Fact or Fiction?

[Foxbat]

I was somewhat bemused to read an article recently criticising Compton MacKenzie (author of Whisky Galore). It accused him of painting a false picture of life in the Western Isles and bolstering his own claim to Scottish heritage (he was an actor’s son born in West Hartlepool (England).

Well, if somebody wants to call themselves Scottish, that’s fine by me. On the point about his disservice to the Western Isles, I think Brigadoon did a far greater disservice to the whole of Scotland than ever Whisky Galore did to one small part of it. But, much as I have no time for Brigadoon and its caricature Scots, I accept the fact that it is only a work of fiction. If somebody wants to believe that Scotland is really like that old movie, then that’s their problem….not mine. The same goes for Whisky Galore – a work of fiction based on fact – but still a work of fiction. In fact the film of the book is probably one of Ealing Studio’s finest!

And in Compton Mackenzie’s defence – let me add this: a few years ago, a certain Scottish fishing town (it was on the mainland but Scottish nonetheless- and shall remain anonymous) witnessed a shipwreck and the cargo of empty sherry casks ended up on the shore(their destination was the whisky distilleries further north). The night was filled with excited villagers as they carted away dozens of empty sherry casks. The scene was described as ‘like something out of Whisky Galore’. Very soon afterwards, most gardens had casks cut in half and filled with flowers adorning their well-tended gardens.

Much more disturbing was Peter Benchley’s affect on the shark population when it hit the big time. But is Benchley actually responsible for the ensuing slaughter? I say no. It is our refusal to differentiate between fact and fiction that causes the problem.

And what about that often mentioned film U571 – a work of fiction based on fact? I didn’t like it, not one bit. But it was a work of fiction based on a true story (albeit not even from the United States own history)…..but is that any different from taking inspiration and placing it in a Science Fiction or Fantasy setting?

Shouldn’t we just accept the fact that writers/film makers will take their inspiration from where ever possible and turn it to their own uses? Does that make them open to criticism because the fiction does not hold true to the reality? I don’t think so.
But where do you think a writer’s responsibility lies?

PS. I was going to post this rant in the 'Books' section but thought it might have more relevance here

[dwndrgn]

You've started a thread that I've meant to start so many times. And it can be viewed in so many lights; tv, movies, books, magazines...all media. For someone to hold responsible the makers of a movie or other work for what people take away from it is absolutely ridiculous. Can we not see the difference between fact and fiction? Any work of fiction is just that, fiction. Not real. Came from someone's imagination. Was dreamed up. However you say it and wherever it may have originated, it is still a work of fiction. Just like anything we take in these days, we have to organize into categories what we see: close to truth, pure fiction, a fictionalized version of the truth, dry, hard facts, blah, blah, blah.

I mentioned this in another thread, Bernard Cornwell writes a great deal of historical fiction. To do so he does a great deal of research. However, in the end, it is still a work of fiction and I would no sooner take it as PURE FACT than I would a bubble-gum commercial. I used BC as an example because unlike most historical fictionalists, he usually tells you when he's varied from the historical record and what that record actually says.

We are thinking beings. Why would we need to be coddled and told that 'the following work is a work of fiction and none of the characters are real' like we are when we open up any work of fiction? Shouldn't it just say 'Fiction' and be done with it? Children seem to have a better sense than some adults when it comes to this kind of thing. Adults think everyone is less intelligent than they are. Children tend to think everyone is the same. Adults see that a woman in such and such film was portrayed as a floozy, therefore everyone watching this film will think that the filmmaker is saying all women are floozies. So, we need to somehow make sure that they are aware that this is not true. Bah. I can't type anymore because it is making me angry.

[Foxbat]

Bah. I can't type anymore because it is making me angry.

I know how you feel

[littlemissattitude]

No, I don't think that the film-maker or the writer of fiction has any obligation to stick faithfully to the facts when they incorporate history (or science, for that matter) into their stories. The one exception to that is when they represent that their facts are actually factually correct. Then they should make every effort to make sure they are represeting history faithfully so far as it is known. But it seems to me that "based on a true story" or "inspired by a true story" is a big hint that maybe somebody has played with the facts a little bit. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's called poetic license.

[dwndrgn]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

No, I don't think that the film-maker or the writer of fiction has any obligation to stick faithfully to the facts when they incorporate history (or science, for that matter) into their stories. The one exception to that is when they represent that their facts are actually factually correct. Then they should make every effort to make sure they are represeting history faithfully so far as it is known. But it seems to me that "based on a true story" or "inspired by a true story" is a big hint that maybe somebody has played with the facts a little bit. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's called poetic license.

You had to say that. My husband used to be one of those people who truly believe that 'based on a true story' meant that it was all true. Not to say that he wasn't a tad sceptical beforehand, but living with me and my cynical sarcasm has disabused him of the notion that motion pictures can be 'true stories'.

[edott]

So you are telling me that people in India don't suddenly start singing and dancing in the streets and that the young ones don't portray an accurate picture of the life of young englishmen.