Screenwriting : Truth vs. Drama by Erik Grossman

Erik: As someone who has written several biopic and historical scripts, I believe it is important to be accurate with history but to entertain people in the process. I do research on my subjects and historical settings before I write and then weave fiction within the boundaries of historical accuracy. For example, nobody knows what JD Salinger and his WWII comrades said or thought when they discovered and toured the Nazi death camps. However, we can safely assume they were horrified and appalled. Conversely, I think it's a dangerous thing for people to rewrite history for the sake of political correctness or modern sensibilities. Last yea,r when I wrote "Four Negro Girls In A Church", I was aware that both my title and content would possibly offend some readers. My paramount concern was to tell the truth while writing an engaging screenplay. I've revised elements of the screenplay for better reading, but I haven't compromised the content. And, I'm very proud of that script.

Hi Erik, In my professional field (social services) it pains me how many people do not know how to function in an environment that is not filled with drama. In accordance with that when it comes to dealing with the truth...........they would rather stick their head in the sand like an ostrich.

I tend to go by what Miloš Forman said in that, "You don't have to stay true to the facts, that is the job of History. Drama has to stay true to the spirit of the facts." I find this is true with most entertainment in regards to film. That being said I find myself also agreeing with Michael Haneke about some historical subjects having to be dealt with very responsibly given their heavy nature. On Downfall (2004) "I have to say that I argued with Bernd Eichinger about the film. I found it both repulsive and dumb. When you are dealing with a figure of such a deep and broad historical context, the question is, who are you humanizing? What are you doing with him? You're creating melodrama, you're trying to reach your spectators, to move your spectators, but what emotions are you calling on? There is a question of responsibility, as not only a question of responsibility towards the person you're depicting in the historical context but first and foremost to your viewers, your audience. Responsibility entails enabling your audience to remain free and independent of manipulation. The question is how seriously do I take my viewer, to what extent do I provide him with the opportunity of creating his own opinion confronting the historical figure on their own? Am I trying to force my opinion on the spectator, or on the contrary, am I taking the spectator seriously and providing him or her with the means of creating and forming their own opinion. That's a fundamental question, whether you're dealing with a historical figure like Hitler or simply an individual who you've written for the script." Schindler's List (1993) "The question is, it's impossible for me to do that because of the idea of creating entertainment of this, turning this into entertainment, and that's why I have problems with Steven Spielberg's film about the concentration camps, for example. The idea, the mere idea of trying to create suspense out of the question whether out of the shower head, gas is going to come or water, that to me is unspeakable. For me, the only film about the Holocaust that, for me, is responsible as a filmmaker is Alain Resnais' "Night and Fog". Alain Resnais, in the film, asks the spectator what do you think about this, what is your position, what does this mean to you? That's what it's about. Anything that treats such a subject as entertainment is for me unspeakable."

There's a big difference between dramatizing things that may have happened in a certain way....and outright re-writing the truth to reflect something other than the truth. In the same way...it's one thing to be historically inaccurate....and another thing to twist the truth about something to suit one's needs. I shudder when the latter occurs in both instances.

My beef is with films like The Imitation Game. It's irresponsible to just make shit up for the sake of drama in an alleged biopic.

Eric: a lot of films do that. Any film that is "based on a true story" probably does it to some extent. There was an interesting little documentary out last year named "Dishonesty - the Truth About Lying." Check it out if you haven't seen it. Humans can make little fibs...to complex webs of lies. It's really a cool movie.

Bill, I think there's a limit with dramatic license. (I loved The Great Escape, but McQueen was riding a modern motorcycle, not one from the WWII era, for example.) And I think Imitation Game crossed the line with the sheer number of its inaccuracies and misrepresentations, including the baseless suggestion that Turing was a traitor. See for example: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/20/the-imitation-game-invents-...

