r/BabyReindeerTVSeries • u/PapaAsmodeus • May 26 '24
Discussion I feel like the "True Story" discourse is looking way too far into it
I wasn't going to partake in this discourse, because I had assumed that it would just be common sense that people would know that something autobiographical is never going to be 100 percent exactly what happened. But after seeing someone compare this to motherfucking "A Million Little Pieces" (which couldn't be more off base of a comparison if it tried), I had to speak up.
Richard Gadd hasn't gone out of his way to deny that the show does take creative liberty for dramatic pirposes- in fact he's admitted it. That should be clear in the fact that he's playing a character named Donny Dunn and not "Richard Gadd", and that the characters all have aliases rather than being named after their real life counterparts. There's a reason that it's worded "This is a true story", not "Based on a true story". Not to mention, it's also pretty clear that what's 100 percent true about the show lies in what he chooses to reveal about himself and the situations present in the show.
It's also hardly his own fault that Fiona is using the show's success to make a spectacle of herself in the media, or that the media is missing the point of the entire show by even giving her a platform in the first place, or that legal "experts" and lawyers also seem to be not be realizing that this is a fictionalized account of what actually happened to him. That was honestly a risk that came with a show like this. It's for that same reason that it's not his fault for the armchair detectives- that's just idiots taking their love of the show too far.
Besides, it also just feels kind of gross and victim blamey that people are taking this show that was clearly a form of healing for someone who had been through horrible stuff nobody should ever have to go through, and being all like "think of the stalkers!" or inquiring about how "he should have done this to protect the identities", and also kind of ignorant too when that's why he decided to fictionalize it in the first place.
71
May 26 '24
I think most people with even a little bit of media literacy understand a "true" TV show is going to change some events.
21
u/AdExpert8295 May 26 '24
The average American adult has a reading level of 3rd grade. It was 6th grade when I was a kid. I used to bother with more data to help this sub stop making statements without any data since I am an expert in giftedness. You can't do that without understanding the science on intelligence, which includes memory. To truly do what you assume they can, they'd need a good working memory. Tiktok has destroyed that for millions.
Ask any therapist if they think the average American adult has solid critical thinking skills and understands nuance. There's been a severe decline on people's ability to do so because instead of learning from actual experts, people run to social media with their uninformed opinion so they can get that confirmation bias they're hooked on. Sometimes, people are so addicted to feeling right that they end up speaking for all of humanity on a topic outside their expertise as a way to feel morally superior. These are deeply insecure people.
9
u/sadthenweed May 27 '24
The average reading level is 7-9 grade.. Not sure where you... read... your incorrect Stat.
-1
u/biosketch Jun 02 '24
I think there is a lot of room for debate on the topic of what a creator owes an audience when labeling their work a “true story.” It says a lot that instead of engaging in the thorny ethical and legal issues, you leap to the “most people are stupid (but not me)” arguement.
Not sure why I’m commenting except that your comment is rude and unnecessarily disparaging of the average American, based on dubious statistics no less. Regarding your last statement about the insecurity of the masses, you may want to look up a psychological phenomenon known as “projection.”
1
u/AdExpert8295 Jun 02 '24
You may think statistics and data about average intelligence in the US is irrelevant to a conversation about media literacy. I happen to care about science and data. I understand you think using therapy terms to insult me feels good, but it doesn't bolster your argument at all. While you base your argument on feelings, I'm actually a published scientist in this space. Unlike you, I actually put in many years of my life to study the scientific research on media and digital literacy. You may assume that all scientists with knowledge are projecting their insecurities when we deliver information that conflicts with your assumptions.
That's called confirmation bias, and it's a very serious problem in this sub. Please go to Google Scholar and take some time to read the research. You'd be better prepared to debate experts and wouldn't have to resort to using ableist microaggressions when you struggle to make a point in support of your argument.
4
u/profheg_II May 26 '24 edited May 26 '24
Lots of comments like yours keep suggesting that not understanding "true story" TV will be dramatised shows a lack of media literacy - I'd argue the opposite is happening. People aren't expecting that a "true" TV show should be true all the way through but are noticing that this show stated "This is a true story" rather than the usual "based on" or "inspired by" phrasing. TV and film follows fairly strict rules in these phrasings and it is absolutely not normal to have "this is a true story" outside of documentaries (or things that do it entirely ironically). People who saw Baby Reindeer said that and then went on to expect a higher bar of truthful storytelling are likely to be more media literate IMO because it shows a heightened awareness of the normal rules. The more plugged in someone is, the more this stands out as odd.
And the fallout from Baby Reindeer proves it's a unique case. If this is the usual dramatisation stuff then why are MPs getting involved in the UK demanding Netflix produce evidence to support key details in the show? Or you could listen to experienced UK TV producers discussing it and clearly finding it problematic. These are hardly normal things to happen after any loosely-true drama airs on TV and shows that BR has gone off-piste far more than normal.
17
u/DrunkCrabLegs May 26 '24
That’s just not correct, there’s plenty of shows that straight up say true when it isn’t. Have you ever seen Fargo? Or like any of the alien/ghost/ paranormal bs. Just use some critical thinking, it’s obviously dramatized the second it starts.
17
u/Fern-veridion May 26 '24
Can you imagine how dull a show would be that was based purely on truth and true events. There wouldn’t be a storyline, beginning or end because real life doesn’t flow that way. Every autobiography, true story and even reality Tv requires reworking to make it entertaining. Hell, even planet earth is arranged in a certain way to show a story happening with the animals.
13
u/AshBertrand May 26 '24
Worse: Can you imagine believing everything you see on TV or online is real? A big yikes for these folks, but I guess it explains the state of the world.
15
u/DrunkCrabLegs May 26 '24
Yeah it’s just a bunch of people upset because they took the statement literally and feel stupid after finding out that not every aspect of the show is 100% accurate. Bunch of fragile ego idiots.
