I just finished Finding Neverland and I just have to say, I've never seen such a touching film since Forrest Gump. I balled like a baby. The script was perfect, the performances amazing, and the cinematography left me drooling. If you haven't seen this film yet, do.

The theme just captured me in a way I haven't been captured in a long time. I guess it's the fact that im becoming an adult and I've still got a lot of kid in me. I hope I never grow up. This film is incredible. 'nuff said.

I enjoyed it too, and the little kid Peter was phenomenal.

One big complaint though - it really bothers me when filmmakers take a true story and mold it for the sake of making it more touching. They took a lot of artistic license - homogenizing or amalgamating characters, adjusting timelines, etc. Yes, it makes for a more touching movie, but I feel it's a little irresponsible given that there are real people involved, and a real history behind the film.

Here's an article I found right quick that deals with the topic of history in this film.

http://www.stfrancis.edu/historyinthemovies/findingneverland.htm

One excerpt:

"...But the film compresses about thirteen years into one, thereby significantly revising history. One Davies boy-the fifth, Nico-was dropped from the story altogether. But the biggest departure from reality is the absence of the boys' father. Arthur Davies was very much alive when Barrie befriended his wife and children, and though he died before his boys were grown, his death didn't occur until ten years after his family met Barrie."


Again, I do think that perhaps it makes for better filmmaking to twist the real story, but I feel it betrays the actual people involved in the story. Since it's based on fact, it should present fact, and work hard to make it a moving film within the confines of historical accuracy. Anything else is just sort of a sweet lie.

Maybe the producers couldn't fit the entire history into a 2 hour format? Or they felt, like neverland itself, they could make a few things up?

They definitely could - longer histories than this have been covered in less time.

My point is just that we should have restraint in manipulating true histories. It's one thing to visually show the fantastical things in a person's head - but it's quite another to change 13 years into 1, completely remove or add people, or just plain misrepresent events that don't accurately show what lessons were learned or how.

I'm a history buff of sorts, and I wholeheartedly believe the old adage that those who don't know their own history are doomed to repeat it. If we have distorted histories, no matter with what purpose or intent, or how large or small, we can't possibly learn how to deal with our future.

Finding Neverland was a lovely tale that appeals to the emotions and to the senses. But that's all. And that's unfortunate because as a historical tale, it could have been much more without sacrificing the former.

I'm a history buff too but I don't see anything really consequential about changing the details about an author's life except for his fans or for family. It doesn't affect that many people.

Telling people that the aboriginals welcomed the European conquerors or that the Jews weren't targetted for genocide is consequential for a good many people.

Keith, where do you draw the line? How many people must the truth affect for its importance to become consequential? Would the last remaining aborigine not benefit from knowing the facts of his people's fate?

This problem is a profound example of the reasons artists slave away at their work and their cultures support them (hopefully). Politics--business--the daily throes of life--are often inadequate to such a question. But we're affected by the consequences daily; hence the immemorial popularity of the arts.

I regret changes I made to facts in feature scripts I've written. I did it because I was for hire and I felt obliged to the producers (who echoed your argument). I regret it because I believe in the objective truth; I have faith that events happened which can be valuably related. And it's a tasty challenge to hew to the known facts.

I'm thinking of a picture I wrote which didn't get made. I did a lot of research in Paris and the USA. Ultimately, we shied away from the truth merely because it wasn't beautiful (there's Keats again!); it wouldn't "satisfy" an audience. I think that's true: modern movie audiences probably generally want beautiful (read: exciting or conventionally satisfying) stories more often than they want true stories. It's just that sometimes, as a storyteller, I want to direct the audience to a truth they may not know about, rather than give them another escape. There's a kind of valor in the act of reporting gracefully.

A related problem is the difference between the truth and history: the former's what happened (which we may never know, or know completely); the latter's what we're told (in the cliche, by the victors). To the extent we can ferret out the truth, esp. about less-than-famous events, we--including the audience--can delight in the journey. Rigor of craft is often its own reward.