Credibility and Drama are inversely proportional. Stop being a WRITER and stop trying to create a FAKE reality. Everyone can see through you - if they're not already yawning yet. Nature is an author too. The story it creates is Life. It doesn't worry about what feels fake what is drama what is credible. Most of the time there is nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing at all. Nothing. Then BANG - there is SOMETHING HUGE. EVERYTHING HAPPENS TOGETHER. Then it stops. Nothing. Nothing. Schedule. Routine. Nothing. Yawn. There is nothing as outrageous as life itself. Truth is stranger than fiction. Life is the guardian of the silence at the heart of the explosion. Writers are liars. They worry about "Resolution" and try to bring a story to a natural conclusion. Conclusions are in NOT in nature. Life is a continuum where some patterns emerge out of the chaos. Few writers have the balls to stop worrying about conventional story formats and instead create like life does - throw a chaotic mix into the blender of time and space and churn. What will come out is infinitely interesting and more "real". A writer's only job is to take out the boring bits, not twist the continuum of life with false conventions that seeped into an unfiltering intellect. The best stories do not try to force a contrived resolution, instead they march steadily and inexorably towards a profound unknowability.... That is why our cinema is so nearly bankrupt and books are still fresh.

This is a pretty tricky thing with all involved with making a film like this. Yes, there were parts historically that were boring so they needed to be dramatized for the entertainment purposes. Then there is the other side where they were historically graphic details that need to be explained but need to be somewhat watered down so the film can fit an audiences mold. It's fascinating watching films like "Lincoln" and "Saving Private Ryan" where you need to be (at the best attempt) historically accurate yet at the same time keep the audience entertained. It's one of those tricky things that will continue until the end of time when it comes to making films like this.

@Pras Biswas, I refer you to the movie "Synedoche" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383028/combined

@Pras Biswas, I also refer you to this: https://storyality.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/storyality-50-the-storyality...

Go the Indie route like kaufman and make a movie every 5-7 years, or play the Hollywood game like a boss like Ava DuVernay. Filmmakers are not Historians, they are storytellers. Buy or dont buy. It s Show Business. Or write books, entertain & educate people with words.

Why bring so much to the table in terms of depicting history, when the truth cannot be told. Of course the entertainment language should be employed but I guess nothing should be toned down. Many biopics barely make it to something that is recognized as a portrayal of someone that is a part of history.

I just finished a true story and now in the rewrite I am going to be making up a bunch of BS just to make it more entertaining.

I doubt there are many movie goers who share the post modern views expressed here ("We can never know the truth, so what does it matter?") More likely, a movie goer goes to a film like Imitation Game thinking they'll see history reenacted. And I think any movie making philosophy that rips off consumers is bankrupt. That's how I truly feel about it. But, hey, you can never know the truth, so maybe it's not.

I say trurama :)

Eric, how is any of the stuff discussed here ripping off the consumers? My job as a screenwriter is to entertain people. If they just want the facts and nothing else they can read a book on the subject or watch a documentary if available.

An interesting film that truthfully addressed a series of lies was Robert Redford's Truth, the film about how Dan Rather, 60 Minutes Producer Mary Mapes, and their source lied about the situation regarding former President Bush's military service. Regardless of your political leanings, it's a great film...if you like the truth. I love films that show how political agendas can create lies, and how those lies are exposed.

Hi all! Just a thought, I find movies that stay with me a while do have elements of truth running through them. It feels good in the end., well the beginning too... :-)

Truth needs to be imbedded within the theme and the narrative otherwise how do we connect to the audience? There are universal truths we all experience no matter what genre or topic we choose write about... even for those whose eyes are veiled. Poeple usually go to see a film to obain some kind of connection within themsleves.

Dan it's classic bait and switch when a bio pic isn't actually a bio pic. It's like with vitamin supplements that don't actually contain the ingredients advertised (which happens a lot, by the way). The consumer often doesn't know they've been ripped off.

Eric. Not all true stories about people are bios and many have zero historical value that people would go to watch to learn anything. Unlike you I really don't have a philosophy on this subject or any other subject people discuss here. I just write what the producer asks for so they can make money and I can get paid for the work I do as a writer.

Hi Christopherson. Well, it doesnt mean that is the way to go in this industry. A writer's inability to muster entertainment from historical facts should not be given any credit. Its certainly a fashion for film makers to gear towards commercial appeal which is has for sure brought the biggest pitfalls upon our industry. Other industries will continue to advance and leave us behind. We are nothing to write home about.

Find it comical that amatuers who never worked in the Industry talk about the Industry.

A lot of screenwriters here tend to blame screenwriters for how a movie turned out. However what they don't seem to realize is in most cases the producer is telling the screenwriter what to write not the other way around. That is how it usually works.

