BBC One broadcast Ghostwatch on 31 October 1992. And no one has ever aired it again.
Ghostwatch was a fake documentary. And even with opening credits, you know how that goes. No? Viewers freaked out!
They always freak out. And that’s why I’m writing about it now. You know, people are easily confused. And you have to wonder, should we make films like this?
I really don’t know the answer to this. I enjoy stuff like this. But maybe it isn’t worth it.
I saw The Blair Witch Project with a large group. And I hung around afterward to hear what they thought. Most people thought it was real. And they loved it!
Personally, I hate films that are “based on a true story.” I want an original story that works. These kinds of films generally only work when they betray the “original story.” So when I see “actual” footage of the paranormal, I don’t buy it. Nor does it tend to engage me more than a completely made-up story.
But I love the idea that I would be fooled! And I tend to think the people who called up the BBC in fear during Ghostwatch actually got something special that I am missing out on.
Stephen Volk was the writer of this. And he co-wrote one of my all-time favorite films, The Awakening. So he’s okay in my book, regardless.
But I can’t say you should watch Ghostwatch. Out of context, it won’t grab you. You are better off watching the documentary, Ghostwatch: Behind the Curtains. Unfortunately, it isn’t available online. I don’t know where I saw it since the DVD release I have of the film doesn’t include it. (It’s a terrible release! There is a good one, if you are interested.)
But you can enjoy the film if you focus. It’s pretty subtle, so pay attention!
Ghostwatch via Wikipedia under Fair Use.
I mean, there’s times when “true story” movies work — Spotlight, Erin Brockovich, the Alexander/Karaszewski ones. Stuff like that, where the filmmakers are relating a true story they find fascinating. It’s like if you were describing a good nonfiction book you read to a friend, and you highlighted the parts of the story you found amusing, touching, or infuriating.
But yeah, in general, filmmakers are usually using “based on a true story” to make their latest generic product seem “important” and “serious.” They’re not passionate about the subject; they want something that makes their hackwork seem like they’re curing cancer, as you put it. When I see “based on” or “inspired by” in the opening credits, part of my soul flees my body and says “you watch this s**t, I sure won’t, ’cause it’s gonna suck.” And 19 times out of 20, that’s gonna be the case.
And then there’s something like Vincent & Theo, which has a whole level of compassion and personal identification with the subject, it’s really special. But note: that movie never f***ing says “based on a true story” in the credits. Doesn’t bother; it gets right to the f***ing point. An auction where Van Gogh’s painting is being sold for obscene money, with harsh electronic music jabbing at us. It’s not subtle and it damn well doesn’t need to be. But there’s not many movies as intensely made and felt as that one.
I should watch that. There is a documentary called Vincent (I think) that is just images of his paintings and the area, with John Hurt reading from letters he sent to Theo. It is wonderful.
The issue for me is specifically about horror films. Here’s the thing: I’m a rationalist. I don’t believe any supernatural claims. It would take a lot to convince me. So telling me that it is based on a true story tells me only that someone lied and they made a film about it. If The Amityville Horror were true, it would tell the story of a dysfunctional family. There were no ghosts!
And if it is history or something, I’d rather just watch a documentary. That reminds me, have you and Peggy watched Murder on a Sunday Morning? Absolutely fantastic documentary. And it will make you feel good. You can easily find it online.
It’s a great, intelligent, caring film. Right up your alley when someday you have the time.
I put Sunday Morning on my list! Usually, when it’s history, we’re the same way — documentaries are better. Mrs. James absolutely refuses to watch fiction movies about real-life horrors (war, Ray Chon) but she’ll watch the documentary.
On “real” ghosts… when I went to see Scorsese’s “Silence” — great film — there were only two other people in the theater. When I came out, they were getting into their van. Labeled “Minnesota Ghost Hunters.” I looked up their website. They will come to your house and find evidence for ghosts.
What they were doing at an art film about culture clash and the question of faith in 16th century Japan? I dunno!
(Oops that’s “Roy Cohn” but autocorrect ate it.)
Everyone’s got to earn a living — even art film lovers!
I’ll find the film. Maybe Andrea and I can watch it together.
I would never watch “Silence” with Mrs. James — too violent, and she’s OK with “Taxi Driver.” But I think “Silence” would be too much.
She liked “Vincent & Theo,” though. (Even though, yup, there is an ear scene.) Because it is so compassionate. It really cares about the mental anguish Van Gogh was going through — and his brother, too.
I think, in the movie, Theo represents, for Altman, the old movie producers/studio heads. The ones who were maybe not the easiest for artists to work with, but had at least SOME appreciation of what they were doing. But they got forced out in the 80s by conglomerate clods. And it’s worse today!
It’s worse today because they’ve learned that art doesn’t need to be good. As long as they sell it right, everything is fine. But it’s only one of thousands of things that make me depressed.