I don't agree that distortions need to be drastic for them to have detrimental affects on society. Drastic situations simply make it easier for everyone to agree because they are obvious, non-nuanced situations. But small compromises need not have evil intent for them to conspire with other small compromises to cause a greater problem in society. A problem that plagues our own societies to a very high degree today - the lack of knowledge of our own history. We keep seeing Hollywood-ized versions of every aspect of our history - how can we possibly learn anything when everyone is opening DVD cases instead of history books, and these DVD cases are full of emotional distortions of real events?

All that means is that films that are using history to sell themselves should take the path of higher responsibility and properly represent those histories.

Otherwise, create a fictional story and call it fiction!

If you've lost a parent, if you're a writer, if you're a hard-hearted controller... these are just three of the types of people who could learn something truthful from a truthful tale behind Finding Neverland. If it's not true though, then it's just a fictional exploration of emotional ideals, this is fine for a popcorn tearjerker, but it's betraying the single beautiful thing that history has to offer - specific answers to questions like how was it done, and can I apply it myself.

You can't get meat and potatoes out of films like this - only seasonings.

FWIW, I thought "Neverland" was nicely mounted, but it seemed rote to me. Depp, whom I often enjoy, sleepwalked through much of the picture. All in all, a bit too sweet. Maybe I wasn't in the mood.

Regardless of whether the writer's adaptation is based upon the actual event or is a fictionalization of the issue, the writer's responsibility is to be true to the issues surrounding the event. The writer interprets the conflict.

But then, that is exactly what any journalist does as well and they are under even more legal constraints than the writer. The journalist is bound to the facts and even they have a particular bent, prejudice and ultimately a decision coming down on one side or another in the way they portray the events.

The writer's version is always constrained in terms of time, number of characters, in scope as well as the dramatic pressures you touch upon. Let's face it. Many true stories are not laid out in three act structure (or five acts for TV). Many true stories don't have a single hero, a man and a woman working together are not always fated to fall in love, there is not often a 100% blameless side, the side that is right does not often win out. It is up to the writer to sharpen conflict so that it is clear to the viewers. That is why many stories are 'based upon true events', not an exact history.

Your example about only the last remaining aboriginal caring about the issue is off the mark. A good deal of people beyond the aboriginals care about the issue since the history of the Americas will always be affected by that history.

Sharpening conflict or adjusting something into a digestible three act structure sounds harmless enough. But it's the end result that can be awfully harmful.

Kingdom of Heaven is coming out soon - another film that's not only capitalizing on history, but also on current tensions on the subject. Even the tiniest bit of manipulation of this history can drastically alter perception in a time where every single bit of fact matters.

Applying perspective or a slant to presented facts is only fair if the facts presented are just that - facts. Not twisted, adjusted, manipulated or reordered.

Whether or not a person labels it as 'based on a true story' or 'a true story' - it will still usurp public opinion on the historic event.

I submit that film is a much more powerful medium than anything journalists have not only because it's visual and auditory in a way a news article can never be, but also because for some reason we don't apply the same standards of truth to it - a narrative filmmaker can run amok with facts and we all just smile and take it. Oh it's just a movie.

Imran, it is just a movie. It is not a history, not a substitute for an education, a good book, or a lecture.

The filmmaker's responsibility is to tell a story.

Kingdom of Heaven is coming out soon - another film that's not only capitalizing on history, but also on current tensions on the subject. Even the tiniest bit of manipulation of this history can drastically alter perception in a time where every single bit of fact matters.
Yes. But I submit to you that you can take an entirely accurate account from any point in history and that story, even though entirely backed up by facts, can be extremely harmful if it is presented out of context. So facts are not everything. It is fairness of the issue that the filmmaker must be responsible to. This is the same responsibility of the journalist. The journalist can write an article that is totally accurate and will not land them in libel court but if they don't present a larger context then they can be unjust.

A filmmaker can create new characters, play with time, change settings and still be fair to the issue.

On that first item, its isn't "just a movie". It never is. Not when it comes to historical portrayals.

