Moral Premise Storycraft Podcast Ep. 2: Can Historical Fiction Be True?

Click Image to Access Audio Podcast on YouTube

Sound of Freedom vs. Indiana Jones: The Dial of Destiny

This blog post is a cry for reason in the pursuit of excellence and a plea to destroy the love of mediocrity. The Sound of Freedom movie, starring Jim Caviezel, is a good movie, and I'm glad to see the good it is doing to raise the salience of sex trafficking evil in the world. 

However, in terms of its story execution and its promotion I believe it could be better. For writing that, I've run amuck of "ideologically" driven Christians. For pointing out things that should've, could've been better I've been called a pedophile, and a MAP. I've been told to STFU, that I'm wrong, and that I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill. (BTW: mole hills can break your ankle if you step in one just right; underneath the small pile of dirt is an unseen hole.) The worse argument I've encounter, however, is this: "If it's doing some good, why criticize it?" 

Why indeed!?  Because the end never justifies the means. Because the movie could have done a lot more good. Why settle for affecting six-million minds when you could reach twelve-million? Is that the bane of the human condition? Settle for just good enough...let sleeping dogs lie...don't cause trouble...you can't do anything about it...just shake it off...critical thinking is too hard...go with your gut.

A. SANITIZED STORY

Last week, Pam and I screened SOUND OF FREEDOM (SOF) at the local multiplex. My lovely and sensitive wife loved it and wept. I though it was boring...very little action, some scenes were a stretch to believe. The initial luring of children, however, almost had me walking out of the theater. I was easily angered at the gall of the traffickers and the stupidity of the father. But horror of all horrors (in terms of filmmaking) the Act 3 climax (the final and necessary hand-to-hand fight between the hero and the villain) was sanitized by several SILENT and BLACK screens for seconds each...no doubt so as not to offend the easily offended Christian audience. I'm a Christian and I found the sanitized black offensive. Why? Because they hid the real sacrifice that Tim Ballard was making to save the girl, and it hid the real sacrifice called on all of us to stop the evil. It was too quick, too neat, too tidy, too bloodless, too neatly packaged to reveal the reality of the situation. Shame on the filmmakers. (cf: complaints about the violence in The Passion of the Christ)

B. EMOTIONAL IDENTIFICATION

SOF tells a true story (documented with actual footage at the end), but it isn't TAKEN (2008 - Pierre Morel, Director, starring Liam Neeson). Both films are rated PG-13. TAKEN went on to earn $226M worldwide over 20 weeks plus several sequels which together earned $928M plus two TV series. Let's see if SOF does that well. The big difference aside from the verisimilitude of the TAKEN story is that SOF is missing the key emotional connection of fatherhood. Bryan Mills (Neeson) is trying to rescue his daughter (whom he had been trying to reconnect with due to a divorce) from the sex traffickers. The SOF filmmakers try to make that connection but fail because Tim Ballard is trying to save children unrelated to him. Yes, it's "based" on a true story. But there is a serious lack in emotional connection with the audience; the audience will NOT emotionally identify with Ballard as they did with Mills.  

C. ALEJANDRO GÓMEZ MONTEVERDE

Part of the reason for an imperfect understanding of story structure is that SOF comes from Writer-Director Alejandro Gómez Monteverde  whose earlier two films, BELLA and LITTLE BOY (links are to my Moral Premise analysis) tried to appeal to Christian audiences, but bombed at the box office with poor story structure. Otherwise Alejandro is an excellent filmmaker. 

D. BOX OFFICE COMPARISONS

I also found the filmmakers (and Angel Studios) of Sound of Freedom dishonest in their ballyhooing of how they supposedly beat out Indian Jones: The Dial of Destiny (IJ:TDOD) and every other film on July 4.  On the Angel Studio website (the day I wrote this) they claim that SOF was Number 1 at the box office on July 4. While technically true for the domestic box office, it is misleading considering the overall performance worldwide of other films, like the Indy film. When the box office receipts are compared fairly, IJ:TDOD whipped SOF. Here are a few details.

Different Films Not Comparable

The factors are many: The release frames (day and date schedule) were not the same, the genres are not the same, the screen count is not the same, the star ratings are not the same, the balance between drama and humor are not the same, and the release countries were not the same. 

For starters: SOF opened domestically (2,634 screens) on Wednesday, July 4, 2023 with $14M in pre-sales to their core Christian audience. IJ: TDOD opened internationally (with 4,600 domestic screens) five days earlier on Friday, June 30, 2023 with $124M worldwide.  (the number of international screens is not tracked.)  

Domestic Comparisons:
IJ: TDOD first seven days = $94.7M.  SOF first seven days (domestic only) = $45.7.
IJ:TDOD per screen/per day average  = $2,941.   SOF per screen/per day average = $2,479.

