Historical Accuracy

[Jijenji]

This might seem like a bit of an odd question, but how much can you get away with fudging historical accuracy?
Specifically regarding, time.

For instance, there are some famous films where the chronology is a little bit off if you inspect closely.
The characters couldn't have been that age at that time, etc.

The main characters:
1. female lead
2. her female friend
3. lead's father

The backstory revolves around a specific setting/time/events in the 1980s.
The lead and her friend were about 10 years old then,
and this backstory is unchangeable. It is at the heart of the story.

Since I wanted the two women to be about 29-30 years old,
I originally had the story begin in 2003 to make the ages match up.

But, after realizing the story was not working and looking for an angle,
I've decided that the proper setting for the current narrative would be in the next few years.
I.e. the setting would be nearly a decade later.

So that's the dilemma I face.
If I move the story 10 years later, the women become 10 years older and the story doesn't really work.
If I make the ages work, the setting is not right.

So I'm thinking about being ambiguous about the exact times, fudging it all a bit,
in order to write the best story possible.

What do you guys think about this?

 

[NickClapper]

If you are planning on being ambiguous about the specific time then historical accuracy probably won't be that big a problem.

But if you want to get the specific 1980's feel into the story when the characters are eight years old, then it's going to be hard to pass the characters off as being in their late twenties in 2013...

Is there a narrative reason for pushing it into the future? I can't quite understand why you can't either: set the movie in 2003 or have the characters being in their mid to late thirties?

 

[TruEsTaR]

I just spent an hour fixing a couple of scenes so they are accurate with pearl harbor.
I'd say it's not a necessity with a draft. But if it's your third of fourth re-write I would definitely consider it.

But look at how many flaws Armageddon's accuracy had, and how much it made....

 

[PaulGriffith]

I think very few movies, outside of documentaries, are actually anywhere close to historically accurate.

Come to think of it, most documentaries aren't exactly either

Go for it, make the story be what it needs to be, and don't claim accuracy. It can still be "Based on True Events", but just based on, not exactly.

 

[directorik]

Are you asking if people will notice if you set your back story in
(for example) 1983 when the girls are 9/10 and then your main
story in 2010 and the women are 29/30? Or you want to set your
main story a decade later then 2003? So 2013?

I’m a little confused.

Your back story is unchangeable and it needs to take place in the
1980’s (say 1983) and you want to women to be no more than 30.
That means you MUST set your story in the 2000’s (2003). If you
set up the back story as 1983 and then mention in your script that
the women are 29/30 then you don’t really have a choice about when
the main story takes place.

I think that the story is more important than the time in some
cases. But since your back story is unchangeable then you don’t
have that option.

 

[Jijenji]

If you are planning on being ambiguous about the specific time then historical accuracy probably won't be that big a problem.

But if you want to get the specific 1980's feel into the story when the characters are eight years old, then it's going to be hard to pass the characters off as being in their late twenties in 2013...

Is there a narrative reason for pushing it into the future? I can't quite understand why you can't either: set the movie in 2003 or have the characters being in their mid to late thirties?

The main plot revolves around the friendship of the two women and bringing to light the events in the backstory.
The major sub-plot revolves around the relationship between the daughter and father.
Her father is a powerful national figure who runs for political office.

As I mentioned, I started the story in 2003 and the whole campaign thing wasn't working for me.
I figured out why.
I need the setting to take place in difficult economic/social times, which is not 2003.
Such a setting would make the sub-plot important, and more effective IMO.

But these realizations introduced my dilemma.

Keep the story starting in 2003 and my setting is not effective and the story suffers.
or
Move the story ahead 9 years or so and make my characters older, but that messes up my characters.

I really want the two women to be 29-30 and not 39-40 because:
1. many of my themes progressively push the limits on social and religious issues,
so I think younger is better in this case
2. the target audience would be bigger
3. given the character design of the friend, i think it's very important that she is younger

So this is why I am frustrated.
Sometimes a dilemma is the choice between the lesser of two evils,
and either choosing to start in 2003 would hurt the story,
or choosing to make the characters older would hurt the story.

That's why I want to fudge it but as some of you have pointed out, it could cause credibility issues.
Which is why I am thankful for everyone's opinions as to how much leniency the writer can have.

 

[Alcove Audio]

Okay, I'll pose a few questions...

Why is younger better?

