresented for political reasons. But, since this subjective element is wildly different for different people, what is central is whether the story feels true, and not to worry at all about whether it is based on facts or not. There are far better ways to understand objective reality than learning through a provocative medium like films. We do not think learning about society or philosophy from films is funny… but if, for example, someone tried to learn about dinosaurs from Jurrasic Park, or cosmology from Gravity, we would think that person pretty shallow… films can, at best, be springboards to get interested in these things. We can think pretty deeply about them as long as we approach it as art, we spread our thinking pretty thin when we take it as semi-reality.
When watching films based on real life personalities or events, what is important (for me) is not strict factual accuracy, but that the film ring true emotionally. If spirit of the events or personalities being depicted are distorted significantly, then my enjoyment of the film is certainly diminished.
As an example, if someone watches Amadeus without being aware of Mozart's real history, then s/he will leave with the impression that Mozart, other than being a supremely gifted composer, was a crude and juvenile buffoon; and that Salieri was a mediocre, jealous and scheming rival responsible for Mozart's death. Now, there was occasional professional rivalry between the two that has been documented historically. But to take the equivalent of an office rivalry and twist it into a murder plot does a disservice to the memories of both men; neither was Mozart that puerile (though his language was known to be colourful), nor was Saliery malevolent. But thanks to this heavily fictionalized depiction, thousands of movie viewers now believe this to be the broadly representative truth about the life of Mozart. As for me, even though the movie was very well made, I just felt cheated.
On the other hand, there is the Social Network whose factual inaccuracies have been well known. But at the end of it, one leaves with the impression of the Facebook founder as a brilliant, driven individual who stepped ruthlessly on a few toes, including those of his close friends, to build his social empire. And this characterization, despite all the factual inaccuracies, is broadly true. Which is why, for me, the film 'felt true'.
This is in response to Ashutosh and also to develop my argument further.
I get the argument that *truth* itself is not a "set in stone" monolithic entity that is universally acceptable. But we are not on that point. We are talking about fidelity to the source material and the liberties a screenwriter can take with it. When I refer to *truth* or *POV*, I refer to the source material the movie is basing itself on. So for a Schindler's List, it's the book. For Haider, it is Basharat Peer mining Curfewed Night. For Argo, it is that Wired article. For Mary Kom or Bhaag Milkha Bhaag, it is the accounts of the personalities themselves. Dramatisation of gaps and insignificant bits is one thing but twisting events and fictionalising them for emotional resonance or political ends is misrepresentation.
Also, one can't have it both ways. You can't twist an account for additional impact and then claim immunity under the *subjective* nature of truth line of argument, right? That means you clearly acknowledge that your representation is distorted. Truth cannot become a series of Chinese Whispers as it passes from, say, the actual event to the newspapers and from the newspapers to the film. I agree that there is some distortion that enters unconsciously as it travels across these media but I have a problem with intentionally distorting the source material to suit your ends, political or otherwise. This is dangerous if it material that has political overtones but even in other cases frustrating. I may not be a gullible audience member who is solely placing reliance on the movie but it is disappointing when the director engages in intentional myth making and manipulation of facts.
And if the screenwriter is so bent on doing it, he should lose the *Based on Real Events* tag. The movies you cite, Jurassic Park, Gravity and, one can even add, Interstellar are movies which don't market themselves to be based on real events. All they are doing is creating plausible techno vistas, leaping from the springboard of contemporary scientific knowledge and filling in the gaps with imagination. That's a different genre by itself fathered by Michael Crichton and his ilk.
because that sounds like gross, willful changing of facts driven by an agenda… it has nothing to do with artistic reimagining.
– Well, I personally tend to focus more on the gross changing of facts part of it. Whether it is driven by a malicious agenda or artistic considerations, messing with the truth can be potentially damaging. In the case of the Hurricane which was brought up in the original write up, Rubin Carter was not acquitted. Rather, he was released on a habeas corpus writ, on the grounds that crucial information was withheld from the jury by the prosecution and the motive of racial revenge was not backed adequately by evidence. The ruling does not say that the other grounds of the prosecution would have withstood scrutiny; it simply doesn't go into them as the prosecution's concealment of information was deemed to have sufficiently compromised the hearing to grant Carter release. To draw a parallel, Mohd Azharuddin was not found 'not guilty' by the high court. They simply held that the life ban imposed on him by BCCI was unconstitutional and overturned the ban on that ground.
It is nobody's case today that Azhar was innocent based on this verdict. I have not watched The Hurricane but if the above nuance was ignored and the story painted instead as Carter's fight to prove his 'innocence', it would be flawed because the fact is that he did not get an opportunity to prove it. After his release, the prosecution did not attempt conviction for a third time and let it go. His defense had in the habeas corpus petition, relinquished the fight to prove his innocence as the flaws in the prosecution's procedure was, correctly, deemed sufficient to obtain his release. This is too nuanced a position to be subjected to a simplistic black and white treatment of one wronged man fighting an evil system. I am not claiming that that is what Hurricane is. However, I have read reviews which say so and which have pointed several factual distortions of key events, including showing Carter as a potential world champion at the time of his conviction whereas he was already well and truly on the decline by then and in financial difficulty. If these complaints are factually correct, then I'd have to say that no matter how well the film is made, I'd have to hold such significant distortion of facts to bend the truth into a narrative that appeals as flaws that detract from the film. As I said in an earlier comment, if the truth as it actually is does not immediately lend itself to appealing cinematic narrative, then it's better to change names than to retain the original names, say it's based on a true story and make something that doesn't resemble the truth. I'd certainly feel conned by films that do that.