The people who NEED historical facts are exactly the kind of people that would watch the movie and forego the history book, and that's the horrible irony.

Everybody's supposed to know that a history book provides better history than a movie. But that's not what ends up happening. The film ends up owning the history it covers, and it ends up affecting public opinions on the subject. It's like propaganda that way, but it's much more subtle, and therefore effective.

I can't tell you how many otherwise intelligent people I've had debates with that mistakenly brought up facts covered in movies or in urban folklore instead of from any reputable source. It slips into the public subconscious, depending on how successful the film is.

I just support the idea that when covering history, filmmakers need to take the path of higher responsibility. Not the "oh it's just a movie" type of responsibility.

I think we can both agree that there needs to be better education and that people need to use their library cards.

I just support the idea that when covering history, filmmakers need to take the path of higher responsibility. Not the "oh it's just a movie" type of responsibility.

I support that too. But I also believe that a filmmaker doesn't need to be paralyzed when they can be fair to the issue while focusing on their own themes.

I just finished watching Kurosawa's "Kagemusha". In the commentary it is noted that his take on Takeda Shingen is not entirely accurate. In the movie Shingen's fondest wish is to conquer Kyoto. But in history Shingen's campaigns were in the opposite direction. This didn't fit Kurosawa's theme of a man's ambition being thwarted by outside forces.

Japanese scholars may have been peeved but Kurosawa made a very good movie. A student in a university-level course isn't going to want to use "Kagemusha" for their source material. At the same time the movie gives a very good idea of the time period for the lay person.

You and I would have a big problem if Kurosawa had armed the warriors in his movie with repeating rifles instead of matchlocks. To me it is not a big deal if Shingen's desires were misrepresented. It may have been ahistorical but that kind of misrepresentation is not serious.

I was asked earlier : "where do I draw the line?" Well I ask you where do you draw the line? If the real person did nothing but picked their nose for two weeks does the filmmaker have to represent that? Obviously the filmmaker has to make a decision what to show and what not to show. By omission they have not shown the true history. A historical figure has six sons but only two of them are said to have done anything significant. Why do they deserve screen space?

I don't think anyone's arguing that the history needs to be represented in real time.

It's the altering of facts, like the thing Kurosawa did for the sake of his personal giggles, is irresponsible for all the reasons I've mentioned. That's all.

I don't think it's necessarily irresponsible, Imran. Keith's right that an artist has to satisfy his inherent obligations first. Where you and I agree is on the potential for harm to the audience.

I don't think people are so fragile that they need to be coddled; it's okay for artistic license to be exercised. Hell, I'd even argue it's necessary for the health of storytelling, which informs the culture.

I like history because it contains events stranger than most fiction, and there's a lot to be said for grounding your fake worlds in as much reality as possible. Just as audiences can be turned off by too-hermetic invention, they often like the taste of verisimilitude.

Ultimately, "kitchen sink" is as much a matter of taste as of responsibility---something which, as Yeats said, has its roots in dreams.

Imran, whenever a movie distorts facts there is a constituency of people who know about it and raise a fuss. If it is serious enough and if enough people care, then these people will get more media attention than if the movie had never happened.

Case in point: "U571". The movie depicted Americans recovering the Nazi codes when it was the British. A huge fuss was raised by British veterans, scholars and the public about this. Everyone got their airtime. How many people actually knew that there was this little known operation to recover the Nazi codes to begin with? I did because I read history. Now anyone who has heard about the movie knows that this bit of history existed and that there was a controversy surrounding the difference between the fictional version and the real version of events.

How many historians got a little more attention because "Alexander" came out? How many gay activists were able to get their quotes out because the movie only hinted at his sexuality?

Keith I see your point. But the makers of these movies are counting on people thinking they have some accuracy, but when called upon it, they raise there hands and say, not my fault.

I've always thought the best way to do accurate historical drama was with a mini-series. But thats me. Of course even they can be totally biased (take 'God and Generals' for example).