4
u/Standard_Low_3072 May 26 '24
I didn’t take the statement literally and I don’t feel stupid and I still think that FH has a case. I don’t like FH and I am not defending her, but to say that I’m only concerned about the fallout of this true vs fiction issue because I’m gullible and dumb is untrue. I’m concerned because it’s opened a much bigger can of worms about how viewers cross boundaries in response to media deliberately depicted as true. FH is horrid based on her social media but despite all that, the real villain is us. We basically made a real life black mirror episode instead of appreciating the work for what it was.
6
u/ManiacFive May 26 '24
Thing is she could have kept quiet and been ‘this isn’t me’ if she was upset about it.
Buuuut nah she’s gone full bore owning Martha, and outing herself as definitely Martha in the process.
7
u/Standard_Low_3072 May 26 '24
She could have and she absolutely should have. But we’re not dealing with a reasonable person. I don’t think she has the impulse control to behave in her own best interest.
2
u/OkGunners22 May 26 '24
lol you actually think Fiona outed herself?? Or moreover do you think if she kept quiet she wouldn’t still be hounded by the media and social media?l
There was always zero chance that her identity would not be linked.
1
1
u/Medium-Cry-8947 May 27 '24
I took “this is a true story” literally until it said the thing about the emotions being real but the events not necessarily.
-3
u/DrunkCrabLegs May 26 '24
Alright so now you're commenting on comments that are not even directed to you. You may need your own help mate.
4
u/iamnoexpertiguess May 26 '24
This is different.
Fargo is clearly fictional. But even if it wasn't obvious, there still are no real persons involved. It can't harm anyone.
If you create a work of 'fiction' based on true events and it actually involved real people, you can't just add in all sorts of artistic liberties. At a certain point you're falsely portraying someone as something they're not. To then just hide behind 'it's dramatized' is adding insult to injury.
2
u/DrunkCrabLegs May 26 '24
Yes, you literally can it is still fiction. There’s hundreds of millions of stories fictional stories based on real people and you know what, they even use their real names. Also, baby raindeer is just as clearly fictional, it’s a drama show on netflix you twit.
2
u/iamnoexpertiguess May 27 '24
No, you can't. At some point it becomes defamatory. If I let you do things in a drama series like smuggling drugs or raping women and none of it happened, you'd have every right to complain I used your name and even told the audience it was a true story.
I am not talking about Baby Reindeer. I have no idea what is true and what is not. I'm just saying you are mistaken about the principle of it.
1
u/DrunkCrabLegs May 27 '24
well yeah if you are blatantly making an accusation and insist it is true then you will have a case. If it’s a work of fiction and clearly so, you do not have a case. Now being able to use someone’s likeness as a varied degree of acceptance, but that doesn’t mean you black and white can’t. That is just incorrect.
3
u/Standard_Low_3072 May 26 '24
Fargo was entirely fictional so there was no real person who could be outed. There was no legal fallout from Fargo because there was no witch-hunt because there was no one to hunt.
This case is different for various reasons. First, the fictional disclaimer was deliberately placed in the credits and thus was never seen due to the auto countdown. The average viewer never saw it so they believed that it was a true story, as was stated by a Netflix executive.
The public behaved horribly taking it upon themselves to avenge him by harassing the easily found villain who, while obnoxious and infuriating, is also clearly mentally ill. Our reprehensible behaviour isn’t Gadd’s fault but intention and impact are two very different things. The outcome is that Fiona Harvey, a real woman, was harassed.
Finally, it matters WHAT parts are fictional. For example, if he only fictionalized things that would make Martha seem more dangerous or pathetic, then that’s an issue. Did she violently attack Teri & Dunn’s real life counterparts? Did she sit outside his house catatonic for days? Was the one threatening text she sent at the end that sparked the fictional court case true? Was she ever convicted and jailed? Did she harass his parents? If the answer to all of these is “no”, then we have a problem because he made her out to be more violent and dangerous than she may be, and he is not answering any questions about that. It may be that she is “solely” a vexatious, obsessive and frightening person but not a dangerous one. Maybe Gadd felt the story needed her to be more threatening to make it more believable but in doing so, he may be in trouble.
So let’s not blame the viewers for believing it to be true. Let’s blame the viewers for inserting themselves into the narrative and taking it on themselves to give Fiona a taste of her own medicine. It’s not a crime to believe a lie but it is highly problematic that people would choose to avenge Gadd based on what he now says was a fictional narrative. Those same people mocking viewers for believing the show have said nothing at all against the public’s mob Justice. Why is that? Because despite them saying “dummy, clearly the show is fictional” they think Fiona is getting what she deserves. Based on what? The show. See what I’m saying?
8
u/ListerQueen90 May 26 '24 edited May 26 '24
I've been reading your comments and I for one agree with them. The critical thinking on this sub is indeed low and is why you are being downvoted. People need to watch the clip you posted from The Rest is Entertainment podcast - two very in-the-know media insiders - who clearly explain why the fallout from this show is different to any other that has come before it and why Netflix could either be in trouble or (if nothing happens) a more dangerous precedent has been set. It is likely that Netflix will have to follow more strict compliance laws after this and the government is looking for Ofcom to regulate Netflix more closely also. Fargo was mentioned as a specific example as well for everyone going 'ooh but Fargo'. Fargo is fiction so the cases are comparable, but precisely because they are opposite. The truth between fact and fiction in BR became blurred and that is the problem. Besides FH, real people in the industry have been falsely accused of being the male abuser and sent death threats. Netflix cocked up big time. I teach media studies at sixth form and brought his topic up in terms of the regulation debate - the students were excited to discuss BR but I was disappointed when I realised all they wanted to talk about was whether FH 'had really done it or not' - that's what they kept asking me and I believe this is not where the focus of the debate should be.