Santa: neither was Mozart that puerile (though his language was known to be colourful), nor was Saliery malevolent. But thanks to this heavily fictionalized depiction, thousands of movie viewers now believe this to be the broadly representative truth about the life of Mozart.
But that *is* the whole point. The film isn't about Mozart's life. It's the playwright Peter Shaffer's idiosyncratic what-if variation on Mozart's life. It's like taking a song and saying, "Hmmm… I wonder what it'd be like if I took the basic riffs and reimagined the rest of the song."
This is very much part of art's ambit, and if "thousands of movie viewers now believe this to be the broadly representative truth about the life of Mozart," then that is their problem and not the film's. People, really, should know better than to be so literal-minded about art.
Without laboring the point any more, all I wish to say is that it is a bit short-sighted to interpret art by using information from outside the work of art or create a work of art that forces this.
Take the example of Hamlet, which was billed as the tragical history of the prince of Denmark (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Hamlet_Q1_Frontispiece_1603.jpg):
Shakespeare, of course, made several changes (basically made stuff up; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_Hamlet). But today, we understand Hamlet and appraise it solely using information from inside the play–except some academics who are interested in whether Shakespeare wasn't really Francis Bacon, or perform calculations based on Shakespeare's estimated salary to assess whether he could ever afford to travel to Italy (these people assume he did travel to Italy, and are hated by those who think he never had to visit Italy because he had already read books about it, which really infuriates people who cannot even imagine that Francis Bacon would not have enough money to travel to Italy).
The point is that if an artist strives for anything more than dramatic/artistic soundness, he–and the critics who condone that–are misguided. Three things happen to facts over time: they become boring, irrelevant, or obscure. But, the drama and emotions are always relevant. There is a reason why we still find the 'to be or to be' soliloquy relevant but never really memorize and quote '[…] our valiant Hamlet–
For so this side of our known world esteem'd him
Did slay this Fortinbras;'
The former is desperate articulation of an existential crisis while the latter is a piece of information that is setting context. Those who pick on the context are free to do so, but their picking will be rendered irrelevant once the context becomes irrelevant, which it inevitably will– sometimes after weeks or months, and sometimes after centuries. We don't comment on Shakespeare's method of historical research or whether his ideas were a precursor to dialectical materialism because we're busy experiencing the drama. This is one of the reasons why classics always appear purer and richer… shorn off incidental context, the drama finally takes foreground, as it always should have.
An artist inevitably has to draw from what he has seen or heard, but he shapes what he wants out of it. If they make out films to be tools for communication of (mis)information both the artist and his audience are misguided, in my opinion (they can argue that I am misguided in my opinion, and that's fair).
One minor point: Gravity, Jurassic Park, Interstellar etc. don't fill in gaps in science with imagination, they fill in gaps in the filmmaker's knowledge of science with imagination. Rather, the filmmaker probably knows that he's imagining something when scientific facts are already available (for e.g. many dinosaurs have feathers); he does this because often facts kill drama, where the facts enhance drama he uses it. One might think that the issue of not giving feathers to dinosaurs is so minor but paleontologists are humans too and they also feel hurt, like Kashmiris, Dalits, or whomsoever the movie tries to portray: one man's indifference is another man's obsession. Simply based on our own imperfect mastery of facts, it is all too easy to believe that some artists are truthful and invent details only when they've exhausted all facts while others are outright liars with an agenda. The point is that appreciation of art should not really depend on such capricious parameters.
I will sum up: we are free to guess the source of an artistic work and assess whether it true to that. But that runs against the grain of what the artist is trying to do. Any decent artist tries to be relevant beyond his time, tries to rise above everyday mundanity; even when he draws from topical problems he elevates it to the level of a universal crisis (good vs. bad is a trivial example)… and that elevation is what we must focus on to appreciate art. We focus not on where art is shooting from but to where it is shooting to.
BR: Oh, absolutely. The problem is the viewers (in this case, mine). I was merely outlining my reaction to films based on true subjects by using Amadeus as an example of a well-made film that didn't resonate with me. I absolutely wasn't intending to say 'this is how films based on reality should be made'.
Regarding 'People, really, should know better than to be so literal-minded about art', however, I would differ. Art appreciation is a two-way street between the artist and his/her audience. While one cannot (and should not) impugn an artist for representing a subject in a particular way, one equally cannot fault the audience for reacting to a piece of art in a particular way.
Harikrishnan Vijayan
The simple reply to this would be to quote the MGM logo. "Artis gratia Artis". Art for the sake of art.
If they make out films to be tools for communication of (mis)information both the artist and his audience are misguided, in my opinion