Dan M. As you know it is about the money and people that bad mouth the industry aren't going to get hired by those people already in it.

Dan G Absolutely. Writers have no power. Hollywood made movies when WGA went on strike. Write books if u want to tell the truth. You can write books alone but you cant movies alone.

Well, Dan G, I think you're right that people who bad mouth the industry might have trouble finding work in it. Good thing I've only been offering a legitimate criticism that can be found on legitimate news and journalism sites all over the internet. Criticism is a healthy thing by and large and helps an industry to adapt to changing times.

And as for the relative powerlessness of the screenwriter in Hollywood, I've heard the suggestion before and I'll take your word that it's true. But everyone still bears their own responsibility for what they agree to do on the job, whether as screenwriter, dog catcher, or Nazi prison guard.

This is a HUGE concern. I'm currently working with a producer on a true-life story she has life rights to, and we have spent a year climbing the walls trying to decide how much we want to distort the truth to make it more of a STORY. I loved THE IMITATION GAME, and I've studied Turing, but I didn't feel its distortions were illegitimate given the ends they attained: to portray his awkward inner life, however fey and fabulous he apparently was on the surface in actuality (although I didn't encounter a whole lot of that in what I read), and to remind us of the loss to human history of so many persecuted gay men. I wrote a script quite a while back about FDR and polio, and I was young enough to think I had to stick strictly to the facts. I read about twelve books about the man and took meticulous notes. I did well with my script in contests for several years and got it read a lot of places, and then HBO showed up with WARM SPRINGS, the same story, with I might add the same title. They hadn't stolen it, but what they had done was turn it into a totally falsified soap opera. So I put my quirky, praised, fact-based script away in a drawer for many years. But! This year I dusted it off, retitled it AFTER THE STORM, and started sending it out again. It was in the top 20% of the Nicholl this year, is still under consideration in Austin, and was just named a semifinalist in the Rebel Seed Entertainment True Life Screenplay Competition. So I can see both sides of this. Maybe they made up too much for IMITATION GAME, but I wept at the end, as one should at the end of this man's story, and the writer won an Oscar.

Eric. I was not referring to anything you said when I said that people who bad mouth the industry might have trouble finding work in it. A screenwriter isn’t completely powerless but the producer and director are the ones that are responsible for how the story will appear on film so they have the final say.

Okay Dan understood.

Richard, good luck in the contests with your resurrected FDR script and good luck hashing out the new project. Guess we'll have to disagree on the extent of the liberties taken in Imitation Game but even the inaccuracies in Gary Busey's Buddy Holly bio pic once pissed me off, so I do tend to lean in a particular direction. :)

Here's a good one too: http://deadline.com/2016/09/fox-disney-and-the-weinstein-company-roll-ou...

What about The Godfather? Does anyone feel this narrative speaks truth? Or any Mafia film for that matter? For myself, this is an example of where "Entertainment" based upon a "truth", doesn't touch the surface of the real realities that real Mafia families endure. This so called "entertainment" variable can only go so far when there exists a deeper nefarious truth begging for light. Is it the filmmakers responsibility to uncover theses truths? Or do we just glean off any story for the sake of making a buck? Also, take for example the film "The House of Rothschild" 1934 IMDb. What was the intended end result for this type of Histroical Biopic? Look at the implications of their influence over the world today. Where does the filmamker's and writer's responsibilities end and begin in regard to the truth? I hate to say this but even the film "Spotlight" doesn't touch the surface of the real reality regarding sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Church; it exposes merely one symptom of a nefarious paradigm. Where does our responsibility begin and end? What are we in this for; for the goal of an Oscar... To make good money... why?

Dan M. Seriously? Thank heavens films aren't made by film makers for film makers. They are made by film makers for the public. Its very startling that some film makers limit the scope of what is commercially appealing. Lets just know that formulas were created by certain creatives, that doesn't mean the game wont take a new direction.

Dan M hardly commented here so what gives?

If you want a documentary stick to fact. If you want entertainment stick to sensationalism is my opinion. Sounds like Eric is really interested in factual docu-drama which can be appealing in television but it seems hard to me to make a truly factual docu-drama that has high entertainment value for screen. Maybe I'm wrong but just a perspective and opinion of it. Some people watch television for educational value but I think most go to a movie for entertainment value but a shocking docu-drama might resonate well with audience.