The general theme for my work was to investigate the techniques carried out during pre production, filming and post production in the attempt to make a film appear authentic. This was a study to help understand the importance that such techniques have upon a film’s final outcome. I would then ask the question of whether or not this had any relation between critical or commercial success upon the film’s release at box office. I hoped my work would firstly; help people understand the importance of in-depth research and how integral it is to make a film appear, aesthetically at least, authentic. Secondly, I would discuss the filming techniques used to illuminate the efforts of the cast and crew, using examples of what I thought were particularly authentic or unauthentic films. Finally I would hope the viewer would be able to read my summary of findings on the relationship between authenticity and success and come to a similar understanding that I did.
The style that I used with my investigation began with various in-depth case studies in to the examination of film authenticity. I would then summarise my findings in the form of an essay into the relationship between authentic films and commercial and critical success. The content would be largely gathered from sources directly from DVD ‘making of’ documentaries as these provide direct quotes and explanation of methods from the key member of cast and crew. Important website based sources would also help add depth to my case studies. In total I carried out 4 case studies, three of which I considered authentic, and one which I felt did not strive towards authenticity in their production. I eventually used more positive examples of films then bad quite simply because it is a lot easier to gather information from solid sources of the better productions. I put this down to the fact that it is quite obvious that a director such as Mel Gibson would not want to discuss at length the reason why Braveheart appeared so inaccurate as he would naturally want to defend his own work. I balanced this numerical disadvantage out in my essay using web based sources and quotes.
The essay that I would write would use knowledge gathered from my initial studies and summarise this to try to find a definitive relation between authenticity and success, being my initial posed question. I decided that the easiest way to determine success with film was to use the original box office release figures and reviews. I categorised my findings into two groups, those being critical (reviews) and commercial (box office). The reason for the use of box office in terms of commercial success was applied simply for numerical clarity as it would allow an obvious level of success, which in this case would be how much revenue it gained. However, believing that box office figures can be misleading towards the true quality of a film, I decided to use critical reviews also. Rotten Tomatoes is a highly valued website which totals up the positive reviews against the negative reviews giving the reader a clear percentage. The only issue that this could conjure up would be to analyse the individual reviews and determine whether or not you can actual draw the line between positive and negative and whether or not these are two legitimate categories. I decided to use it based on the fact the Rotten Tomatoes is a highly respected review website and has a huge influence on such areas as international box office releases and DVD sales.
The traditions of filmmaking that this question would arise from could be any film created that has strived to give as true a representation as they possibly can. It appears that when the film requires such a representation, the level at which the production team and the actors perform is at a pinnacle and is in the interest of moving the art form forward. I believe that the research I carried out would certainly hep to highlight this. At present the film industry faces serious struggles with funding and some production companies are currently in large amounts of debt forcing almost certain closure, such as MGM. The reason I feel that my study is important as it could also illuminate such alternatives to high budget, over the top CGI films, where in some cases it may not be necessary. The best example of this I can use in my study is the difference between budgets with the highly authentic, The Wrester (Aronofsky) and the GCI laden, massively inaccurate Pearl Harbour (Bay). The Wrestler would cost $6,000,000 to make, compared to the massive budget of $140,000,000 of Pearl Harbour yet both films attempted to make the film appear as accurate as possible with the latter failing in its quest.
The key piece of terminology that I used throughout the investigation was the word ‘authenticity’. I decided to use this word after watching various documentaries and noticing that filmmakers would often refer to the term ‘authentic’ when they were shooting the film. This may cause an issue with the reader as the term authentic may have other connotations which are not related to film and could be misinterpreted. You could argue that in film is anything genuinely authentic? To help the clarity of the term I would explain the meaning of the word in relation to film as follows “Film authenticity, in relation to film is defined as 'a worthy replication of the original', i.e. an authentic reproduction of historical or contemporary settings”.