– Well, that's an inevitable reaction once the work is based on an actual person or actual set of events. As I said, the way to take a film out of the informative domain and into pure fiction is pretty simple: change the names, dammit. It really doesn't take a lot of doing. But obviously a film purporting to depict Rubin Carter's life (to whom an iconic Bob Dylan anthem had already been dedicated in the 70s) is bound to be a bigger draw than one depicting the injustice meted out to an anonymous boxer. However once the filmmaker opens this Pandora's Box, he has to face the music thereafter. It is very natural and not at all unfair of the audience to compare and contrast the work with the actual facts surrounding the person or event…because such a thing actually happened. Even if the names are changed to expressly discourage such comparisons, people still guess what it is based on and even proceed to criticise it on that account. But in this case, yes, the artist is absolutely not at fault. It is simply an interpretation that the audience has chosen to draw and not that has been encouraged. But when a film is preceded by the words "based on a true story", it is practically a printed invitation to please go ahead and compare. Anyhow, my own concerns in this matter are more with whether the person is shown to have committed cruel acts that he did not commit (including white collar crime, i.e., swindling) or whether he is shown to have been innocent and wrongly implicated when it wasn't necessarily the case because these are ethical issues. Incidental details or details that describe the person's personality or temperament may perhaps give the audience a different view of the person from what he really was (which is a very subjective consideration anyway) but legally wouldn't amount to maligning his character or on the flipside falsely bolstering it at the expense of institutions (Hurricane).
We focus not on where art is shooting from but to where it is shooting to.
– It is possible to take this sanguine view as long as the art in question is also benevolent in motive. But what if say neo Nazis made a film depicting Hitler as a hero and the Jews and rest of Europe as the real villains and as Hitler having never sanctioned holocaust at all (which in turn was a devious conspiracy plotted by Churchill to topple his arch rival in Europe by falsely implicating him)? What do you predict the reaction would be? The uproar over the mere public display of the swastika symbol should be indicative. I find that in the generalised opinions being posted here in support of the artist's right to disfigure the truth for the sake of artistic pursuits (which by the way we don't really know is the case, only the artist himself knows what his real motivation was), these possibilities are not being considered. But the threat of such blatant abuse of art is very real and that is why safeguards exist against using art to spread falsehoods or defame a person. That is also why spreading of misinformation, be it deliberate or unintentional, about actual persons or events raises uncomfortable ethical questions which cannot be separated or compartmentalised from the appreciation of art.
chronophlogiston
This is a great topic for discussion and very relevant considering the number of films out there which are "inspired by true events". I completely agree with Baradwaj. But having said that, I think it's a bit underhanded of the film makers to use the hook of "inspired by" or "based on" if the basic facts have been altered. They might as well have made a completely fictional movie (in any case, all stories are inspired by real experiences, are they not?), but then they would have been accused of making a thinly veiled real-life story! Even so, in conclusion, I would agree with Baradwaj that we should evaluate the films purely as art or entertainment and not as a history text book.
You are looking at it from audience's standpoint and both viewpoints are correct in a way. Films are powerful medium and they could be opinion maker. In case of the original email writer, it prompted him to do more research, read book and find out the truth himself. There maybe others in audience who may not do that and take the fiction for the truth.
However, if we look at the Movies from Director's standpoint and movies are director's medium. Shouldn't it be Director's onus to stick to as much truth or to the book as much as possible when making movie from a book? Didn't Nolan hire physicist (even though he was only a theoretical physicist) for Interstellar, for instance. If it was movie like Singham or Dabaag or Dhoom, it really doesn't matter. But when you are making Paan Singh Tomar or Bhaag Milkha Bhaag or Phoolam Devi or epic of Queen Elizabeth or King's speech, the Director must stay true to the book and history and take few liberties as possible. 🙂
pandari
I kind of disagree with "if you want to know facts, watch a documentary" argument. Cinema is the most powerful, accessible (even to illiterates) medium, we have. Semi-fictional cinema can easily become history for the casual movie-watcher (who are the overwhelming majority).
eg: Gandhiji's last words were "Hey Ram". Only when those famous words were not in the movie "Hey Ram", I looked up wikipedia. For long, it was factual history for me because of Richard Attenborough's "Gandhi". This is a harmless case, but just to point to the "history" that can be registered by cinema.
Reminded me of an article critical of "A beautiful mind"
http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/04/14/stories/2002041400110300.htm
"This portrayal of one person's triumph over schizophrenia is so appealing because, we are told, it is based on a real life. It is unlikely that the film would have been half as successful if it had been about a fictional character. "
@ BR
""….that is their problem and not the film's. People, really, should know better than to be so literal-minded about art.""
Am not very sure about this. Like several people have commented above, films 'baed on a true story' do serve as a ready reference, offering an easy reminder of historical events to many viewers. Whether we like it or not, very few people take history seriously enough to independently verify the 'facts' shown in the film.
For instance, I have faced an uphill task in persuading several cousins (who've seen Braveheart multiple times), that Queen Isabella never even met William Wallace, let alone have a dalliance with him and bear his child.
To take another example from recent films, Madras Cafe was overall a very well made movie. But what was the need to show the politician (representing Rajiv Gandhi) as having resigned, taking moral responsibility for the failure of the IPKF? Shoojit Sircar, IMHO, was being intellectually dishonest in entirely 'airbrushing' the elections of 1989, which voted the Congress out of power. Fine, he didn't want to allude to the Bofors scandal which tainted Rajiv's image–that was acceptable. That wasn't germane to the main plot, I get that. But why falsify an entire mandate? For such an otherwise good film, this subversion of fact seemed a bit like kowtowing to the party then in power.
I do feel if the director is making a film based on an actual historical figure/ an actual event, he needs to be more faithful to the events as they happened. Outlining plausible motives which drove the characters is fine, since that falls within the filmmaker's imagination. But he shouldn't dream up an entire alternate reality–and still get to claim that the movie is based on history.


