I've lost all respect for this film
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Midnight Express
ewaf58 — 11 years ago(July 22, 2014 01:45 AM)
I can see a previous post about the film being mostly fabricated. Having now seen the documentary of what actually happened I now know the film is mainly fiction.
If it had stuck to the truth it could have been a good film but there's so many 'untruths' in it that I feel it's become unwatchable.
Parker himself has apologised for its depiction of Turkish people - so he should now change the opening credits to reveal that it is a work of fiction based loosely around a true event. -
ewaf58 — 11 years ago(July 22, 2014 09:48 AM)
The events portrayed in the documentary itself were compelling enough so why created a fictional story around them?
'Schindler's List' was also economical with the facts regarding certain events at times as was 'Munich'. I feel less about these films now than I did.
I do so wish that films based on actual important historic events were truthful so that people can make their own decisions without being manipulated by added sentiment / drama etc.
God help us if Hollywood gets hold of the tragedy regarding the shooting down of the Malaysian Airlines jet.
No doubt it would feature a shootout between the UN observers and the Separatists in the race to recover the black boxes while two UN helicopters have to stop the train carrying evidence from the crash site before it reaches the evil Presidium in Moscow. -
ewaf58 — 11 years ago(July 22, 2014 01:02 PM)
Spielberg's film was far more accurate than Parker's but his portrayal of Schindler was a little unbalanced and again events were created for dramatic effect.
However there is no denying that Schindler was a hero and saved many lives. He did become less concerned with money and more concerned about the actual welfare
of his workers.
Here's a link which details some areas where Spielberg used dramatic license.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2014/03/19/oskar-schindler-the-untold-story-3/
Regarding the Nazi's behaviour - you'll always get apologists - I need to read up on the psychology on what makes people do this and deny that terrible events ever happened.
Oliver Stone has always taken liberties with his films to portray people / events in the way he likes to see them. -
fairy_depp — 11 years ago(October 17, 2014 03:20 PM)
Having watched this film for the first time today and going in knowing it's pretty much fictional, I found it hard to see why people would class it as a classic (I found it in the classics section on our sky box). I found it hard to root for Billy because he was a little arrogant to say the least and whilst the prison was obviously an awful place to be, he did try to smuggle drugs out of the country and I doubt America would just turn a blind eye if Turkish people were caught doing the same. I think the whole film tries to make a point about the awful Turks and the heroic Americans but that isn't real life.. In real life I'm sure there were some pretty decent Turks involved in the story and Billy was obviously no hero.
-
spookyrat1 — 9 years ago(July 17, 2016 04:08 AM)
Spielberg's film was far more accurate than Parker's but his portrayal of Schindler was a little unbalanced and again events were created for dramatic effect.
Wow!
Oliver Stone has always taken liberties with his films to portray people / events in the way he likes to see them.
That's just shocking!
Climb down of that pulpit and stop foolishly grandstanding with this "hateful rubbish" business. If you want to see a documentary, go and do that, but even then you may be just shown one perspective of a given subject, the one the film-maker wants you to see. Take Michael Moore for instance.
Hollywood producers pay well for the rights to literary material that may be non-fictional. Yes, that's right, Billy Hayes was well paid for selling the film rights to his book. They then create entertainments from that material that may or may not be based, or inspired by that material. It is extremely rare that they just claim a film is true, as virtually all these sort of films are enhanced for dramatic effect as you, yourself note.
I suggest breast-beaters and teeth-gnashes such as yourself boycott future productions, unless they carry the label of documentary and stop burdening intelligent people with this sort of empty - headed clap trap and start being more realistic. Films can't be classified 30% or 90% true. Please try and grow up. -
ewaf58 — 9 years ago(July 17, 2016 05:32 AM)
I am not a hater - I'm just was just trying too give an honest view. Stone's screenplay gave a totally dishonest portrayal of Turkish people.