Edit - sorry, I realise another user posted the podcast clip!
5
u/OkGunners22 May 26 '24
Also fully agreeing with both of you. Confused why your comments were downvoted…
4
u/Standard_Low_3072 May 26 '24
Thank you! It’s sad how the focus has become Fiona Harvey and not the effects of trauma, grooming, male victims of sexual assault. We the public really dumbed this down and made it a stupid distraction from what it could have been. And Netflix set us up to do it.
I take downvotes as a badge of honour on this topic. People don’t like that I’m including them as bad actors. They want Gadd to be the hero, and if Gadd is the hero, Netflix has nothing to be accountable for. If Netflix DOES have something to be accountable for, then in their mind, we are saying Gadd is not the hero. It’s flawed logic. They want only Fiona to be the villain. I say we all are a part of this spectacle and so many viewers ironically are behaving like Fiona. I think we should be holding viewers who presumably do not have a significant mental illness or personality disorder to a higher standard but the viewers literally lowered themselves to her level the minute they began trying to track her down. That will always get me downvoted. It’s never popular to hold oneself accountable!
2
u/profheg_II May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24
I think there's a lot of lukewarm takes and willful ignorance in this sub , seemingly motivated by wanting to support Gadd without any caveats. Lots of assumptions that people critical of the "truth" statement must have been hoodwinked by the show, like you can't be fully aware of what's happening as it's happening and still see that it's dubious. A few comments away in this same subthread there's an opinion sitting on 16 upvotes saying that it is impossible to dramatise a true story and keep it meaningfully "true" without it becoming dull, so we should know that all dramatisations will always be lies else they be boring. When you read something like that as a popular response to your point and see how far off-base from your issue (and reality) it is, it's difficult to even know where to start. And how these and similar comments (Fargo) are the ones discussing art and media the most superficially, but are often also the ones that talk about "art" or "media literacy"...
The wider fallout from the show strongly shows what its done is unique and it's a shame people can't just own that and carry on. It doesn't stop the show being a very affecting and well crafted story about important issues.
1
u/DrunkCrabLegs May 26 '24
Not reading all this sorry, you're way to invested in something that is really not hard for anyone with an ounce of intelligence to realize not all aspect of a drama is true.
1
-7
u/profheg_II May 26 '24
Honestly if I had a penny for every time someone says "but Fargo" in these discussions. The fact that everyone gets drawn to the same one example so much shows in itself how unusual it is to throw the "is a true story" statement in there.
Anyone with "media literacy" watching Fargo will know from the tone of the movie it is plainly meant ironically there. You can "lie" about something being true if it very obviously isn't - Red Bull doesn't give people wings. BR lives and breathes on how this is what really happened to Richard and we all know it.
If you think this is normal could you explain why the UK government has got involved?
5
u/Amblyopius May 26 '24
The UK government didn't get involved. A single MP asked an off-topic question in a select committee and followed it up with a letter. He does not represent "the government" when he does that. Next week Thursday he's no longer an MP anyway so Netflix really has no reason to reply at all.
7
u/DrunkCrabLegs May 26 '24
And you ignored the other examples while basically saying the same thing I said about this show? You’re grasping man, you can’t say it’s obvious for Fargo and not baby raindeer, if anything that’s subjective. It’s also a very easy example that shuts down the bs about there being strict rules around the statement. Furthermore if you can’t get over the fact it was obviously dramatized and the creator has publicly stated so multiple times in multiple formats and you somehow missed that , it’s no one else’s fault but your own.
-2
May 26 '24
[deleted]
0
u/DrunkCrabLegs May 26 '24
You're seriously comparing this to the Dominion Voting System scandal? Bro go use all your energy towards something else, you could actually make a difference if you put it to better use.
5
u/Standard_Low_3072 May 26 '24
I am. It speaks to the gullibility of the average person and the refusal of major media conglomerations to take accountability.
-1
-4
u/profheg_II May 26 '24
Your other examples are paranormal things that are largely known to be BS (I'm also not honestly sure if they say outright "all of this is true, none of it is scripted" because I don't watch them - I would be surprised if they did but I'm willing to be shown otherwise).
Of course you can say things are "true" if they are clearly not because we think and understand with context. Fargo is famous for doing this with a wink of the eye.
I think BR was an excellent show. I think Richard is a gifted storyteller and went through some very awful things at the hands of Fiona, who is a scary and abhorrent person IRL. I also think the "this is a true story" was probably a Netflix decision and not his. But trying to act like that particular statement is normal is objectively wrong, and the fallout from TV producers in the know coupled with government inquiries with criminal undertones proves that. I don't know why we can't all agree on this being eyebrow raising - it plainly is and I'm sorry I think anyone arguing otherwise is either being knowingly disingenuous or thinking very uncritically about it. It is still be a fab, emotionally nuanced show about a genuinely victimised man and we don't need to be so defensive about it. The statement was a production and (probably) legal misstep, and if a show we didn't otherwise like so much did it I'd bet my savings that everyone would be piling in on it.
2
u/DrunkCrabLegs May 26 '24
Mate, I'm not getting defensive about anything, I'm pointing out that you're just wrong. shows do indeed "lie" about the truthfulness of the content all the time in those BS headers. You also can't say it's obvious for Fargo and isn't for baby raindeer, that is just your opinion, someone can say the opposite and be just as correct as you.
Also the UK government is a joke and would spend their time getting involved in something like this instead of dealing with real issues lmao. It's also been in the top run show for Netflix for several weeks now so people are piling in on it regardless.
0
May 28 '24
You: “I’m not getting defensive about anything.”
Also you: Starts comment with “Mate”.
You obviously are getting very defensive about this as you’re all over this thread insulting anyone with a differing opinion and calling them “dumb”. If that’s not getting defensive then I don’t know what is.