Joe, the filmmakers see an event in history and see the possibility for a good story and then they work on it. There are those who really like authenticity and those that don't. Compare "U571" to "Das Boot". Both have a veneer of authenticity and one is more rooted in it than the other. Both address their markets well. When "U571" was taken to task for its distortions everyone benefitted. The filmmakers got even more press because of the fuss raised by the British and the British and others who were concerned had their day in the press as well.

Your raising of "Gods and Generals" is interesting. I am on a computer game board for a Civil War game where there has been an interesting back and forth over what was considered the best Civil War film.

Almost universally "Gods and Generals" is lambasted not because of its accuracy but because it really is a mediocre film (at least in its theatrical release). Many who saw it don't believe that the real life historical figures spoke so pompously or at such length about religion and honor, etc. It turns out that many of them probably were like that and people of that time really did speechify as much as they did in the film. But on the screen, to modern viewers, it could appear boring and fake. The filmmaker could have benefited by truncating the dialogue or by following more 'down-to-earth' characters. I thought the battle scenes were linear and simplistic; but some reenactors on the board corrected me and said that the battles as depicted probably were like that. Everyone agrees that the lack of blood in the battle scenes diminished that film's authenticity (The same criticism was directed at the first film: "Gettysburgh".)

More well-liked is "Glory", another ACW film that is rooted in a real life story. It is a superb film. Almost no one asks if the character created for Denzel Washington was a real person (who won an Oscar for his performance) or whether Morgan Freeman played a real life grave digger turned master sargeant (nominated for an Oscar). This is because their characters are signficant to the theme of the negros taking an active hand in fighting for their place in the conflict that is about the fate of negros in the United States at the time. I've read more criticism of the role of Col. Robert Shaw, played by Matthew Broderick, a real historical figure from whose writings the story of "Glory" is taken. Another filmmaker might have deleted Shaw's character altogether or minimized his role. Another historical aspect not covered except in a written coda at the end is that the heroic attack of the all-black regiment on the Confederate fort at the climax of the film was accompanied by efforts by white regiments. But the filmmakers made the decision to concentrate on the black regiment because that was the focus of the story. Hardly any time is spent on the Confederate view. That is not the focus of the story.

Filmmakers make the decision in writing, filming and editing the movie to focus on what they consider is meaningful and signficant. Historians do the same thing but have hundreds of pages to devote to covering all the bases.

History is history, and movies are storytelling. And storytellers, for millennia, have condensed stories down to what they feel are the most compelling and interesting elements to their audiences. They do this not to hide the truth or distort it, but to highlight what they see as the core truths they want to convey. That is why we like them. That is why we listen.

Let’s say I get in a four hour verbal fight with a friend of mine and we go back and forth misunderstanding each other, restating ourselves, edging towards each other’s views until we finally hit a hard-fought mutual understanding. Along the way, I stop for a bathroom break, my friend takes a phone call, we break it up by telling an story from our childhood, and I keep complaining that it’s a little too cold. When I make the movie version, do I have to include all that? Does it need to be four hours? What if I condense it all down to a 15 minute conversation where we start at the same place we started, and end at the same place we ended, but cut down to conversation to sound more like what we should have said rather than what we did. In that condensed version - one that really hits and condenses the terms of our disagreement and the progression to our mutual understanding - have I hid the truth? Have I misrepresented the truth? Or have I highlighted the truth? Can someone say that I have done a disservice to the truth because I left out my bathroom break? They can… but if I tell the story how it happened – exactly how it happened – no one will want to listen. I have to distill it somehow to highlight the truths that I (as storyteller) want to highlight, and that I think my audience will connect with.

The trouble is that different truths are important to different people. I have gone to period movies with a costumer friend of mine and had her say (I am not making this up) “Oh, that’s crazy. This is supposed to be 1780, and no one wore a collar like that after 1740.” Can we not make a historical movie unless all the collars are correct? Can we not make a movie about the Polish unless they are all speaking Polish? Can we not make a movie about people who were all under 5’5” and use actors who are 6’? The storyteller has to make choices about which details to hold and which to let go.