Do you come to art for release from the cares of your day or for a projection screen upon which you can cast those cares and examine them in the larger context of the human struggle for self-understanding?
As it happened, my partner and I scanned the movie section yesterday and discovered "First Reformed," a brooding Paul Schrader ("Taxi Driver," "The Last Temptation of Christ") film about a self-loathing, hard-drinking pastor in a tiny failing church in the desolate landscape of Albany, New York. The pastor, played by the deeply furrow-browed Ethan Hawke, encounters an eco-terrorist who is despairing so severely about what he sees as the inevitable environmental suicide of the world that he urges his wife to abort her pregnancy before turning his rifle on himself in a public park in a bloody scene to which he has summoned the pastor via text message just moments before pulling the trigger.
We just could not get to the theater fast enough.
But before we did, we had another friend of longstanding over for an impromptu dinner, and we asked her if she wanted to accompany us.
"What's it about?" she asked, raising an eyebrow.
The conversation then led to her distinct literary preference for mysteries and her love of Harry Potter movies.
Sure, some people bounce back and forth, depending on the mood of their day or time in their lives. Chekhov, Dostoyevsky and that whole band of morbid Russians in the winter, leavened in summer by a deep dive beach-read into every last Sue Grafton mystery, A to Y.
But on the whole, I think the "two kinds of people" distinction holds pretty much true for taste in the arts. Heavy/light, high-brow/mid/low-brow, literature/"popular" fiction, Shakespeare/P.G. Wodehouse.
And, in a more fundamental sense: immersion or escape?
Do you come to art for release from the cares of your day or for a projection screen upon which you can cast those cares and examine them in the larger context of the human struggle for self-understanding and a hard-won wisdom of the heart?
Some people get all the struggle they can glimpse (and the misery they dare not personally ingest) in the course of their day as therapists or by staffing a suicide hotline. These people may long for nothing so much as a sand chair at the beach with a cool adult drink in the cupholder and a trash novel in their hands, drinking avidly from both.
It's not that I'm against mass and, let's face it, mindless entertainments that even their fans and producers acknowledge as such.
Escapism is not a bad thing, a supposition that is reflected (and fully supported) by the liquor and pharmaceutical industries, which depend on those deeply held yearnings to make themselves and their shareholders wealthy.
It really does come down to personal tastes and dispositions, and those often tend toward the unpredictable. The hyper-intellectual and waifish novelist and critic Joyce Carol Oates is a fierce boxing fan, after all, and tastefully dressed matrons of a serious bent have been known to swoon over the mostly light-hearted absurdisms of David Sedaris.
The human soul has many mansions, St. Teresa told us, and not everyone is inclined to occupy every one of them on their journey to the beyond.
I tend to want my novels serious, my paintings bright and flower-strewn, and my movies thought-provoking at the very least. If I'm not still thinking about it and feeling slightly seared from the experience days later, having run a kind of emotional gauntlet, I fear I may have wasted both my money and my time, and since both are diminishing resources in my life, I am not given to part with them frivolously.
But I do recognize that serious is not everyone's cup of tea in the arts. Drop me a line sometime if you'd like to engage in some serious talk on the matter.
Deep appreciation to the photographers! Unless otherwise stated, some rights reserved under Creative Commons licensing.
Elizabeth Haslam, whose photos (except for the books) grace the rotating banner at top of page.
13 comments to Light and Dark in the Arts: What's Your Pleasure?
I'm not sure I can categorize the movies I have really liked, as they are quite different. Some examples are Pulp Fiction, A Few Good Men, and more recently, The Shape of Water. My criteria have to do with the acting, the writing, and as you stated, the impact it has later.
You are never short of provocative subject matter. This philosophical conundrum has been a part of uncountable numbers of discussions I have had on this topic, especially as it relates to movies, perhaps more than other art forms. I believe there is a gray area, at least 50 shades of it, in between the extremes of the two positions you posited which is rather extensive. But if forced to I have never had a problem taking a position.
In film, at least, I have always subscribed to the philosophy of film producer and director Keenan Wayans. He said, "life is so difficult, challenging and unrelenting that when I go to a movie I really do not want to pay for two more hours of depressing catharsis. So when I go to a movie please do one of two things, either make me laugh or blow something up". This is not to say that I have not seen many of the great films on the AFI top 100, a list which is not overly populated with films subscribing to Wayans' philosophy, many of which I love. Yet another reason why I contend your initial proposition is too black & white (NPI). Nevertheless, I still subscribe to his philosophy, if given only those choices.
I was an English major in college and Shakespeare was my area of focus so I expect I have probably read most of the plays, and besides Hamlet, I like the comedies & the histories better than the tragedies. So I guess I am consistent and I expect the 16th Century equivalent would be make me laugh or get somebody married.
Gerry, those all look like pretty serious titles to me, though "Pulp Fiction" had those dark crazed laughs particular to a Tarantino film.So I'd be inclined to categorize you in the "serious" camp!
Bruce, you're quite right, these binaries do not fit every person and preference all the time. Like all generalities it leaves out too much in the variable, spectrum-y middle. Nevertheless, I do think the broad tendencies hold up pretty well, and that most people would readily enough identify themselves and their intimates as more along one end of the spectrum than another (as you have done about yourself, with some notable reservations).
And thanks for the funny Wayans line, which made me laugh and thus fulfills the very criteria he is citing!
I LOVE dark movies and I HATE happy endings. One of my favorites was "Monster" with Charlize Theron which depicted human suffering with no redemption. I loved it because it expresses one of the TRUTHS of our human condition. My dear wife was ultimately convinced to see "Book Club" with a friend which I understand has a typical Hollywood happy ending. Movies that contrive too hard to entertain and make us happy end up like artificially flavored candy, pleasing to children but leaving adults without real nourishment and a strange aftertaste.
Al, you sound like the perfect candidate for "First Reformed." So giddy on up to the theater for a look and let's talk about that ending, which has generated some pretty good discussion regarding its possible meanings.
Thanks for that little tour through cinema history, Robert. As for the "too" category, mine definitely became "too violent" maybe 10 or more years ago, when I just couldn't look anymore at the graphic mangling of limbs and bullets tearing through flesh, etc. that left zero to the imagination. After a while, it seemed like an indulgence and cheap sensationalism on the part of the filmmaker, rather than well-crafted movie-making that suggests all manner of mayhem and horror without having to shove the imagery into your brain.
Fabulous comment and spot on. You have more than accurately described the gray in the artistic space between "Harry Met Sally" & "Virginia Woolf". I am also partial to your references because "Casablanca", "Strangelove" and "Kane" are three of my five favorite films. I think I will go on Netflix this weekend a "round up some of the usual suspects". Thanks.
And I find myself dying to hear YOUR views on the serious/zombie movie lovers' marriage. Been conducting some research, have ya?
AH, In answer to you about the Zombie issue: Seems a though Zombies can represent the fears and anxieties of modern life. Or all the folks we see who are sleepwalking through their days. Or a way to deal with our fear of death. Or they can just be absurd and kinda funny.
It seems that serious viewers can take them–in small doses.
More as my research progresses…..
If George Romero's Night of the Living Dead partners with Fellini's I Vitelloni as two of your favorite movies, you're not unlike Mr. Kubrick. I suppose it's kinda' like a kid going into the most lavish candy store in the world and struggling with his/her final choice. Would it be KnipschildtIt's Chocopologie or Mars' Snickers?
As a final note, I look forward to reading Andy's diverse reflections in Traversing. Not just because he's such a good writer or we've been friends for over 55 years, but rather because he's created a place for people like me to exchange ideas/thoughts civilly with people like you and Bruce.
Glad you feel welcome in that way, Robert. This space was always meant to be much more a dia/multi-logue rather than a monologue.


