Senna, Amy; the truth vs. a good story

Forums New posts
Brainwrong

Brainwrong

Spaktacuradge
Private Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Prost; made into a cartoon villain.
Feider-Civil; made into a cartoon villain.
Mitch Winehouse; made into a cartoon villain.
That second manager (of Amy's); made into a cartoon villain.

All make for a brilliant dramatic angles, motives, all nicely sewn up endings.

But, what if it's all bullshit?

Both these documentaries are brilliantly crafted, thoroughly enjoyed them, but, they're too perfect.

I don't believe them.

Thoughts?
 
Probably could say that for all documentaries. The best documentary makers in the business are the BBC Natural History team and they spend months of patient waiting in inhospitable wilderness for something to occur in order to tell a story they want to tell. They chose who you root for too - Sometimes the seal is the hero (when trying to avoid the orca) sometimes the villain (trying to eat the penguin), it's all about perspective.

Anyway the filmmakers next project after senna and amy is the Gallagher brothers - 1000000x more excited about that than you geeks were by star wars.
 
Brainwrong said:
Prost; made into a cartoon villain.
Feider-Civil; made into a cartoon villain.
Mitch Winehouse; made into a cartoon villain.
That second manager (of Amy's); made into a cartoon villain.

All make for a brilliant dramatic angles, motives, all nicely sewn up endings.

But, what if it's all bull$#@!?

Both these documentaries are brilliantly crafted, thoroughly enjoyed them, but, they're too perfect.

I don't believe them.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Not seen either but it wouldn't surprise me; 'the narrative' they call it. Recently read an article of Spielberg's 'Bridge of Spies' which is an example of where even greater liberties are taken in the 'based on a true story' genre; the actual true story twisted into a pretzel to suit hollywood luvvie politics - which happens so relentlessly that it I think it literally affects how some people understand the world to be. It's probably best to think of documentaries as 'based on a true story' and 'based on a true story' films as fiction!
 
The__Proclaimer said:
Probably could say that for all documentaries. The best documentary makers in the business are the BBC Natural History team and they spend months of patient waiting in inhospitable wilderness for something to occur in order to tell a story they want to tell. They chose who you root for too - Sometimes the seal is the hero (when trying to avoid the orca) sometimes the villain (trying to eat the penguin), it's all about perspective.

Anyway the filmmakers next project after senna and amy is the Gallagher brothers - 1000000x more excited about that than you geeks were by star wars.
Click to expand...

Different Director on the Oasis film. Same company though.


Sent by telepathy.
 
Bofahibee said:
Different Director on the Oasis film. Same company though.


Sent by telepathy.
Click to expand...
Ah, just seen a 'makers of Amy to make'...headline.

Bit like when you get posters saying 'from the studio that brought you Star Wars' in massive writing then underneath...Danny Dyer in Green Street pt 6'.
 
egb_hibs said:
Not seen either but it wouldn't surprise me; 'the narrative' they call it. Recently read an article of Spielberg's 'Bridge of Spies' which is an example of where even greater liberties are taken in the 'based on a true story' genre; the actual true story twisted into a pretzel to suit hollywood luvvie politics - which happens so relentlessly that it I think it literally affects how some people understand the world to be. It's probably best to think of documentaries as 'based on a true story' and 'based on a true story' films as fiction!
Click to expand...

Indeed. But, the reason I mentioned it was because of the damage it can do. From what I can see, for all his mistakes, Mitch Winehouse loved his daughter and is (seemingly) doing a lot for children, people, families suffering from the ravages of addiction via the Amy Winehouse foundation.

No matter what he did in the past, he and his family are making good when they patently don't have to. The foundation also survives on a donation basis so, if you paint him as a shyster at least and an evil **** at worst, to the world, you're only going to deprive people that genuinely need help due to sponsors finding his character leaves a bit of a bad taste in the mouth.

I reckon they've got a responsibility, in this case at least, to not sabotage about the only good to come of the whole sorry story. Other than her tunes.
 
Has anyone been watching the documentary series "Making a Murderer" on Netflix?

Absolutely gripping stuff and very well made (I still have the final two episodes to watch tonight). That said, I do want to read more about the subjects after I finish it because, without giving too much away, the "narrative" is very focused on the defence and I know from reading the press surrounding the series that this focus has ruffled feathers.
 
Last edited:
Two Headed Boy said:
Has anyone been watching the documentary series "Making a Murderer" on Netflix?Absolutely gripping stuff and very well made (I still have the final two episodes to watch tonight). That said, I do want to read more about the subjects after I finish it because, without giving too much away, the "narrative" is very focused on the defence and I know from reading the press surrounding the series that this focus has ruffled feathers.
Click to expand...

Did you listen to the first series of the podcast Serial? Reckon you'd dig.
 