No one can tell a story (or even a history lesson) with all of the facts. Everyone has to let some go.

What did I learn from Finding Neverland that was interesting? J.M. Barrie found the inspiration for some of his fiction from playing with the children of a neighbor. Do I care how many children it was? No. Do I care what kind of collars his jacket had? No. Do I care if it happened over 13 year or 1? No. Did I get a more clear view of the piece that I found interesting by not having to consider the smaller role her husband played in all of this? Yes. Thank you filmmaker, you gave me what I wanted.

The good news is that anyone who felt this story was incomplete is welcome to tell the story again. And this time they get to decide which facts to leave out.

"The trouble is that different truths are important to different people."

That speaks to the heart of it, I think. Everybody decides for themselves what they think is the kernel of the story, twists it to play out to that kernel, and cashes in on it, everything else be damned.

Call me an idealist, I just don't think people should be able to exploit history like that. Again, for all the reasons of irresponsibility I mentioned. And for what someone said earlier - everyone is quick to use the history to sell their story, but even quicker to shirk the responsibility when there are repercussions for their ill-told story.

You are being an idealist.

The most careful historian also omits or gives weighting to one facet of a collection of facts over others.

Every journalist is faced with the same opportunity.

A documentarist has the restriction of time and space in ordering the same facts.

Storytellers who adapt history for a fictional feature film have a different order of possibilities.

None of the above own history. None of the above have the sole responsibility for presenting all of the facts. The historian who is concentrating on the life of a single President cannot be criticized for ignoring the life of his wife or chauffeur. Someone else can decide to do that history just like other filmmakers are free to make their own takes on it.

Stanley Kubrick spent 15 years cobbling together data for a Napoleon film that he never was able to make. When he died he may have been one of only a handful of lay people who were experts on the life of Napoleon. Even so, if he had been able to make the movie, he still would have had the same possibilities as a director who knows nothing about Napoleon except what he sees in that famous painting of Napoleon by Jacques Louis David. Kubrick might have filmed a scene showing every single member of Napoleon's staff and Austerlitz, but he probably also wouldn't have cared if it was minus two or three officers or if the time they met was off by an hour. It is not a decision of significance.

Your criticism is a recipe for creative paralysis.

Absolutely not! It's the opposite - an incitement to stop creative laziness. There's plenty of fodder in history for remarkable stories, as they actually happened. There are plenty of writers who can represent history without reordering events or creating fake characters for their inability to creatively represent a factual event.

And no I don't expect things to play out in real time, I'm not referring to when the person went to the loo, and I'm not talking about something like who drove so and so and at what speed. That's not what I'm talking about at all.

Reordering events, and creating fake characters is unforgivable in a historical tale. It's one thing to take artful license, like Barrie's imagination coming to life visually, but it's another to just twist a core part of the story like that the father of those kids was alive the whole time. That's a basic lie that causes half of the picture to change. That's significant.

Imran, my choice of 'God and Generals' was because I grew up in the South, where the war was frequently referred to as 'The war of Northern Agression'. There was/is an overly idealized view of the Souths' motives and honor.
The whole 'State Rights' thing was propaganda to sell to the poor, almost all who didn't own slaves, but did most of the dying.

What was especially infuriating was how the bible was used to justify slavery (decendents of Ham), though in the old testament, the judgement against Ham was carried out when the Isrealites retook Palestine.

While it's been established the typical educated person back then could be very verbose, it was also common for that speechifying to have mostly to do with obeying your leaders without question or you were commiting a great sin...(at least in the South)

The mini series itself hinted several times that Stonewall Jackson was secretly anti slavery, and Robert E. Lee is never ever permitted to be just another wealthy slave/plantation owner looking out for his own interests. I think Ted Turner (who had a cameo in the film) is in love with Southern Mythology.

Those are common devices film makers use to make Southern leaders more appealing. It all Started with 'Birth of a Nation'.