When you see a film entitled The 47 Ronin, you would expect the story to be about the 47 Ronin,
You'd have to have just about zero experience with films to expect that it would at all be the case that it would faithfully tell the real-world story of the 47 Ronin, though.
Where
x is a real-world set of events and persons, etc., and we make a film that has some relation to
x, there are really only three "modal" options: either we have (a) a documentary about
x, (b) a reenactment of
x where the trump card, so to speak, is always keeping things as faithful to the real-world facts as possible, and (c) a fictionalization of
x.
Plenty of films fall into category (a) documentaries, and it's fine to expect them to get facts right. Of course, it's very clear that this film is not a documentary, and the majority of films with any sort of widespread distribution are not documentaries.
Re (b), there are almost no (and maybe there are just no, period--I can't think of an example offhand) films that fall into this category, even though it's a possible category in which we could make films.
Most films rather fall into category (c). Fictionalizations of real world material can fictionalize any aspect of that material (and can leave any other aspects relatively "faithful"), and they can fictionalize any aspects to any degree. Experience as a filmwatcher, as long as one has some familiarity with the related real-world facts, will teach one this in very short order.
Also, almost all films fall into the above descriptions (beginning with "Where x is a real-world set of events and persons . . ."), even highly fantastical works, because almost all fictions are based on real-world persons, events, etc. to some extent--even if they're only based on real-world persons, events, and so on in a manner that the writer would be familiar with, because they're persons and events that weren't publicized; the writer just has personal experience with them. The main exception to films falling into these descriptions is (abstract) experimental films, a la some of Stan Brakhage's work, for example.
Saying that you think it's wrong that films like this are fiction just underscores how little you understand film. That's not in itself a knock against your character. Maybe you haven't watched many films because you're not very interested in them, maybe because you haven't been very entertained by them or something. Another possibility would be that you have almost no familiarity with real-world persons, events, etc. that have been fictionalized in most films (perhaps except for 47 Ronin). All of that's fine. What would be a knock against your character, though, is attempting to lecture others re the nature of films, especially in an arrogant and/or condescending manner, when you're not very familiar with films (or the real-world facts that served as launching pads for them) and don't understand them very well.
(Also, above, I'm overlooking the more nuanced point of whether most documentaries turn out to be essentially fictions, too. It's important to get a handle on the simple distinctions first.)
reply
share
mickmaxy
9 years ago
Good and valid points. I may have been harsh in my reply to your post ( I was drunk and probably belligerent, no offence meant ) I was just trying to voice my disappointment in my expectations and what the film delivered because I have connections with Japanese culture and society ( I lived and worked in Nagoya for a few years and was involved in the location and repatriation of Australian and Japanese war dead remains in New Guinea, including one American who was unfortunately beheaded, precluding his identification sadly ) so I am loathe to see history treated to a shallow entertainment based portrayal.
And no, I don't claim to be a Master of Cinema ( like Akira Kurosawa ) it was just my opinion. Sorry if I came across as an uneducated nay-sayer, I cannot defend your riposte, I merely reiterate that it was simply my opinion from a historical standpoint.
reply
share