MovieChat Forums > Rescue Dawn (2007) Discussion > DeBruin controversy

DeBruin controversy

posted 12 years ago by scottmc1971
13 replies | jump to latest

Let's face it, it's not the first time a director has got this wrong, and it won't be the last. James Cameron notoriously did much the same thing with the ship's officer William Murdoch in Titanic, portraying Murdoch accepting a bribe from a rich passenger to get him a place in a lifeboat, then losing the plot completely and shooting another passenger before turning the gun on himself. While all this may have added to the drama and pathos of the film the problem is that none of it was based in fact. Which wouldn't be an issue, if Murdoch hadn't been a real person with living relatives. Same with DeBruin. Cameron, like Herzog, has paid some lip service to the families of these men, saying they weren't in possession of the full facts at the time (which in itself is a poor excuse, and reflects badly on their professionalism); but at the end of the day they don't really care. As far as they're concerned they're artists, and are using artistic license to enhance the impact of the stories they're telling. What they're not concerned with is letting historical facts, or the reputations of little-known historical characters, get in the way of a good story. Maybe a little more legal accountability would encourage them to use invented characters to provide the necessary conflict and drama, or at the very least not to present these films as "based on true events".

It didn't help matters that Jeremy Davies' performance as DeBruin was one of the more memorable aspects of the film.

"Fear is not what you owe me. No Lounds, you and the others - you owe me awe."

[–] lorddeseiz 11 years ago

People need to stop bitching about movies if its true or not, its a movie. Directors change things, as you said yourself, to add drama, suspense or wich ever emotion.
Youd have a point if it was to state that the movie is not based on, but the events told as they really happened.
Based on doesnt mean the exact truth word for word. It would stop being a movie but become a documentary.
_____________________
Any last words ?
Shut the *beep* up
-Mutant Chronicles-

[–] scottmc1971 11 years ago

Maybe you misread my post. I wasn't objecting to a movie being presented as a true story, per se. My objection (or "bitch", as you so charmingly refer to it) was more to do with an actual person, often with living relatives, being presented in a negative light. Think about it this way: what if a relative of yours had been involved in an event which was susequently turned into a film; and what if said relative was inaccurately portayed as acting in a cowardly, treacherous or self-serving manner? Wouldn't that raise your hackles a little?

[–] lorddeseiz 11 years ago

No it wouldnt, its a movie, not the real deal.
_____________________
Any last words ?
Shut the *beep* up
-Mutant Chronicles-

[–] scottmc1971 11 years ago

And it's a sad fact that, in these times of declining educational standards, too many people are unable to tell the difference between a movie and the "real deal", as you term it. You put "based on true events" at the start of a film and a fairly high percentage of the audience will be convinced they're watching, if not the actual historical events themsevles, then at least a completely accurate reconstruction. Why do you think the medium of film has been so extensively used for propaganda purposes since it's invention?

[–] lorddeseiz 11 years ago

Well im one of the few that doesnt believe in "based on a true story" or take it for granted as the truth. im not gonna watch a movie like that for its "true" story, im watching a movie for the story.
... if that made any sense :D
Have a small collection of 700 dvds, and watched tons more other sources. Safe to say im an experienced movie watcher, and ive never seen a "based on true events" movie thats actually true, they all do the same. Change things to add to drama, storytelling, emotion invoking or whatever.
Its a shame people consider "based on true events" to be taken seriously, by people who where there or have a link with it somehow, or by people who are just watching it.
Its a movie and should be treated as such, not as a documentary.

After watching a movie like this thats supposed to be based on a true story i usually go read on it if the story was interesting enough for my tastes to give me an idea of what really went down. of course some stuff, like in this case the characteristics of said person will be not known to me, but overall i get a fair idea of the circumstances.
_____________________
Any last words ?
Shut the *beep* up
-Mutant Chronicles-

[–] Augustus_Octavian 11 years ago

Well, the interests of the individuals being portrayed have to be balanced against the freedom of expression. It is not reasonable to require that all such portrayals be entirely or even mostly accurate. Then few such films would be made.

[–] blackvenus800000 11 years ago

lorddeseiz,,

All rational people know films aren't real. We all know they're not depicting events EXACTLY as they happened. Some drama has to be incorporated, even in 'true stories'.

The question remains, why did the director make a DELIBERATE decision to portray DeBruin in such a cowardly way? He could just as easily have used a made-up character instead.
His excuse was, at worst, a lie. At best, a cop out.

Hypothetical scenario:
A film is made based on an event that happened to one of your co-workers. The event takes place at work. The Director uses dramatic license to have the person portraying YOU as someone who is forced to suck d**k and then gang-raped.

It doesn't matter because "it's just a movie", right?

Your friends, family, co-workers, neighbourhood, and over a million other people watched that demeaning portrayal of you. Most will never know that didn't actually happen to you because MOST people don't look up the real facts of a film 'based on true events'.

Whether the film stated 'based on' or 'inspired by', I don't believe you'd be so forgiving if YOU were the person on the receiving end of such a negative film portrayal.

[–] lorddeseiz 11 years ago

I wouldnt care if they portrayed me a worse person then Hitler, I wouldnt care they portrayed me weighing 400 tons, wipe my arse with my fingers then lick em, id probably laugh with it because ... um, its a movie.
People take movies way to seriously.

_____________________
Any last words ?
Shut the *beep* up
-Mutant Chronicles-

[–] akademic78 10 years ago

If your grandad or father was portrayed as an idiot, I'm sure you'd be also saying "stop bitching it's a movie". *beep* idiot.

[–] lorddeseiz 10 years ago

Yes i would, because its a movie ... oh wee movies, definitely the real thing :O
_____________________

Collection
http://www.imdb.com/list/4zXrE3AAzT4/

[–] Guamley 10 years ago

I 100% agree with you Scott. It's easy for morons like stinky finger to say who cares when it's not his loved ones ( if he has any) who are being portrayed poorly in a movie based on fact. Yea you you're right stinky, most people know that artistic license is used in movies based on true stories, but most people also know that much of the story is also true.

[–] naples-884-346409 9 years ago

"Rescue Dawn" is a prime example of a gross manipulation of events to create a formula POW movie with clear villains and a hero.

Gene DeBruin was as much a hero as Dieter Dengler, but he got the 'villain' part.

Why?

Never forget: It was DeBruin who…

-developed the plan to escape (before Dieter arrived)

-got the nail (before Dieter arrived)

-collected rice as food for later

-helped attack & shoot the wardens

All these things is Dieter Dengler doing in the movie alone. He's the only leader and the mastermind.

DeBruin gets all the bad qualities a human being can possibly have: He's selfish, greedy, cowardly, ugly.

I understand that movies need some sort of conflict to develop drama, but that's already part of the true story:
There you have the sadistic wardens, torture, the hunger, the jungle etc. etc.

There was no reason at all to use Gene Debruin's real name.

If they needed to create a villain, they should have added another character: They were 7 prisoners anyway, not 6.

If DeBruin was my brother, I would be offended, too !

This could have been a much better and truer movie.

[–] RSBonos 9 years ago

They should have changed the name. It doesn't bother me because his character worked in the film.