Based on a true story

With the recent glut of films based on books that are based on newspaper columns, blogs and bizarre personal goals - like the just-nominated Julie & Julia - it seems that any subject is fair game for the big screen. But, Cara Frost-Sharratt asks, does ‘true story’ mean ‘good story’?

‘Based on a true story’ are five words that can strike fear into the hearts of filmgoers. While we all know that many movies have a loose affiliation with real life events and people, the very act of slapping a banner across the middle of the screen telling us as much is like demanding a quality control escape route before the film has even begun. ‘Look’, it’s telling us, ‘we didn’t make this story up so you’ll have to forgive any slipshod plotting, dull characters or unfulfilling ending.’ The films that follow these words of wisdom don’t necessarily flounder but the set-up for disappointment is sown and expectations can be low.

Where there’s a true story, you don’t usually have to wander too far to find a book. The current vogue is to create movies based on non-fiction tomes that chart real-life events. Whether these are memoirs, experiences or challenges that the authors have undertaken, they undoubtedly create assumptions of integrity in the minds of the filmmakers. It’s as if the veracity of the written word will somehow rub off in the visual re-telling of the story and a film based on fact should be more loyal to its origins that to its audience. If the story is strong enough then this shouldn’t pose any great problem for the director but if it’s more of a simple observation than a thrilling three-act narrative then serious consideration should be given to its suitability for the big screen.

A case in point is the recent release, The Soloist. Whilst a book based on a newspaper column will have an inherent, captive audience, a dramatic movie brings with it certain expectations that a faithful screen adaptation simply cannot achieve. The success of Steve Lopez’s LA Times column and his subsequent book about the homeless musical genius he befriends is a classic human-interest story with a clear, social message. The problem is that there’s no ending: at least not a classic movie ending. If you’re going to blast Hollywood with a big budget, A-list cast movie then you need to adhere to certain rules and a neat resolution is one of those rules. This stickler approach does seem to be the preserve of the non-fiction genre: perhaps the thinking is that novelists have made up their books so a bit of tinkering with the characters, plot, location and story is par for the course. However, mess with a serious journalistic work and your screenwriting or directorial integrity will be seriously questioned.

It’s not all doom and gloom though. A good director can create a compelling movie from a journalistic book. They need to find an angle, get creative and ensure that they’re telling a story rather than treating the audience to little more than a book reading. Talented rom-com director Nora Ephron (Sleepless in Seattle; You’ve Got Mail) proves the point in her latest movie, Julie & Julia. Based on a book that was based on a blog, it hardly had the most engaging premise: dull woman from Queens stays in for a year while she grills, fries and fricassees her way through a seminal cookbook. However, by interweaving the life of said dull woman, Julie, with that of the author of the cookbook, Julia Child, Ephron creates a compelling and heart-warming dual-protagonist movie. It crosses continents, lifestyles and eras while keeping romantic love and culinary obsession at its core.

Peyton Reed took another, equally successful, approach in his film, Yes Man. Although the movie shares its title with the Danny Wallace book that it’s based on, there’s not so much a deviation from the original text as an outright exodus. By simply basing the movie on the premise of one man saying ‘yes’ to everything for a year, Reed gave himself the artistic freedom to create a movie from a concept: a movie that works in conjunction with the book, rather than being a carbon copy of it.

Books and films have always had a mutually appreciative relationship but writers and journalists don’t necessarily pen a book from a cinematic perspective. Books have infinitely more freedom in terms of the way in which a story is crafted and presented. They rely on readers’ imaginations and their lack of assumptions with regards to the journey that they’re being taken on. A movie, on the other hand, has just one fairly standardised block of time in which to convey its story and message to the audience. The audience has expectations and, if these are not met, the film will fail to engage despite the success that the book achieved.