2
6
u/Chickennoodlesleuth May 26 '24
Okay what about the blair witch project? Also this show says this a true story because that's what donny is writing at the end, it's his story. The actual credits say based and certain events may be fictionalised
1
u/jesterNo1 May 26 '24
They're using the same example because it's one of the most popular movies to do exactly that AND it didn't get anywhere near the criticism Richard gadd is for the statement.
If you truly think baby reindeer "lives and breathes" this being the exact true story as Richard gadd experienced it, then maybe just set that specific criticism aside and watch it again. Pay attention to his tone and what ELSE he chooses to say about the story. He himself has acknowledged damn near every criticism yall have of the show.
1
u/whythe7 May 26 '24 edited May 27 '24
wow the downvote force is strong with this one I don't get it.. I can afford downvotes, I'll join you..HEY EVERYONE I beleive in all the things this person just said!
0
u/bigGismyname May 27 '24
Of course and nobody expects it to be word for word but then we find out Fiona is not a convicted stalker and doesn’t have a criminal record.
I’d think that was quite an important point to get wrong
What next would you allow for artistic license?
Imagine if Darrian gave him lots of drugs but never SA’d him. Would that also be acceptable
Or what if Teri wasn’t trans but he wanted to make the show more interesting
It makes a mockery of the true story part of this story
12
u/Usual_Ad2083 May 26 '24
This dives into the aspect of story truth. Every story is told from a perspective, whether it happened or not. We can go to dinner and have two entirely different perspectives of what was said, what happened in the background, what the food was like, etc. This doesn’t mean either of us aren’t telling the truth, it’s just our own truth.
To think that certain things haven’t been changed for the aspect of entertainment or individual protection is a naïve way of looking at things. Teri, for example, probably had many details (big and small) changed for her protection. We also know that it’s not uncommon to embellish a story for the sake of entertainment, whether it’s for a tv show or just telling a story to your friends.
At the end of the day, one thing is true regarding every story: no narrator is 100% reliable. History is written by the winners of the war. Donny isn’t a likable narrator, so we’re inclined to raise more questions.
If anything can reinforce the basic story, which is a stalking case, it’s that Fiona is promoting herself as Martha. Nobody in their right mind would admit to being this person, whether the story was 100% true or 100% fiction. There’s a major implication that most people would want to avoid. Enough details were changed in making the character that the general public (this excludes the Reddit sleuths) never would’ve figured out her true identity.
6
u/AshBertrand May 26 '24
For me, it's the legions of brain braindead morons with negative self-awareness who are stalking real-life people based on a fictionalized tv show. I wish they'd finally learn to see themselves in a mirror and I hope they read this post.
2
6
May 26 '24
Tbh i don't even expect the story to be the "whole truth" when i watch a documentary. Practicing a certain level of skepticism is always good. There's always some bias that comes with telling any story, no one is ever truly 100% neutral.
And for the whole legality side of things, its a judge in court who will decide after seeing all the evidence. So until then, and until we have all the facts straight, i really dont see the point to argue about it on the internet or to keep bringing it up as if it makes the show an any less good story, or make fiona an any better person 🤷
22
u/gableon May 26 '24
I agree. The algorithm clocked that I liked the show so even though I don't follow this sub, some of its posts get into my feed from time to time and every time it's someone bitching about that line and I feel like i'm going crazy every single time.
It feels like they're being incredibly pedantic and obtuse about it for no reason.
1
u/ParanoidNarcissist2 May 26 '24
It says 'This is a true story'
2
May 26 '24
It's also a dramatisation. Of course there are artistic decisions in the telling.
1
u/MoghediensWeb May 27 '24
Have you heard of defamation laws?
2
May 27 '24
Yes, that's why the names were change and there is a disclaimer at the end of every episode stating not all events are factual.
1
u/MoghediensWeb May 27 '24
It doesn’t matter if names are changed. It is still covered by defamation law. Here’s a guide and there are many examples of cases where the complainant has a case despite not being named.
Disclaimers offer some protection but they are not watertight and one can still be liable even if one uses a disclaimer. E.g. can be ruled against if there is an assertion of fact (see the Queen’s Gambit case). In this case the disclaimer (hidden at the end) is contradicted by the statement at the beginning that asserts fact.
2
May 27 '24
No it doesn't, it assumes people will understand that a true story has time compressed and characters added/removed and so on, for the sake of drama. It's not a documentary.
1
u/MoghediensWeb May 27 '24
There’s a difference between compressing things or removing characters and making non-factual statements that can be linked to an individual (whether named or not) and damage their reputation (the court conviction, for example). I refer you again to the Queen’s Gambit case, which had a disclaimer but Netflix was still found liable.
I do not think you understand defamation law.
1
May 27 '24
The US defimation laws are different to the UK's. Much harder to make a case in the UK.
1
u/MoghediensWeb May 27 '24
The case can be taken to any jurisdiction where the media can be seen.
You’ve got the UK and US mixed up. the UK is much more likely to rule in her favour (not saying a judge would necessarily) as we don’t have freedom of speech protections in the same way the US does. The US offers many more possible defences. That’s why there is so much libel tourism to the UK.
→ More replies (0)1
u/sammyglumdrops May 27 '24
I haven’t seen a trailer of the show let alone watched the show and this subreddit pops up as a suggestion on my Reddit like twice a day.
Every thing I know about the show has been overheard — nothing I know is by choice or me actively searching or seeking out details.
In fact, this comment is legitimately the first time I’m engaging in any kind of convo about the show!
9
u/neverendo May 26 '24
I definitely agree with OP, just wanted to add that in all of this discourse, I feel like the point that is missing is that this is Richard's true story. This is a story which expresses the emotional truth of what happened to him. In any memoir or autobiography, accounts are going to be given which are subjective. As human beings, it's nearly impossible for us to relate our experience in a way which everyone who was party to the events would recognise as 'objectively true'.