International Comparisons: (2X domestic extrapolation)
IJ: TDOD first seven days = $189M.  SOF first seven days (domestic only) = $45.7.
IJ:TDOD per screen/per day average  = $5,880.   SOF per screen/per day average = $2,479.

July 4 (Opening Day Comparisons
Opening day for SOF, was Day 5 for IJ:TDOD
IJ:TDOD did $11M domestically with $22M projected Worldwide.
SOF: $14.2M domestically with no International.

As of Sunday, July 9 (totals)
IJ:TDOD WW: $249M
SOF WW (actually only domestic) $41M. 

Based on these reported numbers the SOM promoters have misrepresented the truth. In a very narrow way one can say that SOF beat IJ:TDOD.  But by passing on and repeating this narrow window of comparison, the general impression is that SOF is the better movie by far. 

But that is far from the truth. The SOF filmmakers should stop comparing the the two. When compared at face value the comparison puts SOF at a disadvantage. It's really not possible to compare them fairly because they are so different in many ways.  As Jordan Peterson would say, "Tell the Truth, at least don't lie." 

(All numbers from https://boxofficemojo.com the industry reporting standard, which are also reported on pro.IMDB.com)

E. DISNEY'S INVOLVEMENT

My take (without inside information) is that the SOF filmmakers also misrepresented Disney's involvement in the film's distribution, and some minor matters of fact which lessen the SOF promoters credibility. According to IMDB Pro, SOF was completed on Nov. 28, 2019, not 2013 as some have claimed. It's also been claimed that Disney shelved SOF because they are supporters of sex trafficking. I think this is a hubris conspiracy theory started by conservatives, if not Christians.  In 2018, 20th Century Fox picked up SOF for distribution, but when Disney purchased 20th Century Fox in 2019, SOF was put aside. Per Fox Business a Disney spokesperson told Newsweek that Disney had no knowledge of the film given the nature of the international acquisition pre-merger agreement. The SOF filmmakers reclaimed the film from Disney's shelf, and shopped the film around for three years before making a crowd finding deal with Angel Studios for distribution.  It is hard to know what or how the actual decisions were made at Disney about SOF. Disney has proved to be morally corrupt in a number of its decisions, both filmmaking and entertainment parks. I can say that IJ:TDOD is far from woke, and an excellent family film with clear emphasis on family and the fight between good and evil. 

F. SOCIAL DIALOGUE

Finally, a comment if Instagram thread participants on this topic come here to read this. I participate in an occasional social media thread, but it is very unsatisfying. I'm convinced that most commenters do not read the entire thread of a conversation but react subjectively and ideologically, making wild, irrational and irresponsible remarks to score a point or a like, like those I mentioned at the start of this post. Social media threads have contributed largely to the dissolution of culture and rational dialogue. It would be different if the social media engines would somehow thread together a conversation so it could be logically followed—a difficult task when multiple people are making comments simultaneously. I got wrapped up in an Instagram thread because of the issues I raise above.  The real corruption is society is the lack of intelligence.

Stan meets Stan Freberg

Some years ago in L.A. at CBS Studios where the the BIOLA Media Conference was held for which I was a segment producer and speaker, I was privilege enough to share in the introduction of my one and only Hollywood idol, STAN FREBERG. Stan passed away not long after I met him, but I have several cherished images to remember the day. I also had the presence of mind to bring the LP album jacket, pictured below, and have him sign it...and I brought the cardboard tube...can't believe I have a picture of this.  If you're not sure what this is all about, I can only suggest you get the recordings, including Freberg's "Pay Radio" albums ("You have to go into a record story and buy it." ...which I did.)  I wore out three of the United States of America LP discs listening to his creativity during my college years. Today you can buy the CD version (Vol 1 and 2).  Best humor and sound productions ever created. I should have these images framed and on my wall, which I guess this blog is sort of the same thing. 

The Dilemma of Telling the Truth in Fiction

Writing true stories is a hard and dicey affair. 

Recently, I experienced a paradoxical rejection of my historical novel (The Wizard Clip Haunting) principally because it features an important aspect of all story telling—paradox. In this case a paradoxical Catholic priest. The renegade (or vice) aspects of this priest's nature are historically documented. At the same time, the heroic (or virtue) aspects of this priest's nature are also historically true. Yet, because the priest plays a central role in the plot of the story, and because he fulfills the critical narrative nature of being human (that is, imperfection, which allows readers to connect with someone like themselves), a few Catholic readers are hesitant to endorse the novel. 

This is nothing new for any writer, especially any historical fiction or non-fiction writer. The problem occurs when the subject of your story touches on the beliefs or ideologies of a social subgroup that clings to those beliefs. It doesn't matter if the subgroup is a religious faith (e.g. Catholicism), a political party, professional organization, or a cadre of social activists. You're sure to upset someone, somehow, sometime...even if you're trying hard to tell the truth.