A: I am a chaplain here in Campus Ministries, and I meet with students one-on-one and offer pastoral care. I also organize spring break immersion trips and train leaders.
Q: Can you give a brief explanation about what this current "Revive" series is about?
A: The Revive group was formed through student interest, there were five seniors that came to our office and desired to have a group where they could support other students struggling with mental illness. Part of their heart was to break down stereotypes that are often held in our society, and the hesitancy of reaching out when they do need help. They really want to encourage students to reach out and get help.
Q: Do you feel that there are any unique aspects/struggles to dealing with mental illness on a faith-based campus?
Q: How has the topic of mental illness changed on campus in recent years?
A: I think the awareness is becoming more vocal. There has been support over the years, and this generation is more in tune. People are saying "I don't want to live this way," and I think that's a cool part because whether it's a physical or emotional pain, there are signals that say "This isn't quite right," and it prompts you to get help.
Q: Is there anything you would still like to change?
A: I wish for students to see that God cares about them, and he cares about their whole being. He doesn't just care about their success academically, but he cares about them relationally and intellectually. I think here at college we physically get tuned into the emotional and relational and spiritual side and that excites me, when students actually get it.
Q: What do you hope to accomplish with this series?
A: I want students to be able to come and talk about a subject that they may feel marginalized because of, and I hope that they realize there's hope and help. I hope they realize they are not alone. I think pain isolates, whether it's physically or emotionally.
Q:When you have any conversation with anyone about mental illness, what do you find yourself telling them the most?
A: I often look at the psalms. Psalm 40 is just a reassuring psalm that we have a God that cares about your emotions, and that it is okay to struggle, and your darkest day is not always going to be how you live the rest of your life. And wholistic healing can be a slow process, so it's okay to be where you're at, but there is a future hope of navigating through this.


