MovieChat Forums > Lost Soul: The Doomed Journey of Richard Stanley's Island of Dr. Moreau (2015) Discussion > A flawed deceptive documentary

A flawed deceptive documentary

posted 9 years ago by HoldTheCock
9 replies | jump to latest

This is an interesting behind the scenes look into a production completely imploding on itself. It was interesting to hear from all of the different people involved both in front of and behind the camera.

However, the film is clearly showing compassion and sympathy to Richard Stanley's side of the story. It becomes clear to anyone objectively watching this documentary that Stanley was way too naive, inexperienced, and immature to handle being the director of a major Hollywood production. Stanley is also completely unlikable. There's nothing about him that makes you empathize for him, in fact the opposite. It was pretty quickly apparent that Stanley was/is a good bit disturbed and/or delusional. The film wants us to feel pity for the "horrible mistreatment" of Stanley, with swelling pianos in the background after he is let go and how this is somehow a great injustice to the art of cinema. Stanley was given the opportunity of a lifetime. Although the film may like us to believe so, I don't think "losing" Brando because of his daughter's tragedy was the ultimate real beginning of the end for Stanley. He ran the production into the ground perfectly well all by himself and comes off as a lunatic by the end. The overdramatic reenactments didn't do any favors for the documentary either.

Go see Amy instead.

[–] TheManInOil 9 years ago

I don't agree. It's clear that Balk feels that way, but I don't see at all that the film is asking us to take that position.

As you said, it makes it very clear that he was ill-equipped to deal with a major production and his removal was necessary. It shows that he's a flake who believes in witchcraft and spells, and that he pretty much lost his mind when he was fired.

Everything bad you say about him is presented in this documentary. So, how do you figure it's biased in his favour?

[–] rogerdemarco30 9 years ago

I felt that the documentary made an effort to show both sides of the proverbial coin. The people that worked on the film made it abundantly clear that Stanley, while immensely talented, acted like a child on numerous occasions. He was no better than Kilmer, Brando, or Frankenheimer, and that was the whole point. One person didn't destroy the film, it was a collective force that unraveled it. It is true that Richard Stanley self-destructed on a massive scale. From recruiting a witch-doctor, climbing a tree and refusing to come down, and not wanting to partake on any of the required studio meetings. If the documentary was really trying to show favoritism to Stanley, then that material would definitely been edited out.

[Never trust anyone that posts on only one IMDB board.]

[–] liutenantsalt 9 years ago

Go see Amy instead.

I truly hope the irony is not lost on you.

[–] HoldTheCock 9 years ago

Explain..

There was no motive, the director himself said he knew little about her going into the film. He interviewed literally everyone who knew her or was close to her and framed that around the facts of her life and self-destruction. If you are implying that the director specifically tried to make certain people look bad, it was obvious that she was in full control of her life and the poor decisions she made, regardless of who "could have saved her".

[–] Thirdover4 9 years ago

You seem to be under the impression that films, or documtaries, or even the news has no point of view and intends to present an "unbiased" presentation of facts. That doesn't even happen in a courtroom. Movies tell stories, weather they are based on actual events or are purely the imagination of a writer, and those stories have a point of view. Without the point of view there is no point. As someone who has worked on documtaries I can tell you that you can set out to tell a story based on truth but you are telling a story for your own reasons and that story will be effected by whatever drove you to tell it. You could probably take any person involved and tell a number of different stories based on what you want to say.

[–] Latoija 9 years ago

l can't agree with that at all. I was left with the feeling at the end of the movie that the original director was in over his head and failed because of his inability not he studios. It is sad to see the story of a person so completely come apart but I wouldn't say that there was a bias in the documentary to tell the story of one director screwed by the Hollywood system. More one movie ruined by ego and bad decisions of many people. If anything this is a casebook on how not to make a movie.

[–] nightwishouge 9 years ago

Completely disagree. I think the makers of the documentary believe that Stanley's film would have been rather interesting, but they don't project that prejudice in his favor nearly as much as you imply. The crew members and studio executives are given ample time to voice their opinions of Stanley. Some really liked and believed in him, some didn't, and some thought he was talented but in no position to be in control of a big budget film. It was pretty even-handed.

[–] YuunofYork 7 years ago

Despite the title, the film is about much more than Stanley. The offerings of the original cast are central, who watch as their parts get whittled down or usurped by the bigger names. Brando and Kilmer were there because circumstance dictated it, but Hofschneider and Balk were actually invested in it, for so many reasons. And they are the ones that offer the viewer empathy for Stanley, not Stanley himself.

It is clear Stanley would have only ever had a chance to break even with the budget, and that the actual production would have gone on longer than expected - but both those things happened anyway. Therefore what is the point of judging one of the directors over the other? It could even be said might as well have stayed with the original one just to see if the outcome were any different - although, yes, probably not. And Stanley's naivety and managing style are on full display here, as others have said.

The major issues of production during the Stanley days - the hurricane, the shuffling of the cast causing the loss of Woods and necessitating Brando and Kilmer, were not decisions made by Stanley, but rather acts of nature Stanley either did not know how to handle or that were impossible to handle. Nothing Stanley did other than mention Brando caused Brando to decide to troll the picture after arriving nearly a month late, for example.

Et ses mains ourdiraient les entrailles du prêtre
Au défaut d'un cordon pour étrangler les rois

[–] Wuchak (8068) 4 years ago

Go see Amy instead.

I don't get this statement. Who's "Amy" -- a person or a movie? And how does she/it relate to the topic?