The knowledge I gained was largely on the importance of research and the specific filming techniques used. Applying this to my area of study, which is screenwriting, differs in importance. The filming techniques, such as the Apollo 13 production’s use of NASA aircrafts, could be valuable to a screenwriter in terms of a realistic budgetary vision. This is to say that, a writer could originally script, or re-write scenes, to include actual anti-gravity dynamics between the two characters. In the wrestler with the use of high flying showmanship and stunts, the screenwriter can broaden his creative vision on a project depending on the filming constraint. However, in terms of screenwriting the most important aspect to the process would unquestionably be the research carried out before creating a story. I found that this would be especially important with historical films. If a screenwriter fails to carry out research on a historical period then issues such as timelines, dialogue, character names and even elements to the story itself can be inaccurate. An example of this is clear in Randall Wallace’s screenplay Braveheart, where he had changed the age of the love interest of the lead character to be historically incorrect, a point which historians make. The more these mistakes add up, then the less authenticity a film will possess. The adopted process that I will take into future script development could be the difference between a critical success or failure. As I mentioned in my case study of the Wrestler, the screenwriter of that production Rob Siegel visited and interviewed numerous wrestlers to try and create a believable storyline that would work within the field of professional wrestling.
As stated at the beginning of my work, the reason for my study was examine and highlight the filming techniques used to make a film appear authentic and also to find out whether there was a relation between authenticity and success. For the research section of my investigation I believe the films I discussed were examined at a respectable level of depth. The quotes that I took from the sources I felt were appropriate in relation to my decided term authentic. The area that I could have developed more was the insight to the negative side to these films, which would have reflected a slightly less biased approach. However, as previously said, unless the film is remembered for its inaccuracy, such sources are harder to discover. In the interest of a balanced investigation I would also examine the other end of the authenticity spectrum, to give the reader an insight into the failings of such a film, however also pointing out the few good pieces of film making. The essay section to my project would achieve one fairly solid result and another which I felt would require further investigation. The solid result came with the critical review relation to authentic film making. I believe that the strive for this level of detail on screen will see you rewarded critically. Commercially however, there was no apparent relation. I felt that this would require research into the choice of cinema goers at the box office and that you could not judge the success of the films authenticity due to its commercial revenue. The paragraph below explains how I could move the project forward in the future:
I believe that to completely understand the value that authenticity has on commercial success would require a further investigation. This could be anything from audience feedback forms or initial interviews to examine the decisions that go into the choices made to watch films. I would also like to investigate the relationship between the area of escapism and reality as two different areas of film viewing, i.e. are escapist’s films (as apposed to realist films) more successful because they allow the audience to break free from reality?
In conclusion, I feel that authenticity is a vital part of filmmaking and when correctly attempted holds the most value with film critic’s world-wide. The casual cinema goer is something of a mystery however and their choices are determined by other factors. It is easy to assume that the average person who attends a multiplex is not too interested in authenticity, but films are rarely made today which are not without CGI or other areas of visual enhancement. If more films were made in the gritty realism style that has been achieved in the past, then perhaps these films would be more successful at the box office. There is one key element to a film, that as a fellow screenwriter, is admittedly one of the most important factors to any film; the story. People go to the cinema to get carried away in a story and are not always willing to be caught up in an accurate, realistic portrayal. My study shows however, that the two can be meshed together and result in what appears as completely believable, yet compelling, authentic cinema viewing.
Sunday 25 April 2010
Tuesday 13 April 2010
BRAVEHEART (1995), GIBSON
*All images and quotes taking directly from "BRAVEHEART, 2004, TWO-DISC SPECIAL EDITION DVD, All rights reserved to TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION", unless cited.
Released in 1995 and directed by Mel Gibson, the story of Braveheart takes place during the first War of Scottish Independence and follows the trials and tribulations of the historical figure of William Wallace. With my previous studies I have focused on the production and research techniques used in an attempt to make a film appear authentic. Braveheart, although still admired by many, falls down on many issues with regards to historical accuracy, many of which will be examined in this investigation.
