The Conjuring was released on 19 July 2013 throughout the United States.
I haven’t seen it. The first trailer looked really good but it includes those five dreadful words: based on a true story.
There are two major issues with films based on a true story:
- If the story is really true, the film will distort it because real like doesn’t unfold with dramatic structure.
- The true story is probably not true anyway.
The first point applies to bio-pics and historical dramas and similar properties. Even when the films stick close to the facts, I find it harms the viewing experience because I can’t focus on the truth of the story because there are, in fact, two truths.
The second point bothers me more. It is horror films that usually suffer from this. My problem with this is that the plots can’t unfold as completely as a film that is just made up. (Disregard films like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which only pretends to be based on a true story.)
I had this experience recently. I was keen to see The Pope’s Exorcist. As many of you know, I love Catholic-themed horror. It’s just so old and creepy. I’m sure you could create a Jehovah’s Witnesses-themed horror film. But it would come off more like Nordic folk horror. Regardless, there would be too much lighting!
The film starts with a quote, “When we jeer at the Devil and tell ourselves that he does not exist, this is when he is happiest.” Father Gabriele Amorth, “Chief Exorcist of the Vatican, 1986 – 2016,” said this. That’s a more subtle way of saying, “Based on a true story.” The following 5 minutes of film were thrilling but after that it was fairly dull so I gave up after a half hour.
And so it is with The Conjuring. Looking at a later trailer, we see the narrative goes outside the home and introduces the real-life “investigators” Ed and Lorraine Warren. So we get less time in the haunted house, and those scenes look really good! But they have to do it this way to keep it “true,” even though it’s all nonsense.
I assume producers put “based on a true story” in their films because it attracts viewers. I’ve known a number of people who feel this way. But I don’t believe in ghosts so it hardly helps that a film is based on “some rubbish gullible people believe.”
Films that claim to be based on a true story are weaker than they should be because the “true story” element supposedly makes them more compelling. This is why found footage films imply they are real. But I forgive them because they aren’t claiming to be based on anything; they are claiming to be the thing.
Regardless, there are a lot of “based on a true story” films that I’ve liked. I just wish we could get beyond making the claim. It diminishes the films that use it.
So, should you watch The Conjuring? I’m planning to do so as soon as I find a free copy. But until then, I do enjoy this one trailer:
The Conjuring (2013) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.
There’s a few honest efforts out there — John Sayles, say. But he wasn’t doing true stories to give his movies awards-show appeal, he was doing them because he was mad about what happened. Generally Hollywood wants to do true stories to congratulate itself on how serious and brave they are. Or, you know, to sell tickets.
Most times, the phrase “based on/inspired by” “a true story/real events” fills my soul with dread. It’s gonna be more self-important boredom.
The weirdest was looking into Hidalgo — basically, EVERYTHING in that movie was utter horseshit. Which is fine for the horse race part — I don’t care if they make a movie about a heroic water polo player that isn’t true. But when you have your main character inspired by seeing the carnage at Wounded Knee, although the real person was never there? Oof. Just make up a character name and credit the original guy for telling his fibs that inspired your movie.
We did enjoy American Splendor recently — that one did the unusual thing of having the real guy commenting in the movie that “Paul Giamatti looks nothing like me.”
I like Hidalgo but I did exactly what you did: research to find out that none of it was true. The same was true for Braveheart. If I want history, I’ll read a history book — or at least watch a documentary. But I’ve noticed that most people really do like films that claim to be true. Of course, my issue here is about horror. I know that there are more things in Heaven and Earth than I know. But there is absolutely no evidence that I am able to perceive them. There may be ghosts all around me but I can’t see them. (Actually, since my father died, I’ve had a lot of aural hallucinations of my dad. They are actually comforting. I told him to haunt me if he could. But I know they aren’t real. He is in a better place: dead. Absolute peace. That is my idea of Heaven.)
A movie based on true events is at a disadvantage. It limits the story you can tell. But screenwriters generally decide not to stick to the “true events” anyway. So why mention it? Because it is branding!
If I saw ghosts it would terrify me. But some people say they have and I don’t necessarily disbelieve them. If it’s real to them, it’s real to them.
I remember working with an individual whose beloved parent had died, and they surprised me by asking me, “do the dreams ever stop?” I don’t think they do. But they can be happy dreams.
About a week after my dad died, I had a wonderful dream about him. It was like him saying goodbye. I cherish the memory.