Brainwrong said:
Prost; made into a cartoon villain.
Feider-Civil; made into a cartoon villain.
Mitch Winehouse; made into a cartoon villain.
That second manager (of Amy's); made into a cartoon villain.

All make for a brilliant dramatic angles, motives, all nicely sewn up endings.

But, what if it's all bull$#@!?

Both these documentaries are brilliantly crafted, thoroughly enjoyed them, but, they're too perfect.

I don't believe them.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

mitch winehouse IS a fucking **** though. Didnt think any of the others came across as cartoon villains - Fielder-Civil was damned by his own words and interviews more than the film and the only baddy in Senna was Balestre.
 
egb_hibs said:
Not seen either but it wouldn't surprise me; 'the narrative' they call it. Recently read an article of Spielberg's 'Bridge of Spies' which is an example of where even greater liberties are taken in the 'based on a true story' genre; the actual true story twisted into a pretzel to suit hollywood luvvie politics - which happens so relentlessly that it I think it literally affects how some people understand the world to be. It's probably best to think of documentaries as 'based on a true story' and 'based on a true story' films as fiction!
Click to expand...

From my small forays into this kind of thing I can tell you that in narrative film - as opposed to docs - there is absolutely no regard for accuracy or factual history (whatever that is) if the story is better served by making something up. But what do you expect? The idea is to make money by entertaining people.

Oddly enough the only genre where I've seen slavish adherence to a source text is in adaptations of "young adult" novels. And it's a huge pain for the filmmakers.
 
HenryLB said:
From my small forays into this kind of thing I can tell you that in narrative film - as opposed to docs - there is absolutely no regard for accuracy or factual history (whatever that is) if the story is better served by making something up. But what do you expect? The idea is to make money by entertaining people.

Oddly enough the only genre where I've seen slavish adherence to a source text is in adaptations of "young adult" novels. And it's a huge pain for the filmmakers.
Click to expand...

I'm all for poetic license but bridge of spies specifically alters events to insert a political and social 'message' which is near the opposite of what real live protagonists describe as their experience - Ie makes America and the cia more sinister in motive and turns a highly influential soviet spy into a hapless
And sympathetic character. This kind of thing happens systematically and I think in its accumulation affects perceptions of how the world is. Which is different to merging real world characters or inventing expositional scenes or compressing /
Reordering events for narrative purposes etc
 
egb_hibs said:
I'm all for poetic license but bridge of spies specifically alters events to insert a political and social 'message' which is near the opposite of what real live protagonists describe as their experience - Ie makes America and the cia more sinister in motive and turns a highly influential soviet spy into a hapless
And sympathetic character. This kind of thing happens systematically and I think in its accumulation affects perceptions of how the world is. Which is different to merging real world characters or inventing expositional scenes or compressing /
Reordering events for narrative purposes etc
Click to expand...

I don't think it is that different, though. You'll probably find that this decision was taken partly to make something of a political point, but also to deepen the narrative and sell more tickets by making a better film that also (possibly) panders to people's world view.

I haven't seen it, but I'd point out that 'making characters more sinister' necessarily has a narrative effect, as well as a political one.
 
FTJT said:
mitch winehouse IS a fucking **** though. Didnt think any of the others came across as cartoon villains - Fielder-Civil was damned by his own words and interviews more than the film and the only baddy in Senna was Balestre.
Click to expand...

He a fanny whos daughter has died. He's probably paid a high enough price.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
HenryLB said:
From my small forays into this kind of thing I can tell you that in narrative film - as opposed to docs - there is absolutely no regard for accuracy or factual history (whatever that is) if the story is better served by making something up. But what do you expect? The idea is to make money by entertaining people.

Oddly enough the only genre where I've seen slavish adherence to a source text is in adaptations of "young adult" novels. And it's a huge pain for the filmmakers.
Click to expand...

Sorry to jump in, but, Amy (the film) is firstly described as a documentary. Then a biography. Then a music related film.

I don't think anyone of the filmmakers claimed it was a doc. But, neither did they fight that perception. So, no one is really going into that thinking 'going to see Amy, the narrative film'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
HenryLB said:
I don't think it is that different, though. You'll probably find that this decision was taken partly to make something of a political point, but also to deepen the narrative and sell more tickets by making a better film that also (possibly) panders to people's world view.

I haven't seen it, but I'd point out that 'making characters more sinister' necessarily has a narrative effect, as well as a political one.
Click to expand...

Ok I'll grant that but I think it has become so institutionalised - ie the same tone relentlessly applies to presentation of western actions - that it has shaped public opinion about important things in the world. I also think it jars with 'based on a true story' being simultaneously deployed to add to the package.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
  • Menu
  • Home
  • Hibs Chat
  • New Posts
  • Just Back
  • Chatroom