[1]
The film was written by screenwriter and main characters namesake Randall Wallace. Anecdotally Wallace explains that during a holiday he conceived the idea of developing the story of William Wallace on the big screen. This would undoubtedly prove to be difficult with regards to historical accuracy as he explains “The actual facts of William Wallace’s life as established by historians are miniscule”. This leaves areas like character development and also story with relation to some sort of accurate timeline, a very hard task to make work. Mel Gibson himself admits that “there is a lot of legend that surrounds the character” and that the details are “kind of sketchy”. Another quote from Wallace suggests that a lot of artistic licence was taking with the history of this Scottish Knight. Wallace talks about the development of the character, “Those legends gave me a window into who the man truly was”. Unfortunately Wallace contradicts himself in this sentence by claiming that he used the “legend” to find out who Wallace “truly” was, the term legend, not meaning a fact but more of an unverified story. The issue of William Wallace’s ancestry is also brought into debate as Mel Gibson claims that Wallace was “a commoner”, however historical sources have pointed to the fact that Wallace was a descended from a noble named Richard Wallace [2]. The death of Wallace’s father is also inaccurately stated to a hanging at the hands of the English, historians suggest that Richard Wallace was killed in a skirmish Loudon Hill [3]. Even the name “Braveheart” is a name taken from a description of Robert the Bruce not William Wallace[4]. There are many more historical inaccuracies with relation to the story however I will now focus on the filming of Braveheart.
[5]
A production’s costume design is of significant importance when re-creating a historical setting. The level of accuracy and authenticity depends a great deal on the outfits used by the cast. Braveheart suffers because of the attire of its main character and his “countrymen”. The incorrect clothing that historians point to is the appearance of the kilt worn by the depicted Scottish commoners. Sharon L. Krossa states that “In the 13th century (and the 14th, 15th, and most of the 16th), no Scots, whether Gaels or not, wore belted plaids (let alone kilts of any kind)” [6]. Krossa goes on to explain that when the Scottish Gaels actually began to wear their belts outside their pants they didn’t do it in the “bizarre style depicted in the film” [7]. Braveheart’s DVD extras hold a revealing moment where Gibson talks about the different armoury and weaponry used in the film. The moment comes as Gibson holds up a sleeve that he intends to wear as he plays the character of William Wallace. The sleeve is designed to wear over the forearm for protection and has a few arrowheads super glued on. The problem with this is that the sleeve was designed and created by Mel Gibson himself and not somebody with some knowledge of weaponry from that period. It suggests that Gibson thinks of Wallace as somewhat of a superhero and is customising him in his own desired way.
Braveheart was filmed at Scotland and Ireland with most of the battle scenes filmed in Ireland. This would provide Braveheart with a strong realistic setting and in defence of the film for some sequences it certainly does. However the issue of historical inaccuracy re-appears again, this can be examined with the opening scenes of the film. The West Highlands of Scotland are originally shown, this an area which is not at the centre of Scotland and did not involve Wallace’s rise against Edward, nor was it the birth place of Wallace [8]. However, the setting for Braveheart would provide some realistic weather shots as the filming took place during some typical Scottish rain showers. The cast can be seen trenching through mud at one point giving a very realistic struggle that the weather would cause to the people at that time. Braveheart executive producer Stephen McEveety best describes the aesthetic appeal “It created a look that we would not have had if the weather hadn’t designed it for us”.
[9]
Despite its failings with authenticty and general historical accuracy Braveheart was a commercial success and would go on to win 5 Academy Awards out of a possible 10. Braveheart would eventually gross over $200 million, not quite making it into the top ten highest grossing films of 1995 but making it a critical hit nonetheless. However it is the films’ storyline and battle sequences which are the main attraction, despite the evident unrealistic events that surround them. Mel Gibson would own up to the inaccuracies in an interview with The Times (UK) in 2009 and shed some light onto the reasoning behind these deliberate mistakes. Talking about what Gibson thought the real Wallace was like he states “He wasn’t as nice as the character we saw up there on the screen. We romanticised him a bit. We shifted the balance because someone’s got to be the good guy against the bad guy; that’s the way stories are told.” [10] With this quote it becomes quite obvious that Mel Gibson values areas such as story structure over authenticity or accuracy. It should be noted however, that not one of Mel Gibson’s directorial films which are set as a period piece (Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ 2004, Apocalypto, 2006), have failed to reach the $100 million mark at box offices worldwide [11].
Released in 1995 and directed by Mel Gibson, the story of Braveheart takes place during the first War of Scottish Independence and follows the trials and tribulations of the historical figure of William Wallace. With my previous studies I have focused on the production and research techniques used in an attempt to make a film appear authentic. Braveheart, although still admired by many, falls down on many issues with regards to historical accuracy, many of which will be examined in this investigation.