Although there is something called "objective" truth, to every social subgroup "truth" is relative and "subjective" to a particular worldview. This is what makes telling the truth difficult. 

If you have a character that is morally flawed -- and all characters need to be flawed for the story to connect with audiences -- there will be a subgroup in that audience who will cling to an "ideal" of how a particular character should act. And when your human character, who is part of a subgroup thinks, speaks, or acts in contradiction to the subgroup's ideal, although the character is being true to his human nature, members of the associated subgroup will be offended by what you've written. 

Have you told the truth? To the subgroup you may not have told the truth...about the reader's IDEAL. But you have told the truth about the character's fallible, human character.  The criticism comes because you have not sanitized the subgroup's hero and portrayed he or she as perfect—the central problem of most Christian, so-called "faith films."  My conclusion is that if you were to sanitize the hero and make him or her perfect, you would be lying—a lie historically and a lie about the human condition. 

Thus, writing true stories is a hard and dicey affair.  The best stories that resonate with truth of the human condition do not land solidly in the ideal worldview of good and evil, like the red or black realms of the above Yin-Yang illustration. Rather, the best stories that tell the truth reside on the curved line between the two realms. This thin and chaotic border is where all of humanity exists. The Yin-Yang also illustrates the necessity of mystery and the human soul's quest for perfection—the red and block dots.

------------------

Going a bit further. In an early blog post, "Can Historical Fiction Be True?", I described six aspects of telling the truth in fiction.  The second aspect describes how multiple stories of the same event can conflict, simply by the storyteller's different perspective. This touches on the logical fallacy known as AND/OR. where one person may claim that a fact is either A or B, when the truth may actually be A and B.  

While "objective" truth may exist as a heavenly ideal, human "subjective" truth becomes a paradox—an apparent logical contradiction—that through reason can be explained as plausible. As writers of fiction or non-fiction, we all know that successful stories are based on what appears to be a contradiction or great irony. For example,  a man falls in love with a mermaid—something that is logically impossible—but through the skill of storytelling the writer explains how the impossible can be possible, e.g. the hit movie SPASH.  (1984, Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, Tom  Hanks, Daryl Hannah, John Candy & Eugene Levy. Of course, the all-star cast in front and behind the camera help). SPLASH necessarily lies on the Yin-Yang border or the A&B region. 

Thus, all good writing begins with an ironic premise, because the human condition is inherently ironic. At every moment of every day we all want something...but can't have it—the 2 dots in the Yin-Yang.  Hope turns to despair, our exhausting effort is always in need of a rewrite, love is lost, and "snakes on a plane." All good stories are about the human condition, which by definition is ironic. The good guy is sometimes fallible, and the villain sometimes noble. 

Back to those social subgroups that cling to beliefs or ideologies—where "belief" is a logically defensible, and "ideology" is a logically indefensible. Depending on the topic, the subgroup, and the perspective, what is a belief to one is an ideology to another. Yes, irony is ubiquitous. 

Truth hurts. It's the human condition to avoid being hurt, to attack those that do the hurting, or at least ghost such miscreants.  But while we are driven toward the ideal, it's the paradox that gives life intrigue.

Woody Allen, Theologian

Yesterday, a friend and script client suggested I watch Woody Allen's Magic in the Moonlight with Colin Firth and Emma Stone. I feel like a sinner in need of Confession...I have NOT screened the more recent Woody Allen films...but then 2014 isn't exactly yesterday.

Pam and I thoroughly enjoyed Magic... Allen's witty dialogue never ceases to impress, well, at least since Annie Hall. I once saw Annie Hall in one of those re-run $1 theaters in Dearborn, Michigan, before the Projectionists Union torched the building, The projectionist mixed up the reels something horrible...and the movie still made sense, and it was funnier. Such were the times. 

The topic of Woody Allen prompted my offering up a paper I wrote for graduate school on Woody Allen as Theologian in American Culture. This was some 20 years after Ben Patterson—the editor of the satirical Christian Youth Specialities magazine The Wittenburg Door (and that IS spelled correctly for you Lutheran aficionados out here)—put Woody on the cover of his magazine and awarded him "Theologian of the Year." It seems that more than any other "regular" theologian in 1974 American culture, Allen got people thinking about God, Sex, and Death.  

Turns out Ben Patterson, today, is a good friend of my friend. Hi Charlie! Hi Ben! Enjoy California's sun, it's still snowing here in Michigan (April 26). 

To the rest of my readers, if you're interested, here's a link to the short paper. On page 7 you'll find an interesting bar chart depicting the sum of positive and negative depictions of religion in Wood Allen Films 1969–1993.