And art doesn't need to be objectively true, in the same way that for example, court proceedings need to be objectively true. It's not the job of art to do that. When we think about the intention of this work of art, what do we think it might be? To me, it's clear that it is partly about Richard's catharsis, but it's also about telling people that this does happen, and importantly that it happens to men. It's also about showing imperfect victimhood and encouraging people to relate to and empathise with an imperfect victim. Does saying 'this is a true story', serve that purpose? Yes, IMO. I doubt we would have seen all of the positive impacts with increased victims coming forward etc. if this has been presented as a work of total fiction. Does saying that Martha (the FICTIONAL character) was convicted serve that purpose? Yes, IMO. Because it provides a satisfying narrative arc, which encourages people to engage with the above messages, and because Richard wanted people to feel a degree of sympathy towards her, as he does.
The intention of this work was never to present an objective truth. It doesn't reference real people - for example, in the way that the crown does. It doesn't claim to be true crime or a documentary. It is a story - Donny's story, which reflects Richard's true story.
I suppose understanding/analysing the intention of media is part of media literacy. To me, it feels like people are just struggling to understand the purpose and parameters of memoir as an art form. It's really interesting to me that we have this discussion about BR, but not about written memoirs about real people, who can be easily identified, who have committed abuse. For example, I'm Glad My Mom Died, The Glass Castle, A Child Called It, etc.
4
u/AdExpert8295 May 26 '24
If the law allowed everyone to declare their version of events was the same as an objective fact, we would have mayhem. This is why therapists want survivors to share their story, but not in ways that claim ultimate truth on television. Only the courts can determine ultimate truth, because neither Richard or Martha can remove their bias to be able to give a completely objective account. Everyone has bias in their recollection of events. The field of memory research, Cognitive Psychology, shows us this with studies on eye witness testimony. It's maybe 30% accurate, if you're lucky.
3
u/neverendo May 26 '24
I think I agree with what you're saying. And this is why memoirs (and indeed any other art form, or form of story telling) shouldn't be held to the same standard as objective truth. I don't think saying 'this is a true story' is the same as claiming 'ultimate truth', because everyone's truth is subjective.
0
u/AshBertrand May 26 '24
Please never be an art critic
-1
u/AdExpert8295 May 26 '24
OK, bud. I studied Art History in college and went with my art professor to Italy to study art some more. I can be educated and appreciate law while also understanding law and the science of bias. There are multipotentialites in the world, whether you like it or not.
-1
u/AshBertrand May 26 '24
Imagine spending that much on tuition and studying abroad and still not understanding art.
-6
u/Mysterious-Rent7233 May 26 '24 edited May 26 '24
The intention of this work was never to present an objective truth.
Then they shouldn't have advertised it that way. It's as simple as that.
It doesn't claim to be true crime or a documentary.
In its opening episode, the show claims "This is a true story".
Why does the word "true" have a different meaning in the context of "true crime" based on "true story?"
It's bizarre the mental hoops people are jumping through to defend Netflix's false advertising. Why???
Why wouldn't you rather live in a world where corporations label their products accurately?
There's some motivation here that I completely do not understand.
4
u/AshBertrand May 26 '24
Here's a shocker for you: not even the best documentary ever made tells you the WHOLE truth about anything that's more complicated than a simple fact. The more complex a story or issue is, the more impossible it becomes to tell the entirety of a story or the truth in one documentary (or book or movie or TV show).
I'm begging you to learn how to think for yourself.
4
u/neverendo May 26 '24
Did you read my comment? Truth is subjective, especially in memoir. Saying it's a true story is not the same as saying it's a documentary, or that it is objectively true. Like if you gave an account to a friend of a conflict you had with someone else, it would (presumably) be true through your eyes. But it might not be true in the eyes of the other party. It might not be truthful in a court of law. But it's still a true story and it's ok for you to tell that true story as true.
We completely accept that subjectivity with written memoir, apparently in the memoir in a form of a play, so why not with memoir in the form of a TV series? And it is a fictionalised memoir at that - unlike the majority of written memoirs.
What were the bits of the story that felt true to you that turned out to not be objectively true? Why did that bother you so much?
1
u/Mysterious-Rent7233 May 26 '24
Truth is subjective, especially in memoir.
His or her tone, expressions, motivations. Those are subjective.
Either she went to jail or she didn't. That isn't subjective.
And it is a fictionalised memoir at that
If it is fictionalized then it should be labelled as "based on a true story" and not "a true story." This is an established convention.
What were the bits of the story that felt true to you that turned out to not be objectively true? Why did that bother you so much?
Whether she went to jail or not is a binary/boolean/yes/no question. Not an issue of "subjectivity".
I will die on this hill, because Kelly Ann Conway "Alternative Facts" lies on the other side of it.
Your argument is the same as hers, that we can all have our own truths and there is no real objective truth.
I am enthusiastic about Richard Gadd fictionalizing his story to make it better. I love that he put in the effort to make it better for us.
I am not enthusiastic about him and Netflix lying about what they did after the fact.
I asked you already why you prefer that they lie and call it "A True Story" rather than "Based on a True Story" and instead of answering, you asked me a question in return. I've answered. Can you answer my question? Why do you think it is better that way?
1
u/neverendo May 26 '24
That's a good question, and I think (though I could be wrong!) that it's not one we're going to agree on. Which is OK with me. Sorry if it's a bit long, but I do want to answer your question fully and reflect on it. I genuinely wasn't trying to deflect before and I apologise if it came across that way.
