True Story?

We shouldn't have to get a book for this information. We already paid to see the film. It should be clear on these points. This is why I dislike "true stories". Because they aren't. Instead of just filling in small gaps, and fleshing out scenes, Hollywood just can't help itself and has to "improve reality" to make a "better story" (recognized by the acronym BS). And then you have to go hunt around for the real story.

sorry, but that's the case with every book made into a movie. several embellishments made to give us a movis, and if you want to know bare facts, go to the book.

I always find it cute (in a throwing-up-in-my-mouth kind of way) that films that begin with "BASED ON A TRUE STORY" in all capitals, as people are diving into the film, end with "... any similarity to the name, character, or history of any person, living or dead, or any actual event is entirely coincidental and unintentional." presented well after most of the audience has left the theatre.

you know why they have to pull that disclaimer at the very end of a "true story"? so some ya-ya can't come up and sue them because they feel like "lucy" was based on their mother and they didn't consent (read: get paid) to tell "her story" or use "her likeness".


as for all your other questions, i'd love answers. i'm really interested in learning about that pre-LDopa phase. i would also love to have been a fly on the wall that first time when Dr. Sayer walks in and sees a responsive Leonard.



***

Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

There was no background of Sacks in the book, so anything pertaining to his character beyond his role as a doctor would have been from other sources. The book was not a story in the sense the movie was, it is more of a thesis with case studies. Many of the patients in the individual case studies were incorporated into the movie, and most of those patients in the movie had similar traits as the patients (whose real names were changed) who were so named in the book. However keep in mind that the movie did not really depict the patients (both before, during, and after their L-Dopa trials) as they were in real life. Most could talk or communicate in some way, just not very well. Leonard L. could communicate through some sort of letterboard which wasn't clearly described though it was clear it wasn't a Ouija board, and this wasn't a new phenomenon that Sacks himself discovered.

Patients names more or less match those the fake names given in the book, though the book gives initials only for last names (i.e. Leonard L., Rolando P., Lucy K.). Lucy was one of the patients, though her movie character was not exactly what she was in real life. Paula did not exist. I suppose the screen writer decided that Leonard's real "turn" was too sexual to show in the movies (his libido was out of control, he was hitting on all the nurses and wanted a hospital brothel for the post-encephalitic patients) so they made him turn violent instead and gave him Paula as an outlet for his sexual desires. Ingraham did not exist, though I am sure he could be based on another doctor (Jelliffe perhaps?). One character, Burt, was not a case study but was mentioned elsewhere in the later editions of the book. He was actually a patient much later on, like in the early 80's.

Characters were significantly changed. First, not all patients were as disabled as others. Some could talk and walk around better than others (though in the movie you do see Lucy walking a bit). Most could communicate, just not well. Leonard could even read if someone else turned the pages for him. In the movie, they were depicted as all being pretty much the same and mostly neglected (some certainly were, but not all). Also, in reality they did not put all patients on L-Dopa at exactly the same time, though some were put on at the same time as others. And their reactions all varied considerably. In fact it was generally the ones who were the most disabled who had the longest honeymoon periods on L-Dopa. Leonard L. for instance lasted a while before his libido sent him spiraling, and unlike the movie there was no coming back to grace before going off the drug, he had actually alienated most of the staff and patients beyond repair. There were even success stories, patients who, after trial and error, were able to make L-Dopa work for them. And some patients had their highs and lows simultaneously.

Events? Like I said the book was not a story, it was thesis. It wasn't about events, it was about the patients and their reactions to L-Dopa. That said, the Rilke poem was a part of Leonard's pre-Dopa background story. Music was mentioned, but no specific music to specific patients were attributed (none that I could remember anyway). It does mention that patients can be moved by something, but it has to be by something that moves them, but it does not relegate that to music alone but uses music as an example.

Patients all varied, and although I won't go into detail (read the book if you want it) basically all the ones portrayed in the movie eventually failed on L-Dopa and were taken off. Most were on and off for long period of time. There were a couple not mentioned in the movie who did well after trial and error, one who stands out was a cobbler who struggled at first but when they gave him the tools of his trade to go working on making new shoes in the hospital workshop he was reborn in a way, and though he was not without entirely symptoms he did succeed on L-Dopa. Which makes one have to consider whether it was the environment and their individual psychologies as much as the drug that was the problem, a problem that Sacks openly discusses.

If you want more answers, read the book. Again, this is not your typical book translated into a movie script where you have minor differences in plot but they are more or less the same. It is very much a thesis, but written in a way that a non-doctor can follow along if you flip back to the included glossary of medical terms as needed.

reply share

add reply

formatting help