There has been much talk recently about films and TV series that are seen by many as authentic document-aries although they are heavily fictionalised and may bear little relation to the truth.
The TV series The Crown was widely criticised as a travesty that totally misrepresents the Royal Family. The actor Judi Dench accused the show of being "crude sensationalism" while former Prime Minister Sir John Major criticised his depiction in the programme and said that a scene involving conversations about the Queen abdicating was "a barrel-load of malicious nonsense".
Now Julia Stonehouse, daughter of the late Labour Minister John Stonehouse, who unsuccessfully faked his own death, supposedly to start a new life with his mistress in Australia, has criticised the new TV drama Stonehouse as full of lies and mixing fact with plenty of fiction.
John Preston, who produced the series, defends it by saying it's based on a true story but some scenes and characters have been imagined for dramatic purposes.
The problem is that viewers won't know what's true and what's invented, and they may very well believe the inventions rather than the reality. Julia Stonehouse says her family has been plagued for almost 50 years by false press reports, books, TV programmes and now podcasts. Trying to correct all the nonsense is an uphill task.
Personally I think programmes purporting to be a genuine documentary should either explain from the start that none of it is necessarily the truth, or it should set out to be the unalloyed truth throughout.
Mixing truth with undeclared fabrication for entertainment purposes is surely reckless and irresponsible and I don't understand why such stuff is permitted.
Pic: Julia Stonehouse
What is truth, Nick?
ReplyDeleteIf a film says "based on real life events" taking poetic licence is fine by me. Just give me a compelling story. I won't hold anyone to the detail. And let's not deceive ourselves: Even documentaries (the only verifiable facts being time, place and participants) lay themselves wide open to questions depending on the narrator's interpretation of events and what led to them.
It's a most interesting subject you raised, Nick. Alas, it pays to always have that pinch of salt close by.
U
Ursula: But if you're not too concerned whether a programme is truthful or not, then it can just descend into salacious gossip. And who needs that? And yes, the narrator's interpretation can always distort the truth, but a bit of distortion is rather different from blatant invention.
DeleteI guess they have to make it interesting somehow as most people’s lives would make for rather dry viewing.
ReplyDeleteBijoux: But if it would otherwise be rather dry viewing, why not choose a different subject that's actually interesting?
DeleteI guess if I wanted something closer to the truth I'd read a book by a respected historian. If I want entertainment I'll watch ITV dramatisations!!
ReplyDeleteOne thing I did find curious was the fact that Margaret Thatcher wanted the Stonehouse affair hushed up - odd seeing that he was a labour MP.
Sx
Ms Scarlet: But even if it's entertainment, you might go away from it believing things that actually aren't true. That can't be right.
DeleteTo be fair, I think these dramatisations do sow seeds - especially The Crown. I will always wonder if the writer had some unofficial information that the rest of the world wasn’t privy to. So yes, they are a bit wrong.
DeleteI did so enjoy the Jeremy Thorpe drama with .Hugh Grant, though. It’s a tricky fish.
Sx
Ms Scarlet: Yes, you wonder if the writer knew something we didn't, or whether there's just been some wild invention. I haven't seen the Thorpe drama, but I can reveal that I was one of the prospective jurors for the trial. I was one behind the guy who was chosen as the 12th juror!
DeleteDocumentaries that stretch the truth are dishonest and irresponsible.
ReplyDeleteColette: I agree. They play fast and loose with the truth in order to pull in more viewers.
DeleteThe tragedy is that then people believe the lies.
DeleteColette: Indeed. How are viewers to know what's truth and what's fiction?
DeleteYou missed out on a great experience of the judge's summing up...better than the Peter Cook send up of it.
ReplyDeleteFly: I just watched his summing-up on youtube. Very funny. Judges do have a tendency to subtly suggest a certain verdict to the jury.
DeleteThose at the criminal bar always enjoyed those judges who went over the top and thus induced the jury to find a not guilty verdict as they objected to being browbeaten!
DeleteFly: Judges must often be baffled by the apparently perverse verdicts juries arrive at.
DeleteFact and fiction do never mix well. Greetings!
ReplyDeleteBlogoratti: Long time no see! Deliberately muddling fact and fiction is decidedly unprofessional apart from anything else.
DeleteYes, and the reason of course is that life just doesn't fit itself into the neat boxes we expect in fiction. (That is no excuse though. )
ReplyDeleteJenny: Yes, people like neat boxes, don't they? But as you say, life itself is not so neat.
DeleteI haven't watched The Crown so I don't know anything about it.
ReplyDeleteMary: From what I can gather, you haven't missed much. All very sensational and over-the-top.
DeleteI'm into my second viewing of The Crown. I don't think it's at all sensational or over the top. The events it portrays all happened and are well documented. The conversations regarding those events are obviously fictional but they reflect what we know of those involved.
ReplyDeleteThe Crown has inspired me to google different people and events, broadening my knowledge and I'm sure many viewers have done the same.
Oh, and it never claims to be anything but fiction so the criticisms are ill founded
Kylie: I'm a bit puzzled. You say "The events it portrays all happened and are well documented" but also "It never claims to be anything but fiction". I imagine it's a mixture of both.
DeleteIt covers events like, the abdication, the death of George VI, various trips around the commonwealth, the Aberfan disaster etc. All documented events. The fictionalised part is what people said, what happened between closed doors
DeleteKylie: If the fictional part is what happened behind closed doors, that must mean quite a lot of fiction!
DeleteI enjoyed The Crown when it covered the 50's, 60's and 70's. I didn't enjoy the 80's, and the stuff that I remembered well - it just seemed tacky.
DeleteI've been thinking about this post a lot, and I was thinking about John Major's reaction to being fictionalised in The Crown - he said it was all nonsense. It must be horrible to see yourself being fictionalised in a TV series without permission - some writer putting words and thoughts into your mouth that you didn't say or think. It must be quite traumatising. I don't think I'd like it. Maybe these fictionalisations should be properly fictionalised, meaning complete name changes, etc.
Sx
Ms Scarlet: Absolutely, John Major must have been horrified - and frustrated that he couldn't put the record straight. Why not have a completely fictional programme, not referring to any real people but exploring the same issues? Then there'd be no cause of complaint.
DeleteThere have been a few documentaries that have held my interest, mostly on nature, and it seems those would be more truthful than something like The Crown which lost my interest after season 1.
ReplyDelete