Why do the women have to be the same age? Can't one 10 years older/younger? (Little kid & babysitter?)

What brings about the political/religious awakening/dilemma?

Why is the "difficult economic/social times" so important? Can't it be a personal crisis? (BTW, there was plenty of socioeconomic crisis in 2003.)

Is the father a real person? If no, why does he have to run in the early 80's? Are there any similar plot points available in the early 90's?



It just seems to me that you've written yourself into a box and are trying to force square pegs into round holes.

 

[Jijenji]

Okay, I'll pose a few questions...

Why is younger better?

I listed these above:

1. The design of one of the characters requires her to be younger.
(can't change character design without changing the story)

2. There are many progessive social and religious themes in the story,
so if you have a film with 40 year old women you will get one audience,
and a film with 29-30 year old women will draw in another audience,
and because of the themes in the story one audience will be more receptive than the other ...
(my opinion)

Why do the women have to be the same age? Can't one 10 years older/younger? (Little kid & babysitter?)

The backstory is very important to the story, it is the narrative at times.
It revolves around when these two first met and became childhood friends,
and the setting and events at that time.

What brings about the political/religious awakening/dilemma?

Why is the "difficult economic/social times" so important? Can't it be a personal crisis? (BTW, there was plenty of socioeconomic crisis in 2003.)

I thought the campaign sub-plot was boring, so I looked for an "angle" to make it better.
I realized that, in the real world, people run for office for any number of un-important reasons.
This is not a political thriller, so political campaign storylines are not going to make my story work.
I needed a reason for the audience to care about the campaign (and therefore for my protagonist to care)
and it dawned on me to focus on the setting.

Imagine a nation falling into dark political social and economic times.
Set the campaign against that backdrop, and suddenly it becomes very relevant.
When could a campaign be more important than when a country is on the verge of collapsing against itself?

Is the father a real person? If no, why does he have to run in the early 80's? Are there any similar plot points available in the early 90's?

The campaign is in the 2000's, the backstory (no campaign) is in the 80's.
And one logical idea is to move the backstory up 10 years instead, but that is not an option
because the story I want to write, the absolute heart of the story,
involves a specific setting and events in the 80's.

As for the father, no he's not a real person. But I have taken the liberty of drawing parallels to real people.

Also, I like the idea of the campaign being "to-be", that way it could be relevant to today's audience.
Not a history of what was, but something like "this could happen today".

It just seems to me that you've written yourself into a box and are trying to force square pegs into round holes.

Yeah I realize that I am in a difficult situation.
That's why I'm posting and hoping to get help from everyone.

 

[Buddy Greenfield]

Can you shift things 5 years? (10 in 1985), or are you tied to a specific event in the 80s?

If tied to a specific, can you then caricaturize that event within an overtly caricaturized version of the
1980's as a whole, to make it fictionally malleable?

EDIT: Didn't see your last post.

-Thanks-

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

If it was me... and it's not.

I'd throw all "historical accuracy" out the window, set it "out of time", and make the socio-political conditions at each stage of the story however you want them to be with no consideration whatsoever of what was going on the "real" world. An alternate universe of your own creation.

Unless you are trying to deliver some "political message" that has to be tied to real events this will work. If you are making a "political movie", well, never mind, good luck.

 

[Jijenji]

Can you shift things 5 years? (10 in 1985), or are you tied to a specific event in the 80s?

If tied to a specific, can you then caricaturize that event within an overtly caricaturized version of the
1980's as a whole, to make it fictionally malleable?

EDIT: Didn't see your last post.

-Thanks-

The time-frame is 1982-1983, I'm not reenacting a true story,
but it's based on events.

I think of it this way, if I want to have a WWII story, it doesn't have to be based on any exact historical battle.
It can be fiction, and it can occur anytime between 1939-1945, but you can't have it happen in 1950 for instance.

So that's why the backstory has to happen in the early to mid '80s.

 

[directorik]

How about you keep the heart of your back story in 1983 and then
just don’t mention the year or the age of the women in your main
story?

That way you can cast who you cast, it doesn’t change the target
audience, the themes of the main story can still push the limits
you want to push and the nation can still be falling into dark
political social and economic times where you can set the
campaign.

Is it essential to you main story that you mention the age of
these women or can you just cast the age you want without
mentioning it?

 

[Zensteve]

What do you guys think about this?

Knowing nothing about your characters, I would suggest that you also don't know your characters.

