Truth sells--just ask the liars

How far can a film stray from the truth and still claim to be based on the truth? A current lawsuit might determine the answer

by Chris LaVigne <clavigne@republic-news.org>

When a film is advertised as a true story, does it have a responsibility to be faithful to the truth? The families of Billy Tyne and Dale Murphy have an answer to that question. They have been suing Warner Bros studios since 2002 for what they are calling a hurtful and untrue portrayal of the two men in the movie The Perfect Storm. At issue is whether the movie was obligated to portray the Tyne and Murphy characters accurately or if the film's makers were allowed to take some dramatic license.

Although the film's basis on true events was its primary selling point, Warner Bros and director Wolfgang Petersen say they still didn't have to stick to real events or characterisations. Warner Bros points out that the following disclaimer runs during the end credits: "Dialogue and certain events and characters in the film were created for the purpose of dramatization." They claim that this sentence waives all of their responsibilities to the truth. Petersen argues that artistically, strict adherence to reality makes for a poor product: "You might have a story that is accurate but not dramatic. . . . If you just go with the facts, very often-very, very often-you get a film that doesn't really get into your heart."

Tyne and Murphy's families believe that the inaccuracy of the film combined with its claim to represent a "true story" has damaged the reputations of the men. For example, Tyne's familiy alleges that the film falsely depicts him as "maniacal and reckless." They do not have a problem with Tyne's portrayal in the book by Sebastien Junger, from which the movie was adapted. Their complaint is solely with the film version. For them, the situation is analogous to the type of misrepresentation of character that is illegal in print and speech under libel and slander laws. Warner Bros asserts that the movie's fictional nature protects it from such rules.

I'm not a big fan of lawsuits, but I can't help rooting for the families here. Billing a movie as being "Based on a true story" is a ridiculous exercise, as evinced by both Warner Bros and Petersen's quick admissions that the film is actually quite fictitious. What is dangerous, and what the Tyne and Murphy families are suing over, is that we are encouraged to believe that a film might actually represent the truth in some direct way. In the case of The Perfect Storm, the reputations of two men can be ruined. Taken to a more frightening level, movies like Black Hawk Down, Pearl Harbor, or The Alamo blatantly misrepresent real events and alter the public perception of history in the process. I personally look forward to future lawsuits from Somalian, Japanese, and Mexican governments for the vicious inaccuracies of these horrible movies.

Studios will say that they are protected from having to abide by the truth. Directors will say that they must change events to make history more palatable and entertaining. I say, why bother trying to make a movie based on a true story if, as everyone admits, it's impossible to tell the truth?

****