Films that are based on true events should try and tell the truth otherwise people may assume that the events as shown in the film are what really happened leading to distorted views of the past. -
spookyrat1 — 9 years ago(July 17, 2016 08:25 AM)
Films that are based on true events should try and tell the truth otherwise people may assume that the events as shown in the film are what really happened leading to distorted views of the past.
If this occurred all the time the world wouldn't have a genre called historical fiction in either literature or cinema. We'd just be watching endless documentaries and there'd be more history channels. Seriously, most half way educated people don't always believe that what they see up on the screen is necessarily true. I really hope you're one of those educated people. At the moment, you're not really convincing me you are. -
ewaf58 — 9 years ago(July 17, 2016 10:17 AM)
Well I'm sticking to my guns in terms of 'Midnight Express' as it was such a distortion of the facts. It turned many people against Turkish people as it presented them as sadistic bullies.
Any film that manipulates the audience to this degree in the name of making money is without any merit.
A lot of films about the past are changed for dramatic purposes to suit the intended audience but this film went too far. -
spookyrat1 — 9 years ago(July 17, 2016 04:05 PM)
It turned many people against Turkish people
as it presented them as sadistic bullies.
Where's your evidence for making a generalist statement such as that? The film has been fairly criticized for it's portrayal of the Turkish prison guards and a few legal representatives as been too one-sided. But think about it a little more. In most prison movies (some or at times all of) the guards are presented in a negative light, so we feel more sympathy for the inmates. Does that mean we all hate prison guards because of these negative portrayals?
A lot of films about the past are changed for dramatic purposes to suit the intended audience
Virtually all mainstream entertainments are. Face the facts. If they didn't do this, they likely wouldn't be classified as entertainment.
I'm sure that Midnight Express is vastly more commercially popular than any "documentary" on Billy Hayes. I'm also sure it didn't "turn the world against the Turkish people". May be, what it may have done, is make some people think twice about smuggling drugs. I'd hope you wouldn't condemn the film for that too. -
SealedCargo — 6 years ago(April 18, 2019 06:35 AM)
instead of going in tangents let us know what the documentary said
The Fearmakers Blog
https://thefearmakers.blogspot.com/ -
ewaf58 — 10 years ago(May 22, 2015 03:15 PM)
It's a technically good film but should have been presented as a work of complete fiction. However even if marketed as complete fiction it would still of been harmful and dishonest towards Turkish people.
Its only get out of jail card - so to speak - would have been to have it set in some fictional state.
It's well acted - well directed but hateful rubbish. -
siukong — 10 years ago(June 18, 2015 12:29 PM)
It's interesting. Most people believe that knowing a movie is "based on a true story" will make it resonate more. This must be why these movies always tout that claim. Studies have shown, though, that it actually makes no difference at all. We react just as strongly to complete fiction. I wish that more people knew this, so we wouldn't have that sense of forced verisimilitude.
I wonder how many people just blindly accept these stories as the truth, when in reality they're mostly BS. In the worst cases, the only thing true about them are the most general of facts (the one-sentence summary). -
SealedCargo — 6 years ago(September 28, 2019 10:46 PM)
Oliver Stone won an Oscar for it, so people assume that Hollywood read the book it's adapted from and that it has some truth. but back then no one knew Oliver Stone fabricates everything. the funniest thing is when the dad blames Nixon for his son's arrest. and then compares smuggling a load of hashish to his (the dad's) generation drinking booze. that's always been the weakest loophole, comparing a few stiff drinks after a day's work with dropping acid and smoking pot all day, and doing coke and meth and hash and on and on.
The Fearmakers Blog
https://thefearmakers.blogspot.com/ -
SealedCargo — 6 years ago(September 28, 2019 10:43 PM)
it was also far too EASY for a movie about a living nightmare. he makes instant friends with three cool guys who give him heroin basically and it just didn't have the kind of vibe of a more intense prison flick.
The Fearmakers Blog
https://thefearmakers.blogspot.com/