"Pay me the hundred zuz which I loaned you."
To this demand came the response: "No such thing ever took place.
Following this exchange the lender produced witnesses who testified that there was indeed a loan but that it had been repaid.
"Anyone who claims that he never borrowed is considered as admitting that he never paid."
The logic of Rava's position is that a person is believed to obligate himself even if he is contradicted by a hundred witnesses.
Why a person has such absolute credibility in regard to his financial obligations is the subject of discussion among the commentaries. One explanation, that of Mahari Even Leiv, is that anyone has the right to make a gift, and an admission is considered as an expression of gift granting which cannot be challenged by opposing witnesses.
This approach is refuted by the Ketzot Hachoshen on the basis of our gemara. One who denies that a loan ever took place can hardly be viewed as one who is interested in making a gift! His alternate explanation is that although in all other matters a man cannot testify about himself, the Torah gives him credibility when it comes to assuming responsibility in financial matters.
"When the Torah warns that the punishment of the nation for its sins includes 'they will stumble over one another' (Vayikra 26:37), it also informs us that each will be responsible for the sins of another because all Jews are responsible for each other."


text:
La collana della regina (L'Affaire du collier de la reine) è un film del 1946 diretto da Marcel L'Herbier.

Trama

Produzione
Il film fu prodotto dall'Île de France Film. Venne girato a Versailles e negli studi di Saint-Maurice a Val-de-Marne.

Distribuzione
Distribuito dalla Consortium du Film, il film uscì in Francia presentato in prima a Parigi l'11 settembre 1946. In Italia fu distribuito nel 1950.

Voci correlate
 Affare della collana
 La collana della regina

Collegamenti esterni

Film sulla rivoluzione francese
Film basati su opere di narrativa
Film ambientati a Parigi
Film ambientati nel XVIII secolo
Film diretti da Marcel L'Herbier

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: symfony2.7 How to Use PHP's built-in Web Server I have a PC with windows 8.1 and XAMPP v3.2.1 and it includes PHP 5.6.
I followed these steps from: http://symfony.com/doc/current/cookbook/web_server/built_in.html
php app/console server:run x.x.x.x:8000

The issue is, I can't run my symfony app in a web server, the error is:

Built in server terminated unexpectedly

If I launch this command: php app/console server:run, everything is ok:

Server running on http://127.0.0.1:8000

And this: php app/console server:run 0.0.0.0:8000 => OK
My application isn't accessible with my local IP address.

A: I almost sure you're defining an invalid IP address.
You must define or loopback address (localhost or 127.0.0.1) or your machine IP on local network (i.e: 192.168.25.7).
Also, if want more details on what is going on, run command passing "-vvv" (most verbose level):
$ bin/console -vvv server:run  192.168.25.6:8000

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Home Creativity & Inspiration Writing Wednesday: The 140-Character Challenge
Writing Wednesday: The 140-Character Challenge
No, this isn't a challenge to craft a tale with a multitude of characters with unique personalities. It's the even bigger challenge of telling a fully realised story using only 140 characters (as in letters, punctuation and spaces combined).
Truly an endeavour for the modern age, the 140-Character Challenge began on Twitter as a creative means of interacting with other storytellers. Using the medium's maximum character count, you are challenged to write "great works of fiction in 140 characters or less." Since 2007, when the handle @TwitterFiction was born, the idea has become a large enough phenomenon that an annual Twitter Fiction Fest (@TWfictionfest) has sprung up around it.
Now, Twitter Fiction even includes full-length novels, so long as they are published in 140-character parts. Some of the world's best-known authors have even gotten in on the fun. All you have to do to join in is craft your story and use the #TwitterFiction hashtag (which actually makes the 140 characters a bit of a misnomer)! Check out some of the stories created using this format for inspiration!
"I opened the door to our flat and you were standing there, cleaver raised. Somehow you'd found out about the photos. My jaw hit the floor."
"She smiled, he smiled back, it was lust at first sight, but then she discovered he was married, too bad it couldn't go anywhere."
Dugaldo Estrada
Neither of the two strangers actually liked the painting. Still they found they could talk about it endlessly. pic.twitter.com/9tnhTf6Fvu
— Dugaldo Estrada (@Dugaldo) March 13, 2014
We're on Twitter (@paperblanks) – share your stories with us!
Connect with Paperblanks on Twitter!
About Paperblanks®: At Paperblanks®, we believe that art should have a place in all aspects of life. That's why we follow the artist's way in everything we do – creating, crafting and releasing designs we believe have the power to touch people. For more about Paperblanks®, go to our website at paperblanks.com.
Writing Wednesday
Previous article10 Questions with Hieronymus: Contemporary Painter, Muralist and Graffiti Artist
Next articlePeek Inside… Loviisa's Amazingly Scrapbooked Dayplanner
Robyn @ Paperblanks
Robyn has been a part of the Paperblanks family for over eight years as a part of our Canadian office.
The Art of Taking It Slow
5 Ways to Welcome a More Creative Year
New Journalling Prompts to Reflect On the Year's End
Famous Diary Entries: Robert Peary "At Last!!!" Reaches the North Pole
Paperblanks Team - November 27, 2012 0
For over 23 years explorer Robert Peary was obsessed with becoming the first person to reach the North Pole. On one of his expeditions...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Ep. 6: Ian Metzger, Part 1 | The Gentle Hits + Dear and the Headlights
Sep 15 2016 15 September 2016
Ian Metzger was the brain and the heart behind the Phoenix indie band Dear and the Headlights. Since the band broke up, he's been relatively under the radar, but he's back with a new project called The Gentle Hits.
In this first part of my interview with Ian Metzger, you'll hear a detailed history of the band, his favorite songs from Dear and the Headlights, and learn the why/how the band broke up.
You can still find Dear and the Headlights on the internet, but be sure to check out The Gentle Hits and like them on Facebook. You can preorder the album here.
Don't forget you can listen to original Dear and the Headlights' guitarist Joel Marquard's podcast interview here.
Listen to the latest episode of Internal Review below via Soundcloud or subscribe to iTunes. Be sure to follow on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Soundcloud, et al.
Sean ODonnell says:
First, I was one of the 33K people who purchased your album, Ian. Here in Philly, I've introduced so many people to DATH. Drunk Like Bible Times, for me, is up there with: OK Computer, Origins Of Symmetry, Smells Like Teen Spirit, Ten, and Ritual de Habitual. Lyrically, finer than all of those albums. Crafting the songs with the "Sims" language vowels was interesting to hear. As was the drummer lying about his age-funny stuff. Seriously, how Deer and the Headlights never blew up beyond $150 opening acts and sleeping on picnic tables…is mind blowing, and a total shame of music justice. I wish I had seen them live-just once. This "sweet talk" about a 3rd album, was any of it recorded? Can we hear any of it? Gosh, many fans would love to hear it, if it exists. The Internet, stealing their music-apparently was a total band killer-and that's a total shame. Makes me furious. When Ian said Willetta was his favorite song, made me smile, it's mine, too. In my life, I've played no song more.


