![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Cultural notes, part 1
Oct. 17th, 2000 09:50 pmA native-Russian colleague of mine asked me a question the other day. "What is the attraction," he asked, "of a movie that is 'based on a true story'?"
I really couldn't answer him at the time. In a previous post, I made some comments regarding the "based on" concept, but that discussion had more to do with the fact that "based on" movies very often contain a lot more fiction than truth. No, what my friend was asking was something entirely different. Is there something in the cultural makeup of Americans that draws us to entertainment "based on" true stories?
I'm not even sure I can answer the question even now, but let's see where the attempt leads us.
First, let's distinguish two types of "true" stories. The first type purports to show what happened at some important point in history (e.g., Tora! Tora! Tora!, about the attack on Pearl Harbor), or tells the story of a well-known person's life (Elizabeth, about Elizabeth I of England). One might call such stories "historical entertainment."
The attraction of such films would appear to be pretty obvious. It doesn't take much to get people to turn out for historical spectacle. Pitching Elizabeth as "based on a true story" would be pretty silly.
The further you get from massively famous people and events, the more a story resembles the second type of "true" story (i.e., a shill crying, "hey people, this really happened!"). These stories are the ones that seem to require (or at least are not harmed by) a "based on" plug in the marketing slime.
But does the formula mean anything to us Americans? Or does the tag "based on a true story" offer as much of a call to action as the words "new and improved" offer with regard to the latest brand of dishwashing liquid? Would Saving Private Ryan have been any less entertaining if we hadn't known it was "based on" a true story? Personally, I can't imagine that I'm swayed by it, but on the other hand, I have to admit that I notice the pitch, unlike the words "new and improved" on household products, which simply goes in one eye and out the other.
Or does the phrase "based on a true story" tickle the same spot that the old circus sideshows - with their sword-swallowers, bearded ladies, and tattooed men - pandered to?
My friend maintains that Russians not only don't understand the attraction of the "based on" pitch, but that it actually serves to put them off. My wife says that this is not surprising, since back in the Soviet days, films "based on true stories" were anything but that, often suffering from high levels of politically saccharine propaganda.
This is not to say that "based on" stories are forbidden or frowned upon in Russia or the former Soviet Union, or that all such stories were unpalatable. Back in 1973, Soviet audiences were treated to a "true" story of a Russian spy, a Colonel named Isaev, who had infiltrated the highest levels of the Nazi hierarchy by the spring of 1945. The serial. Semnadtsat mgnovenij vesny (in English, Seventeen Moments of Spring) was very successful and won a wide following as a nostalgic and - most notably - a sincere movie. (It also has spawned thousands of so-called "Stirlitz jokes," where "Stirlitz" is the name that Isaev goes by at Nazi headquarters, but I digress...)
What about you? Do the words "based on a true story" send chills down your spine and do they influence your decision to see one film over another?
Cheers...
I really couldn't answer him at the time. In a previous post, I made some comments regarding the "based on" concept, but that discussion had more to do with the fact that "based on" movies very often contain a lot more fiction than truth. No, what my friend was asking was something entirely different. Is there something in the cultural makeup of Americans that draws us to entertainment "based on" true stories?
I'm not even sure I can answer the question even now, but let's see where the attempt leads us.
First, let's distinguish two types of "true" stories. The first type purports to show what happened at some important point in history (e.g., Tora! Tora! Tora!, about the attack on Pearl Harbor), or tells the story of a well-known person's life (Elizabeth, about Elizabeth I of England). One might call such stories "historical entertainment."
The attraction of such films would appear to be pretty obvious. It doesn't take much to get people to turn out for historical spectacle. Pitching Elizabeth as "based on a true story" would be pretty silly.
The further you get from massively famous people and events, the more a story resembles the second type of "true" story (i.e., a shill crying, "hey people, this really happened!"). These stories are the ones that seem to require (or at least are not harmed by) a "based on" plug in the marketing slime.
But does the formula mean anything to us Americans? Or does the tag "based on a true story" offer as much of a call to action as the words "new and improved" offer with regard to the latest brand of dishwashing liquid? Would Saving Private Ryan have been any less entertaining if we hadn't known it was "based on" a true story? Personally, I can't imagine that I'm swayed by it, but on the other hand, I have to admit that I notice the pitch, unlike the words "new and improved" on household products, which simply goes in one eye and out the other.
Or does the phrase "based on a true story" tickle the same spot that the old circus sideshows - with their sword-swallowers, bearded ladies, and tattooed men - pandered to?
My friend maintains that Russians not only don't understand the attraction of the "based on" pitch, but that it actually serves to put them off. My wife says that this is not surprising, since back in the Soviet days, films "based on true stories" were anything but that, often suffering from high levels of politically saccharine propaganda.
This is not to say that "based on" stories are forbidden or frowned upon in Russia or the former Soviet Union, or that all such stories were unpalatable. Back in 1973, Soviet audiences were treated to a "true" story of a Russian spy, a Colonel named Isaev, who had infiltrated the highest levels of the Nazi hierarchy by the spring of 1945. The serial. Semnadtsat mgnovenij vesny (in English, Seventeen Moments of Spring) was very successful and won a wide following as a nostalgic and - most notably - a sincere movie. (It also has spawned thousands of so-called "Stirlitz jokes," where "Stirlitz" is the name that Isaev goes by at Nazi headquarters, but I digress...)
What about you? Do the words "based on a true story" send chills down your spine and do they influence your decision to see one film over another?
Cheers...