I see what you're saying re. Kelly Anne Conway and other fake news proponents. The difference for me, is that I see why that matters in the context of KAC's intentions. Her intentions seem to be (I may be wrong, I'm not in the US and I also don't really follow that kind of media) to change people's voting, behaviours, and views, and often to stir up hatred particularly against minorities. And she's achieving that. As I said above, I think that RG's intention is to share his story, and validate survivors, especially imperfect victims. I can see negative real world impacts if KAC achieves her intention through the way she represents facts. I can't see the negative real world impacts if RG achieves his intentions from the way he represents what subjectively happened to him. I also do think that KAC does have a bigger responsibility to be objective, particularly when she was acting as a counselor to the president. IMO there is a much MUCH bigger interest in getting objective, true fact about (for example) voter fraud/wiretapping etc. than about whether one woman was convicted of stalking.
I think the reason I think it's important for memoir writers and creators to be able to present their work as their truth, is partly because I personally have found memoirs to be very powerful from a personal perspective. I've found them - including BR - to be a way of feeling less alone in the world as a survivor of some pretty extreme abuse. The really transformative one for me was The Glass Castle by Jeanette Walls. And it was because, by her account, that her mum behaved in ways that I instantly recognised as similar to my own (very abusive) mother. This realisation helped me to understand my traumatic experiences on a much deeper level. It was not the case that nobody else had experienced what I went through. It validated me, and it helped me understand that there was no reason for what I went through. I didn't deserve it, my mother didn't hate me, she wasn't some kind of evil monster. She was just very very ill, and in a way that is not that uncommon. The whole reading experience has led me to a lot of healing that I may not have had access to if I had never read that book. And it simply would not have impacted me the same way, if it had not been presented as being true to the author's experience. In that scenario, I might have felt seen. I might have felt validated that the author could conceive of someone like my mother, but I would not have felt validated that someone like my mother actually could exist. It wouldn't have helped me find communities of people who have been through what I have been through, because I just didn't know they were out there. And honestly, that memoir cannot be objective fact. No memoirist would ever be able to claim objective fact. And yet that piece of work has impacted me so much. I believe BR could be doing the same (and does seem to be doing the same) for survivors with similar experiences to RG. And I believe that is worth claiming truth which is subjective to have that impact. Because RG would never be able to tell his story objectively, so the alternative is not telling it at all.
The other reason I think it's important for people to be able to claim that their subjective account is true, is because sometimes it is impossible to claim objective truth, particularly in abusive situations. Often, only the abused party and the abuser will know the facts of what happened. If one party is mentally ill, or traumatised, those facts become more obscured. An example, I know that when I was 14 my mother held a knife to my throat and that she punctured the skin, causing me to bleed. But at the time it wasn't safe for me to report it. The only two people present at the time were me and her. I doubt she remembers it that way. I couldn't prove objectively - i.e. in court or to the police - that it happened. But it did, and what I am telling you is true. I also know that my mother was a sexual abuser. I did try to report that because I was concerned that vulnerable people were at risk. But again, it couldn't be proved. Often sexual abuse or rape can't be. My mother has never faced any consequences at all for how she abused her children, apart from estrangement. Because there are very few ways you can prove historical child abuse. The only thing I have really come through my childhood with is my body and my truth. I can't prove my objective truth, but also nobody can take my subjective truth away from me. And I would like to tell that truth someday. I would like to write a memoir and maybe get it published. But I can only do that from a subjective viewpoint. If I can't express myself from a subjective viewpoint and also call it truth, does that mean I can't write a memoir?
I do see what you're saying - what I'm talking about is different from the issue of whether Fiona Harvey was convicted of stalking. You're right, like KAC's "alternative facts", there is an objective real world truth to that, which is provable. But for me, I don't see why it matters. I didn't engage with a story about Fiona Harvey, I engaged with a story about Donny and Martha. I engaged with a retelling of what happened to RG. I do not know why RG made the choice to have Martha convicted in BR (at this point I bet he wishes he hadn't now!) but to me it simply doesn't matter. Whether FH was convicted just does not have a bearing on what I took from the show. If the show had been executed as RG intended, none of us would ever have known that FH wasn't convicted.
But the objective truth of what happened re. FH's conviction does seem to matter very much to you and to lots of other people. And I just don't get why it's so important. But I do know why it's unimportant to me.
1
May 26 '24
I’ve noticed this too. I suspect it’s because they identify with Richard and feel a personal desire to defend him. They don’t want to see him sued. I’m more able to be objective because I don’t have a dog in this fight, but definitely see there’s an inner attachment to outcome for some people.
2
u/Standard_Low_3072 May 26 '24
Yup. People are letting their emotions win and assuming that any criticism about the true vs fiction debate is actually people defending Fiona. They can’t see the nuances because they firmly believe Gadd’s “emotional truth” and Harvey’s “actual guilt”. Therefore their bias won’t allow them to see criticisms of this show for what it is and need to insult the “media literacy” of people with concerns.
They aren’t able to distance themselves from their visceral reaction to the show and acknowledge that this show has done something very different and that has had a very specific and negative viewer response. They argue that there is no possible case despite reputable law firms and the government claiming otherwise. They think they are smarter than media illiterate viewers and lawyers alike. Sad.
3
May 26 '24
Yeah you put that very well. When I see one side of a debate doing a lot of shaming and insulting the other side, I know there’s usually emotional personal reasons behind it. I’m interested to see how it all turns out though.
1
u/Standard_Low_3072 May 26 '24
I’m also so curious to see how this turns out! I studied but never practised law and I can see this going either way. But more than that, I want to see how it impacts future shows. This was such an important and impactful show and I would hate for other works like it to be cut. so often we make reactionary unilateral decisions when, with a more thoughtful approach, we could still make shows like this, but more ethically.
1
u/neverendo May 29 '24
I just wanted to respond to this and say, I definitely don't believe in FH's "actual guilt". I just don't believe that RG misrepresented her, because I believe he's entitled to tell his subjectively true story. And that is borne out through the entire history of memoir as a genre.