Chalet Keira is a beautiful, new 10 bedded chalet situated in a quiet residential area of Chamonix. It is within easy walking distance of Chamonix town centre and the Chamski bus stop. It is a 10 minute flat walk along the river into Chamonix centre.
The catering is "good home cooking" and gets rave reviews on tripadvisor and google alike. Our famous cakes are always there for afternoon tea.
The chalet has a cosy relaxed atmosphere and we do our utmost to make guests feel at home.
Large, open plan living, dining and kitchen area with log fire. Large patio doors give spectacular views of Mont Blanc.
1 double room with mezzanine.
1 bathroom with shower and two basins.
1 bathroom with bath and 2 basins, 1 separate W.C.
Other Facilities: Ski storage area with heated boot warmers, Storage area for bikes and outdoor equipment, Large private garden with superb views. BBQ and outdoor garden furniture for the spring. Private car parking outside the chalet. Free WIFI.
The chalet is located in Les Pelerins.
Les Pelerins is a suburb of Chamonix town and spreads over a several square kilometres just South West of Chamonix Sud.
Chalet Keira is the ideal ski chalet for those looking for a relaxing ski holiday. Catered with delicious home cooked food, this chalet offers a cosy relaxed atmosphere only 10 minutes away from Chamonix centre.


We've kept you updated on the so-called DISCLOSE Act over the last couple of days. The hideousness of the bill's free-speech restrictions and its partisan purpose are easily understood simply by reading no further than the sponsors line (see Eliza Carney at National Journal): U.S. Representative Chris Van Hollan (D-Md.) and U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the current House Democrat Campaign Committee chair and the two-time Democrat Senate Campaign Committee chair, respectively. As the Wall Street Journal reports, this bill is Senator Schumer's tool to take over as Majority Leader. Fortunately, last night, if barely, the Senate failed to invoke cloture, losing on a 57-41 vote (60 votes were needed). All Republicans voted no with the exception of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), who voted with the GOP for a procedural reason. Virginia's two Democrat Senators, Mark Warner and Jim Webb, predictably voted to stifle free speech. (See and hear what Senator Warner thinks about people with opposing views.) One Republican, Senator John Ensign (R-Nevada) was absent, but presumably on the correct side.
With the Senate about to take its August recess, the bill may be dead for the year. But there's no guarantee the Dems won't go after their favorite Republicans — Senators Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and Maine's Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins — or try a parliamentary trick to pass it. Anything to maintain their grip on absolute power.
The Senate's rejection of the DISCLOSE Act is a victory for free speech rights and for the democratic process. Liberals in Congress failed in their attempt to push through legislation which only amounts to Democrat incumbent protection legislation disguised as campaign finance reform.
Instead of addressing the problems often found in the financing of campaigns, the DISCLOSE Act would add to the already onerous burdens placed on organizations that act within the law by going after their donors and exposing them in public forums. The exceptions, or "carve-outs," in this unconstitutional bill demonstrate the hypocrisy of its supporters. They provide special treatment for select special interest groups in a bill supposedly designed to crack down on the power of special interests.


text:
Q: Jquery ajax posts twice I got an ajax issue I can't get my head around. I'm using a ajax post method to send an email. But everytime I send one the post happens 2 times. I've tried adding preventDefault and stopPropagation but it doesn't seem to do the trick.
Jquery
$(document).ready(function()
{
$("#submit_btn").click(function(event)
{
    event.preventDefault();
    event.stopPropagation();
    var proceed = true;
    var submit = $('#submit_btn');

    $("#contact_form input, #contact_form textarea").each(function () {
        $(this).closest("div").removeClass('has-error');
        if(!$.trim($(this).val())) {
            $(this).closest("div").addClass('has-error');
            proceed = false;
        }

        var email_reg = /^([\w-\.]+@([\w-]+\.)+[\w-]{2,4})?$/;
        if($(this).attr("type")=="email" && !email_reg.test($.trim($(this).val()))){
            $(this).closest("div").addClass('has-error');
            proceed = false;
        }
    });

    if(proceed){

        post_data = {
            'user_name'     : $('input[name=name]').val(),
            'user_email'    : $('input[name=email]').val(),
            'subject'       : $('select[name=subject]').val(),
            'msg'           : $('textarea[name=message]').val()
        };

        $.ajax({
           type: 'POST',
            url: "./mail.php",
            data: post_data,
            beforeSend: function() {
                submit.html('Sending...');
            },
            success: function(data){
                output = '
Hi ' + $('input[name=name]').val() + ' Thank you for your email
';
                $("#contact_form").find("#contact_results").html(output).slideDown();
                submit.html("Send");
            },
            error: function(){
                output = '
Something went wrong. Please try again
';
                $("#contact_form").find("#contact_results").html(output).slideDown();
                submit.html("Send");
            }
        });
        return false;
    }
    else{
        output = '
Please fill in the required fields so I can get back to you !
';
        $("#contact_form").find("#contact_results").html(output).slideDown();
    }
});

