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?

 

[Jijenji]

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.

You make a good point about the post 9-11 stuff, but the others are all insignificant.
I don't think anyone watching a film in the next couple of years is going to care about the Space Shuttle Columbia, for instance,
unless the movie is specifically about the Space Shuttle Columbia.

But then even the post 9-11 thing, I don't think it's current enough.

Whether we like it or not, I think the American public is getting tired of Iraq/Afghanistan/terrorist stuff.
And any script written now ... in a couple years that sentiment will be even worse.
So I'm not trying to write something that is backward looking.
(you might disagree with me on this point, but that's what my POV is)

I think the economic problems of the country (and in the world in general) is something that is much more present and people care about more.

Even my backstory from the 1980s, I'm relating it to the present and future.

 

[Jijenji]

Just want to add, thanks for all of your feedback so far.
I don't wanna litter this thread with a reply to every single suggestion, but I'm mulling all of it over.

Hope I don't sound like a jerk when someone makes a suggestion and I say I don't think it would work, I really do appreciate all of the responses.

 

[NickClapper]

You make a good point about the post 9-11 stuff, but the others are all insignificant.

I'm gunna run with the invasion of Iraq being kind of significant...

But I agree with Alcove, the post 9-11 stuff is perfectly potent material. If you don't think it's a current enough issue then it'll never work for you, but I think it remains a more evocative and dramatic event than the global recession.

Sure, there are still only a couple of half decent movies about 11/9 or the Iraq War, but I don't think economic crisis movies are going to make a big splash either. The public care about having money and they get pissed off when they have less of it, but does it really translate well to screen? Certainly no better than the national trauma of 11/9...

 

[Jijenji]

I'm gunna run with the invasion of Iraq being kind of significant...

I was lumping that in with the post 9/11 stuff.

but I don't think economic crisis movies are going to make a big splash either. The public care about having money and they get pissed off when they have less of it, but does it really translate well to screen?

I'm only trying to create the proper setting for the story.
So it's not a movie "about the economic crisis".
It's just the setting.

 

[NickClapper]

I was lumping that in with the post 9/11 stuff. .

You and George Bush.

 

[Alcove Audio]

I think the point is that the film is not about immediate-post 9/11 or the current economic melt-down (which are closely linked) but is about how a series of "current" events affects three people. If you really get down to it most films are about people and everything else is a Hitchcock McGuffin.

 

[Buddy Greenfield]

I think the very predicament could be telling you more that something is fundamentally wrong (or you are holding too tightly to one aspect or the other) than it’s telling you you need a way to make things work.

It seems either the event or age in the 80’s isn’t right, the character attributes in the current and/or the current landscape itself isn't right, or the story is being driven by marketing or the need to fashion reality into something that serves fictional needs to the point of it’s own undoing.

If you let one element go do the other two work? If you hold on to all 3 do none work?

Is it possible you haven’t so much painted yourself into a corner as you have started in a corner from which you are unwilling to paint yourself out the door?

-Thanks-

 

[Gonzo_Entertainment]

I think the point is that the film is not about immediate-post 9/11 or the current economic melt-down (which are closely linked) but is about how a series of "current" events affects three people. If you really get down to it most films are about people and everything else is a Hitchcock McGuffin.

Yep, the events of the world are jusrt part of the stage they act upon.

 

[Dreadylocks]

I don't see any need to reveal exact times. So you could just not mention their age when you get up to 2013 or whatever.

OR, you can just write 2003 as if the economic situation were like it is now. It's your script. I think that's probably the easiest way.

 

[Dreadylocks]

You and George Bush.

Brilliant. He walked right into that (no offense, Jijenji).

 

[directorik]

Okay, then I have a suggestion for your questions:

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

When you get to the main story don’t mention the year. You get
around not mentioning the ages by simply not writing them down.
I know some people reading will say you must state their ages, but
this is just not the case. If you write the characters well the reader
won’t find it curious that you don’t mention ages.

How about something like:

EXT. MARY’S HOUSE - DAY

Mary sits on the porch just as she did as a
girl. Her short hair is now long - braces
gone.

A car screeches to a stop. Mary smiles as
Alice jumps out, waving.

ALICE
Hey you. Don’t you ever
return phone calls?

What you can do is give each girl a specific trait, or a line or a
gesture that you will use during the back story and repeat at the
beginning of your main story. That way the reader will make the
connection without you writing down her age in the description.

And since the year isn’t important (it just has to take place
during bad economic/social/political times) you can get that
across in the dialogue and story. Since the age of the women
MUST be 29/30 then you will need to do something in the
dialogue or story to get that across. A birthday card on a table
or a line will do that. “Turning 30 isn’t really that bad.” or “I’ll
be turning 29 this year”, “You’re four months older than me,
you’re going to be 30.”