History of the 80's isn't neatly wrapped up in a small box with a bow, with an attached notecard that summarises the time period in a single paragraph. There was a lot more happening than just Reagan, the Evil Empire & the space shuttle. Life in Manhattan was very different from life in Los Angeles, and both were very different from the Pennsylvanian blue collar workers in towns that were dying as the steel mills started shutting down... and this is just a few places in the USA alone!

Are your characters supposed to be two-dimensional caricatures from a particular era? If not, then you can make them as real as you want to be.

many progessive social and religious themes in the story,
so if you have a film with 40 year old women you will get one audience,
and a film with 29-30 year old women will draw in another audience,
and because of the themes in the story one audience will be more receptive than the other

Go watch The Hours to see how many angsty, emo women from different ages & backgrounds can be squeezed into a single film.

 

[Jijenji]

How about you keep the heart of your back story in 1983 and then
just don’t mention the year or the age of the women in your main
story?

That way you can cast who you cast, it doesn’t change the target
audience, the themes of the main story can still push the limits
you want to push and the nation can still be falling into dark
political social and economic times where you can set the
campaign.

Is it essential to you main story that you mention the age of
these women or can you just cast the age you want without
mentioning it?

^^^This.

My only concern is how to get around ambiguity in the character intros and scene descriptions.
On film, the audience only sees what it sees.
Put a name actress in their who is relatively younger and I don't think it matters.

But, in the script how would you get around not mentioning the ages?
Wouldn't the reader find this curious?

 

[directorik]

My only concern is how to get around ambiguity in the character intros and scene descriptions.
But, in the script how would you get around not mentioning the ages?
Wouldn't the reader find this curious?

I think I can offer a suggestion but I need to get this striaght:

The back story MUST be 1983. No other year will do. Any other year
will take away the heart of the story. Am I right?

The women in the main story MUST be 29/30. And the main story
CANNOT take place in 2003. Am I on the right track?

 

[Jijenji]

I think I can offer a suggestion but I need to get this striaght:

The back story MUST be 1983. No other year will do. Any other year
will take away the heart of the story. Am I right?

The women in the main story MUST be 29/30. And the main story
CANNOT take place in 2003. Am I on the right track?

In order to write the best / most effective story, then yes that is correct.

 

[NickClapper]

Rather than screwing around with the historical accuracy with regards to the believability of character ages, I would recommend screwing around with the social commentary.

There's no reason why in your film 2003 can't represent difficult social and economic times and, to be honest, I think that will be a less confusing thing to mess with than the ages of characters of by using ambiguous timeframes (most research points to the fact that audiences find the lack of a definite time period to be distracting).

Just my two pence.

 

[directorik]

In order to write the best / most effective story, then yes that is correct.

Sorry, another question:

Is there a specific year the main story MUST take
place in, or can it be any year other than 2003?

So the main story year can be not known at all as
long as it's very clear that it is NOT 2003? Or can
the year be completely ambiguous? In other words
MUST the main story take place in a specific year in
order to be the best/most effective?

 

[Jijenji]

Sorry, another question:

Is there a specific year the main story MUST take
place in, or can it be any year other than 2003?

So the main story year can be not known at all as
long as it's very clear that it is NOT 2003? Or can
the year be completely ambiguous? In other words
MUST the main story take place in a specific year in
order to be the best/most effective?

I don't think it must take place in any specific year.
I want it to feel like it could be current without stating the exact date.

I'm just attracted to the idea of it taking place during bad economic/social/political times.
That would implicitly make it more current (now or last couple of years) or in the immediate future (if you think the economy will get worse in the next couple of years, for instance).

 

[Alcove Audio]

I don't think it must take place in any specific year.
I'm just attracted to the idea of it taking place during bad economic/social/political times.

15 months after the 9/11 attacks are not bad times?

2003

The new United States Department of Homeland Security begins operation.

The Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrates during reentry over Texas, killing all 7 astronauts

War in Darfur begins

The WHO issues a global alert on SARS

Iraq War begins with the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and allied forces

A widespread power outage affects the northeastern United States and South-Central Canada

There are also major earthquakes, hurricanes, power outages in Europe, assassinations & terrorist attacks throughout Europe, the Middle East and Russia, protests against the Iraq war...

I found all this in about 10 minutes. Oh, and just for fun, Barack Obama is sworn in for his first - and only - term as a U.S. senator.