criterionforum.org

I quite enjoyed True Story, though I suppose the moral of the story is quite an obvious one and apparent early on: never teach a presumed murderer the techniques of creative writing as part of a bargain for exclusive rights to his story before he goes to trial, as he will only end up putting what he has learned into practice! The disgraced journalist character played by Jonah Hill is a bit too over eager to 'shape' and 'create' a narrative before he has fully grasped the content (and context) of his subject matter properly. He gets too over excited by the possibilities, which to me suggests that Michael Finkel really should have been more of a fiction writer than a journalist per se, and in a way it is telling that his final book, at least from the reading of it at that signing we see, is a lot more about him and his journey into the nature of 'truth' than about Christian Longo in particular. Though maybe that is the healthier approach to take, as a way of escaping from his influence somewhat. But then isn't every journalistic story as much, if not more, about the writer's psyche as that of their subjects? As well as of the commercial pressures of what makes for a good story or not? The speakerphone calls with Harper Collins, desperate for a juicy story, is arguably reduced into just being the 'malevolent motivating force of capitalism demanding new content' pushing Michael (at the coal face of author-subject interaction) in the latter section of the film, whilst similarly not taking responsibility for any, um, artistic licence perpetrated by the author trying to meet their expectations. Maybe this is just what happens with every true story, or perhaps is even worse when we get to ghost written 'autobiographies'?

Some of the style of the film felt a little bit too on the nose (such as the seats in the jail for the conversations that look a bit like the characters are on either end of a, perfectly balanced, see saw), and in particular that central montage sequence that intercuts between Christian writing in his cell, Michael beginning to shape the material into his own novel, and Michael's partner Jill playing the piano and composing the score that covers the scene (the tapping of the piano keys against the tapping on the keyboard is perhaps a little too on the nose!), but I thought that it worked well enough to suggest a linking of the creative impulse and each character feeling as if they were confident in performing in their own worlds.

I did really like that ironic coda though which notes that Michael Finkel has never written for the New York Times since being fired in disgrace by them for his actions at the beginning of the film, whilst Christian Longo has apparently self-penned articles that the paper published! That is perhaps just as good as Chopper's "I'm a best selling author and I'm semi-bloody illiterate!" ending, and similarly suggests that the intermediary author skilled in writing and translating life events into a satisfying narrative format is very much sidelined in present publishing (whether journalism or novel format), as publishers go straight to the source instead. And where being illiterate, unpolished and rambling, with an ever changing narrative only adds to the 'verisimilitude'. Maybe this is another influence of the internet, although I get the impression that this was happening already (in conjunction with reality television and 'self-penned' autobiographies?) long before the appearance of blogs and suchlike.

If there is anything I took away from the film it is that the journalist-author is the most hated figure by every other character on every side of the murder trial, and most in danger of losing themselves in a self-created narrative, because they presume to be acting outside of the situation that they are observing and therefore are presumed to have no allegiance to anything or anyone. Especially when their moral compass has already been called into question.

I liked the film’s low key charms as well, but I’m surprised you didn’t mention Felicity Jones’ big, out of place yet terrific climactic monologue that explains what she was even doing in the movie up til that point!

I respected the amusing bluntness of that scene but I came out of it more worried that she had just left her music player lying on the table in the jail meeting room (and whether after strutting out she then had to awkwardly slink back in and pick it up!) than for any smack down that her character provided! (This might just be because I do not particularly have the same issues as an audience member with someone being a horrible person in real life preventing me from enjoying, or criticising, their artistic work in isolation. Biographical context can deepen a work, though there needs to be some spark of interest there that makes a piece of work worthwhile in itself too beyond its context. Though I do agree that the situation changes dramatically if you are actually involved with the 'creative' person in real life and being used for material, when of course your safety and right not to be abused takes precedence over any 'art' being made out of it!) Her best scene is probably the one where Christian telephones her, which shows that Michael has completely failed to protect his family from contact by a manipulating sociopath insinuating himself into their lives (much as he did the same to his own subjects as a journalist?), though that probably pushes her to feel the need to contact him herself because it obviously cannot be left entirely to Michael to keep his work and professional life separate and private. Though Jill does not get any particularly grandstanding moment from that scene, the minimalist responses are perfect there.

I think I liked the final meeting scene between Hill and Franco a bit more (because in the end its a two hander, even if Jill had to intercede to 'explain' Michael's psychological state and motivations to Christian for him) where it seems as if Michael is naively providing Christian with yet more ideas for new potential twists on his 'narrative' until he states that he knows that this is entirely what Christian wants from him, at which point the facade from both sides drop into pure coercion. And of course that final hallucinatory book signing moment felt a lot like the ending of Misery!

Oh, I agree re: artists and their art, and I don’t think her argument was necessarily fair, but I did find it an unexpected and compelling note for the film to strike amidst the more genial interplay of Hill and Franco

Yes, definitely, and I liked that note of the usually sidelined loving-yet-concerned partner character themselves intervening in the situation when they feel that things have gone too far. And I like the way that the extreme bluntness is used to cut through all of the foggy ambiguity that Christian has been weaving around the situation, and capitalising on. Though in some ways while the scene plays triumphantly for Jill it also kind of worryingly too obviously exposes her insecurities (and Michael's essential weakness) to Christian as well, as if he was not having an impact on their relationship she would never have perhaps felt the need to have to confront him directly.

That is perhaps foreshadowed earlier in the way that Michael appears to be shown to have far more interest in Christian's writing than he ever appears to have in Jill's composing for example, despite all three being equated together in that montage scene. Even if Michael's laser-directed interest in Christian is suggested to be exploitative in itself, and a short term aspect of his work rather than any deeper actual meeting of minds.

Maybe it is all to build into a comment about the always compromising need to make money from a creative pursuit just to continue to exist and keep one's home lifestyle secure, with Michael's anxieties coming from the danger of losing everything after his reputation is destroyed and the need for a breakthrough career reviving success leading him into dark and dangerous territory set against Christian's zen-like calmness after having already lost everything (maybe he's the ultimate declutterer?) and now being able to focus purely on his creativity as the one remaining aspect of his life? Maybe reshaping his narrative to make himself feel better about his part in events as much as to escape the death penalty for the actions that he committed?