Some people reading might do the math in their head and realize it
would have to be 2003. Is that what you’re worried about?

As you can see here on the boards, no one but you feel 2003
wouldn’t be reasonable as a bad economic/social/political time.

Of course if you really believe that this story CANNOT under any
circumstances take place in 2003 and if you feel anyone doing
the math in their head will dismiss your script as inauthentic
then, quite frankly, you’re screwed. Because when you set the
back story in 1983, tell the reader the girls are 9/10 and then
tell the reader they are 29/30 during the main story, someone
is going to figure out it takes place in 2003.

Could you just not mention their exact age in the main story? Or
is the mentioning the age so essential to pushing the social and
religious issues that if someone did the math in their head your
story wouldn’t work or you would lose your target audience?

You really have set up a difficult task. In order to meet your
specific requirements you are going to have to “fudge” your time
frame.

 

[Jijenji]

OR, you can just write 2003 as if the economic situation were like it is now. It's your script. I think that's probably the easiest way.

I have considered this option, too, and do see some merit to it.

Does anyone else like this idea, or think it's bunk?

I realize it's my script, but I do have to cater to the always critical audience.

 

[Dreadylocks]

I realize it's my script, but I do have to cater to the always critical audience.

Nah, you don't. If anyone notices it then it'll just give 'em a reason to keep talking or thinking about the film (as long as it doesn't screw up your plot, lol). Controversy can be a good thing. Maybe you can even throw in some kind of easter egg to let the perceptive members of the audience know that you are well aware of the discrepancy and can laugh about it.

 

[Jijenji]

Nah, you don't. If anyone notices it then it'll just give 'em a reason to keep talking or thinking about the film (as long as it doesn't screw up your plot, lol). Controversy can be a good thing. Maybe you can even throw in some kind of easter egg to let the perceptive members of the audience know that you are well aware of the discrepancy and can laugh about it.

It's not that as much as I just want the story to be as good as possible.
I'm not a stickler for exact detail as long as the story is told in a way that keeps to the spirit of the truth.

But there are limits to everything, and I don't want to cross those,
write a fantastic script and then hear people say "yeah but ..."

 

[SladeRogue]

Jisenji, in my opinion I would just forget worrying about timeline accuracy as it would problaby solve itself within the audiences mind. Directorik offered some pretty good tips as far as creating a guise in important visual scenes that will allow you to scrap the need to tell the time.
Example I can best offer is the film ,Gladiator which had some inaccuracies relating to the rule of its antagonist character, Commodus who was based on an actual past person. In the movie from beginning to the end it seemed like in the stories timeline was seemingly a few months or at most a year. When in history the Emperor Commodus ruled for over 85 years (and for a bit co-ruled with his father Aurelius until Aurelius's death in 180) from AD 177-192.
Though not many Americans would even remember or have even thought so, you would be surprised as to how people would forget the major events of last year unless its part of a stereo type like "you and Bush" lol. I say (which I'm in no expert at all in screenwriting) continue the story from 1982-1983 and if the second part the characters are to be in they're late twenties in 2003-2004. Then blow whatever major issue or minor issue that specifically affects and/or provides an intersting setting for your story that doesnt veer it off too drastically or obviously.
I hope what I put out helps you in solving further your obstacle and if it didnt then it didnt. Good luck man!

 

[Jijenji]

Thanks everyone for your replies, you've really been a big help, I'm grateful.

Well, here's what I want to do right now.
I'd like to hear if you think this works or not.

1. The backstory will take place in 1982-1983.

2. The present narrative will begin around 2003, and the ages will still be 29-30.

3. I'm going to paint the times as they are now.
My thoughts are that I'm putting a story that took place in the past, and relating it to the present.
This is not a period piece, it's meant to be as contemporary as possible,
but when writers write stories from the past -- that is their main goal. Relate it to the here and now.
So I think that's what I'm doing, but obviously worried that others might disagree.

4. Her father runs for governor but has a status like pre-1933 FDR or 1970's Reagan.
Someone who is a governor but has a national status.
He wins the campaign and by late in the story, the narrative is current and he plans on running for president.
(that result is left "to-be" and intentionally open-ended to keep it current)

Again, this is all the major sub-plot, just part of the film.
The main plot revolves around the daughter and her friend, it's not a political thriller or anything.
(although he is the major power in both of their lives)

But I think it's important for the backdrop to fit the story.

So what does everyone think?

 

[Buddy Greenfield]

Sounds reasonable.

-Thanks-

 

[wheatgrinder]

State politics are just that, very local.. Im sure that in some state in any year, the exact set of concerns and crisis can surely be found in the which your story works. You never have to really say which state so your covered.. State elections are not won on national and international issues... (less of course its 2010!)