Never let the truth…..
Mark Twain once said: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” Did he ever really say that? Does it matter? Surely attributing the phrase to Mark Twain makes for a better story than attributing it to Anonymous. This in itself is evidence toward the truth of the statement itself. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. But is that statement actually true?
This issue has been brought up recently by the HBO program Winning Time: The Rise of the Lakers Dynasty. The first season of the series is a dramatization of real events: the 1979-80 NBA basketball season which culminated in the Los Angeles Lakers beating the Philadelphia 76ers in six games in the NBA Finals. Most of the main characters in the show are based on real people, they use real names and cast actors who resemble the historical figures. The show is shot on location in Los Angeles and the filmmaking technique involves using 16mm and television style footage to give a feeling of authenticity for the period. Everything about the show is designed to give off an illusion of truth; to be a representation of history. Except a question exists as to whether many of the events depicted in the show actually happened the way the show depicts it. In fact, some of the real, living figures depicted in WInning Time are so outraged by the show’s loose understanding of the phrase “based on a true story” that they are threatening to take legal action against HBO for defamation of character. This is the case with Jerry West who has not been quiet about his anger at being depicted by the show as a rage-fueled egomaniac. But this public dispute brings about another issue regarding fictional representations of living human beings in that there is a now a feeling that his very public anger is feeding into the public perception of him created by the series as a rage-fueled egomaniac.
The show’s depiction of West is not half as bad as its portrayal of Larry Bird who is transformed into a wiry, angry peckerwood whose media interactions resemble those of a WWE character. Spitting tobacco juice and racial slurs in equal measure, Winning Time’s depiction of Larry Bird regresses into a lazy stereotype of rural Midwesterners as poor, dumb white trash. But it is clear what the show is doing. It is creating a foil to its complicated hero: Magic Johnson. Cool, charismatic, handsome, black. Magic Johnson is everything the modern NBA superstar should be but because of the racism endemic in the system in 1980 he will never be as loved by the media. According to the show.
If you are an adherent and believer of the phrase, “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story,” then these issues are irrelevant. The natural response is “who cares?” Why should a person care what Jerry West or Larry Bird or anyone else depicted in a negative light by the series thinks if that person enjoys the show? I am sure many people believe this to be a sound rationale. The show has been enough of a success to be renewed by HBO for a second season. It was discussed, tweeted about, podcasted about, written about. As far as HBO is concerned, the success of the show justifies any concerns individuals depicted in it would have about the potential defamation of their individual character or the relative veracity of any of the events depicted in the series. If it is a hit, what does it matter if none of it is true?
But I think it does matter. It matters because media influences the way people think. It influences the way people interact with the world and the human beings in it. If a piece of media makes claims to be a representation of historical events it should be just that, not a fiction. There is a long history of things purporting to be fact, probably being fiction. Suetonius’s The Twelve Caesars, about the lives of the first 11 emperors of Rome and Julius Caesar, is regarded by most modern historians as basically total bullshit. It is one of the very few remaining sources we have about the Roman Empire and we have to be skeptical as to whether anything in it actually happened. Despite this, it is an absolutely amazing read and has been for two millenia. Containing stories so outrageous as to make Winning Time seem sober, most people agree that The Twelve Caesars is a brilliant piece of media even if it is dubious as a record of historical fact. For a more contemporary example, look at Braveheart. Winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture and one of the highest grossing movies of 1995, Braveheart won universal acclaim and had massive financial success despite its depiction of William Wallace being almost entirely made up. The movie was so successful as a piece of propaganda that it almost single-handedly spawned in Scotland a new movement of nationalism and a desire for independence from the United Kingdom. Unless you are English, most people are ok with Braveheart being half fiction because it is a bloody good film.
But these works of media are different to Winning Time in a crucial aspect: none of the people depicted in Braveheart or The Twelve Caesars is still alive. Julius Caesar has been dead for 2000 years, Edward I has been dead for 700. What we think about them doesn’t really matter? Edward II doesn’t take it personally that Braveheart depicts him as a little bitch. His kids won’t watch the series and feel embarrassed. His wife won’t be sad when someone on the internet talks about what an asshold her husband is. The people depicted in Braveheart and The Twelve Caesars don’t exist in the world we live in now. The people depicted in Winning Time do. Doesn’t the show have a responsibility toward them? Is telling their story really more important than depicting other people’s lives with accuracy? Is it really to the benefit of the story that Winning Time is trying to tell to create this controversy as to the veracity of its version of events? Is the story so good that facts just don’t matter?