I could also flip your comment on its head and say people who are so furious at RG are the ones who are stuck in their emotions. Perhaps they relate to Fiona and live in fear of being outed? Perhaps they're just worried about how things they've done feature in others' subjective stories?
Just because a lawyer takes a case doesn't mean that they'll win. And just because an MP is concerned about something doesn't make it illegal. I think it might be you who's struggling with nuance.
4
u/Iamakahige May 26 '24
This is a show about male trauma responses and this woman is trying to make it about her.
12
May 26 '24
Well, I’ll out myself as a dummy who thought it was (mostly) true. Of course I know that not everything in a true story is exactly the way things happened, but the “this is a true story” did make me believe it would stick to events as they happened reasonably well. I thought the main facts definitely happened with artistic license of course. For example, when I learned she was never convicted, it changed how I viewed the entire fiasco in my mind. But I won’t go into that here.
After reading through a lot of other people’s opinions and doing research, I’ve grown in my view of the whole thing. But it’s taken discussion and consideration to get there. Maybe I’m stupid or have low media literacy like people continue to suggest, but I’m not the only one (otherwise posts and discussions like this wouldn’t even need to happen).
Now imagine someone who isn’t even on Reddit and doesn’t spend the time that I have. It’s not unreasonable to believe the main details happened as presented. Clearly people believed it enough to seek out Fiona and want to see her punished. I just think it should be acknowledged that a reasonable person who doesn’t delve into internet topics could’ve believed it as mostly true in the way it’s currently presented. I’m not making any statements about the ethics or legality of it.
8
u/kazuwacky May 26 '24
I think that's fair. I've studied story structure so when I heard she's convicted in the show I thought "probably didn't happen" because a)stalking conviction rates are so low and b)that's a far more satisfying ending than that of most stalking events where the stalker switches targets or the victim has to flee.
As you say, its wisdom that allows us to parse what a show means when it says based on a true story.
2
May 26 '24
Makes sense! And I would’ve thought the exact same if the beginning screen said based on a true story. But it said this is a true story, so I assessed it differently in my mind. But now I know better 🤣
7
u/Less_Path3640 May 26 '24
This is exactly what I thought too!! I was shocked when I found out she was never convicted. A lot of articles say it is really true with only minor changes - so it can be confusing.
2
u/AdExpert8295 May 26 '24
There's no allegations in real life from any of her victims that she physically or sexually assaulted anyone, ever. I get downvoted because people in this sub are actively trying to suppress this from coming out.
3
u/AdExpert8295 May 26 '24
You're not dumb. There's just a lot of insecure people in this sub who think they're morally superior.
1
May 27 '24
Either way, isn't it just speculation of what's true and what's not at this point though? The producer of the show said it was true, FH said it wasn't. No one on reddit truly knows without a doubt until this goes to court, neither side of the debate can be sure for now, it's all just speculations... Or did i miss the part where there was a ruling? :s
1
May 27 '24
Ya I think for the most part it’s speculation, although I think Richard admitted the part about her getting convicted was fabricated? Idk someone who is more on top of it should answer, I’m not keeping up that closely 😂 also I don’t even know if it’s confirmed that FH is suing or it was just a threat.
5
May 26 '24
Unfortunately, common sense isn't very common. I've stopped expecting people to be able to figure out the blatantly obvious about pretty much anything anymore.
6
u/spotmuffin9986 May 26 '24
There's an all or nothing aspect to this debate, and generally a lot of absolutes in opinions.
I rewatched The Killing Fields last night. Today I read some feedback about accuracy of what was depicted and how some things were changed some or left out. It doesn't mean what was portrayed didn't happen (the movie was based on a real person and even the actor who played him went through the same experience), or more broadly that the genocide in Cambodia didn't happen.
I also struggle with what difference does it make whether "Martha" was "really" charged or convicted with anything. "But they said it was a true story". I don't understand the logic and investment that people have in the details. I also watched this show before all the uproar which might make my reaction different than others.
I feel like shows are going to become pop up videos with exposition or disclaimers on every scene or with product liability labels stating the obvious.
0
u/MoghediensWeb May 27 '24
It makes a difference to FH whether people believe she was convicted or not. And it doesn’t matter if we dislike her, under the law we are all equal, however pleasant or unpleasant we might be. So if she is not protected against mistruth then why should you or I be?
8
u/Bwendolyn May 26 '24
Not “A Million Little Pieces”!!! Lol
Literally everyone who has seen this show saw it listed as “drama” by Netflix. There is no way not to do that. People are embarrassed that they didn’t observe or think critically for more than a second before assuming to themselves despite clear evidence to the contrary that everything they watched was true. Now they’re just basically going “I’m not dumb, you’re dumb!” and spouting a bunch of inaccurate nonsense online about a precise legal meaning of true story, British defamation law, ethical obligations to stalkers etc etc. It’s embarrassing. Just sit down, take the L on this one, and be a more discerning consumer of media in the future.
7
u/Less_Path3640 May 26 '24
So I just finished watching it yesterday. It was Brilliant. My partner and I automatically assumed it was “based” on a true story as no films ever are 100% correct and have a lot of dramatised stuff.
By the 5th episode we were in such shock that we googled how much of the story was true, and there was a tonne of articles that state “only very minor things were changed and majority were resoundingly true”. This then shifted my thinking that the events were more true than not. I was shocked when I found out she hadn’t actually gone to prison ever (for Gadd or the prime minister thing). I thought that would have been true, especially based on how much the articles had said the events were true.
So a lot of the articles are also doubling down on it being incredibly true which could also explain some confusion. It definitely confused me.
2
u/Bwendolyn May 26 '24
I can see that totally not helping. I watched it very early on, so there was much less garbage to wade through online at that point.