$("#contact_form  input, #contact_form textarea").keyup(function() {
    $(this).closest("div").removeClass('has-error');
    $("#contact_form").find("#contact_results").slideUp();
});
});

HTML

Contact Me

                <form role="form" id="contact_form" action="">

                        Name<input name="name" type="text" placeholder="Name" class="form-control" id="name" />

                        Email address
                        <input name="email" type="email" placeholder="E-Mail" class="form-control" id="email" />

                        Subject
                        <select name="subject" class="form-control" id="subject">
                        <option value="General Question">General Question</option>
                        <option value="Hire me!">Hire me !</option>
                        <option value="Partner with me!">Partner with me !</option>
                    </select>

                        Message<textarea name="message" placeholder="Message" id="message" class="form-control" rows="5"></textarea>

                    <button type="submit" class="btn btn-default" id="submit_btn">Send</button>

                </form>

If someone could point me in the right direction that would be much appreciated.

A: Try changing $("#submit_btn").click(function(event) to  $("#submit_btn").one('click',function(event)
If that doesn't work, check that the JS is not being loaded twice


text:
Adam Kocian (* 1. April 1995 in Andernach) ist ein deutscher Volleyballspieler.

Karriere
Adam Kocian ist der Sohn des slowakischen Volleyballspielers Milan Kocian; sein Bruder Tomas ist ebenfalls Profi in dieser Sportart. Er wurde in Deutschland geboren, kehrte aber nach der Scheidung seiner Eltern mit der Mutter in die Heimat zurück. Er begann seine Karriere bei VKP Bratislava. 2011 kehrte der Zuspieler nach Deutschland zurück und spielte beim Volleyball-Internat Frankfurt in der zweiten Liga Nord. Im gleichen Jahr wurde er in die deutsche U18-Nationalmannschaft berufen. 2013 wechselte Kocian zum Bundesliga-Aufsteiger VSG Coburg/Grub. 2015 wurde er von der SVG Lüneburg verpflichtet. Mit den Norddeutschen erreichte er in der Saison 2015/16 im DVV-Pokal und in den Bundesliga-Playoffs jeweils das Halbfinale. 2018 debütierte Kocian in der deutschen Nationalmannschaft und spielte anschließend eine Saison beim Bundesligisten United Volleys Frankfurt.

Weblinks

 Profil bei volleybox.net

Einzelnachweise

Volleyballnationalspieler (Deutschland)
Volleyballspieler (VSG Coburg/Grub)
Volleyballspieler (SVG Lüneburg)
Volleyballspieler (United Volleys Frankfurt)
Deutscher
Geboren 1995
Mann


It's networking season. Which means it's the perfect time to invest a few bucks in a custom-made name tag that will let prospects know — at a glance — what you do. Example: a bright red heart tag, that reads: "Bringing Love To Johnson County" (insert your town or county name here). People will actually cross the room to see what your tag says, giving you a great opportunity to introduce your business.
Have you ever screwed up, big-time? As a storeowner, it's time to step up and take responsiblity. One way to handle it is to do what Doug Bergum, founder and CEO of Great Plains Software, did. During one of his company's annual conferences, he walked up on stage and discussed in great detail a mistake he had made. He then proceeded to smash three fresh eggs on his forehead.
Keep in mind that a smile originates in two places — the mouth and the eyes. Give your customers a mouth-only version, and it looks like your smile was pasted on. It's like saying "Cheese!" for a photographer. But your eyes are the true window to your soul. If you can't muster a convincing smile, practice in front of a mirror until you get it right.
We all know that employees are more motivated by positive feedback than negative feedback. But we never knew before what was the proper ratio for parceling out praise and punishment. Turns out the optimum ratio is five positive comments to every negative one. But don't overdo it: increasing the ratio to 13 positive comments to every negative one does more harm than good.
Source: Tom Rath and Donald Clifton, How Full Is Your Bucket?


Seachnaíonn súil an ní nach bhfeiceann.
An eye disregards what it does not see.
"Seachnaíonn" is from the verb "seachain" "avoid". I'm curious about the idiom, because in English there is a sharp difference between "disregards" and "avoids" that I don't think I would have captured trying to translate this myself. To "disregard" something implies treating it lightly, while to "avoid" something implies an emphatic rejection or some strong feeling on the subject. An eye that "disregards" something it doesn't see would not seem to be "avoiding", which implies some awareness of the things' existence, something the proverb seems to imply is not there.
I see what you mean, Dale. It doesn't seem to make sense when you think about it. The word disregards really isn't the right word here - it should be avoids. However avoids doesn't necessarily imply knowledge of the thing. You can avoid a terrible fate, even if you were blissfully unaware of the falling piano as you sped away on your bike. In this case, if you don't see something unpleasant, you avoid it - it doesn't affect you. It's really equivalent to What the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't griieve over.
--"What you don't know won't hurt you."
--"Out of sight out of mind"
The latter can also be expressed as: "an té a bhíos amuigh fuaraíonn a chuid,"
So, the eye forsakes, gives up, what it does not see. Which could mean 'out of sight, out of mind' or that we ignore any evidence that is not given by the senses. Additionally, their might be some wordplay in 'súil', meaning both 'eye' and 'hope' Hope forsakes what the eye doesn't see: We abandon hope if we don't see a thing before our eyes.