[1]
The film was written by screenwriter and main characters namesake Randall Wallace. Anecdotally Wallace explains that during a holiday he conceived the idea of developing the story of William Wallace on the big screen. This would undoubtedly prove to be difficult with regards to historical accuracy as he explains “The actual facts of William Wallace’s life as established by historians are miniscule”. This leaves areas like character development and also story with relation to some sort of accurate timeline, a very hard task to make work. Mel Gibson himself admits that “there is a lot of legend that surrounds the character” and that the details are “kind of sketchy”. Another quote from Wallace suggests that a lot of artistic licence was taking with the history of this Scottish Knight. Wallace talks about the development of the character, “Those legends gave me a window into who the man truly was”. Unfortunately Wallace contradicts himself in this sentence by claiming that he used the “legend” to find out who Wallace “truly” was, the term legend, not meaning a fact but more of an unverified story. The issue of William Wallace’s ancestry is also brought into debate as Mel Gibson claims that Wallace was “a commoner”, however historical sources have pointed to the fact that Wallace was a descended from a noble named Richard Wallace [2]. The death of Wallace’s father is also inaccurately stated to a hanging at the hands of the English, historians suggest that Richard Wallace was killed in a skirmish Loudon Hill [3]. Even the name “Braveheart” is a name taken from a description of Robert the Bruce not William Wallace[4]. There are many more historical inaccuracies with relation to the story however I will now focus on the filming of Braveheart.
[5]
A production’s costume design is of significant importance when re-creating a historical setting. The level of accuracy and authenticity depends a great deal on the outfits used by the cast. Braveheart suffers because of the attire of its main character and his “countrymen”. The incorrect clothing that historians point to is the appearance of the kilt worn by the depicted Scottish commoners. Sharon L. Krossa states that “In the 13th century (and the 14th, 15th, and most of the 16th), no Scots, whether Gaels or not, wore belted plaids (let alone kilts of any kind)” [6]. Krossa goes on to explain that when the Scottish Gaels actually began to wear their belts outside their pants they didn’t do it in the “bizarre style depicted in the film” [7]. Braveheart’s DVD extras hold a revealing moment where Gibson talks about the different armoury and weaponry used in the film. The moment comes as Gibson holds up a sleeve that he intends to wear as he plays the character of William Wallace. The sleeve is designed to wear over the forearm for protection and has a few arrowheads super glued on. The problem with this is that the sleeve was designed and created by Mel Gibson himself and not somebody with some knowledge of weaponry from that period. It suggests that Gibson thinks of Wallace as somewhat of a superhero and is customising him in his own desired way.
Braveheart was filmed at Scotland and Ireland with most of the battle scenes filmed in Ireland. This would provide Braveheart with a strong realistic setting and in defence of the film for some sequences it certainly does. However the issue of historical inaccuracy re-appears again, this can be examined with the opening scenes of the film. The West Highlands of Scotland are originally shown, this an area which is not at the centre of Scotland and did not involve Wallace’s rise against Edward, nor was it the birth place of Wallace [8]. However, the setting for Braveheart would provide some realistic weather shots as the filming took place during some typical Scottish rain showers. The cast can be seen trenching through mud at one point giving a very realistic struggle that the weather would cause to the people at that time. Braveheart executive producer Stephen McEveety best describes the aesthetic appeal “It created a look that we would not have had if the weather hadn’t designed it for us”.
[9]
Despite its failings with authenticty and general historical accuracy Braveheart was a commercial success and would go on to win 5 Academy Awards out of a possible 10. Braveheart would eventually gross over $200 million, not quite making it into the top ten highest grossing films of 1995 but making it a critical hit nonetheless. However it is the films’ storyline and battle sequences which are the main attraction, despite the evident unrealistic events that surround them. Mel Gibson would own up to the inaccuracies in an interview with The Times (UK) in 2009 and shed some light onto the reasoning behind these deliberate mistakes. Talking about what Gibson thought the real Wallace was like he states “He wasn’t as nice as the character we saw up there on the screen. We romanticised him a bit. We shifted the balance because someone’s got to be the good guy against the bad guy; that’s the way stories are told.” [10] With this quote it becomes quite obvious that Mel Gibson values areas such as story structure over authenticity or accuracy. It should be noted however, that not one of Mel Gibson’s directorial films which are set as a period piece (Braveheart, The Passion of the Christ 2004, Apocalypto, 2006), have failed to reach the $100 million mark at box offices worldwide [11].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)