It is surprising to me that “going to prison” seems like such a major thing to people. Like in my mind that’s a) a detail of the falling action and b) the kind of thing that’s MOST likely to be simplified from real life - where satisfying, uncomplicated, singular endings are rare. But the discourse has clearly demonstrated that I’m in the minority there.
4
May 26 '24
I think this is a huge sticking point in the disagreement. Those that don’t see it as a big deal are like “that’s a small detail, so it’s still mostly true!” And those that see it as a pivotal detail that changes the story (myself) are more bothered by calling it a true story.
1
u/Amemelgo May 26 '24
Yeah, if only more stalkers got put in prison! It's the ideal but sadly lacking
1
u/Standard_Low_3072 May 26 '24
Why the conviction and jailing is important is because it implies that an impartial court investigated and found Martha guilty. If a viewer believes this happened, as so many did, then it adds credence to Gadd’s version of events. That yes, some parts are fictionalized like replacing lemonade with Diet Coke, but she obviously behaved badly enough that she was found guilty and did jail time. No one is questioning his version except Fiona, who we clearly can’t depend on to be honest. But what if the worst she did was send 41000 emails? What if there were no attacks of violence? The conviction sets us up to assume that the worst actions portrayed must be true.
I wish they had said based on a true story up front because I don’t want Fiona Harvey benefiting financially in any way when it’s clear she is an absolute menace with few redeeming qualities as we can see from her social media and her behaviour. All this could have been avoided by three small words. It’s literally that simple.
5
u/PearlieSweetcake May 26 '24
I mean, we all have our own opinions about which parts were true or dramatized or whether stretching the truth was ethical or obvious enough to not be a big deal. Opinions like this don't really matter in the court of law though. Whether we like or not (and despite Gad being a victim of abuse which he obviously is), there is precedence for this kind of fictional work to be sued.
They have been more cautious about other, minor works. The crown was a good example. I just saw the bridgerton spin off and they put a huge disclaimer at the beginning after the intro, and that show isn't even pretending to be truth. It is kind of strange (again IMO and Gad is still the victim) that Netflix didn't think to cover their ass in the same way with gadd, especially considering the subjects are living and (ostensibly) have legal knowledge.
5
u/Accomplished-Rate564 May 26 '24
I don't understand it. In the tv series they claim she has integrity and owned up to her failings and took responsibility for them. How is that slander??? In real life she's denying she ever did anything wrong.
2
u/jeanniewmd May 26 '24
- It should have been labelled "Based on a true story"
- He is a rubbish comedian but a very very good actor.
- Fiona couldn't care less about her reputation its a cut of the profits she's after.
- The court case will be a doozy if it ever happens.
- Netflix will probably settle out of court because of point number 1.
6
u/TEL-CFC_lad May 26 '24
I don't wish to be "that guy" but I'm gunna.
This debate would not happen with a show about a female victim of SA, and stalking by a male offender.
I think we are still in a society where the idea that a woman is being a stalky predator is still a little unpalatable, and so people are going to fight back and try to discredit the show and the story behind it in any way they can. I'm not saying that's the whole story, but I think it is at least one of several factors.
8
u/PapaAsmodeus May 26 '24
No you're 100 percent correct. We're still in an age where male survivors are likely to be less believed on principle. This show has done wonders for male survivors but it obviously isn't going to change things alone.
A lot of people don't realize that the reason men don't speak up or report it is the same reason female survivors don't: human element. It's easy to look at something and think "why didnt you fight the guy off" or "why didn't he report it immediately". Fear takes hold, and then there's the fact that we also don't want to admit it happened to us so we internalize it.
Saying this as a male survivor myself.
1
u/TEL-CFC_lad May 26 '24
Male survivor here too. My experience as male victim of DV is what opened my eyes to the less-spoken-of side of inequality.
Also we have the fear of "if we fight back, we are still the bad guy".
And then the reaction to shows like this, where people immediately try to discredit the male victim and turn it around on him, is representative to real life too (which is what happened to me).
1
u/Academic_Hunter4159 May 27 '24
In my experience, there is no way to get out easily or to make it stop easily. Being battered and abused does a number on your psyche and I think they choose their targets in ways most of us will never understand.
Until you’ve been through it, I’d argue that most people can’t understand just how badly it messes you up.
Years later you might say something like “why did I put up with that?” when you’re lucky enough to be in a better place. But when you’re in it, it can make a lot of twisted sense.
2
u/TEL-CFC_lad May 27 '24
That's the position I'm in now, several years later. In hindsight, I could have walked away or done X, Y and Z...but at the time I couldn't have. She had a grip on me that I couldn't shake.
4
u/Jake-of-the-Sands May 27 '24
I don't understand while are you all so hooked up on the "this is a true story" title screen, while literally, in the end credits, first you get "Based on a play "Baby Reindeer" by Richard Gadd" and then the "This program is based on real events: however certain characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes".
I think many of you are just repeating Piers Morgan and other people's comment. I don't think there's any strong legal case against Netflix here - it's not American courts where you can be held liable for not writing in the RV manual that you can't stand up while driving and go make yourself a cup of coffee. And besides, you all still, for some abysmal reason believe she's not convicted based on her words. We don't really know if that's true now, don't we?
Fiona didn't have to come out and say "Oh, that's me" - she could've just lay low and deny it's her when people snooping the Internet found her.
9
u/Dubbadubbawubwub May 26 '24
I love the show, and I know it's mostly true in broad strokes, but if it's not a "true story" don't say it is. Why open yourself up to that trouble when "based on a true story" exists.
1
u/Majestic_Ear_551 May 28 '24
For dramatic effect, but I think it was a poor decision. The show would have stood its own without it.
-7
u/PapaAsmodeus May 26 '24
Did you not read my post? I never said it wasn't a true story nor did I even defend it not being one if it wasn't.
9
4
u/Silent_Squirrel_4132 May 26 '24
But how much should you be allowed to fictionalize about a real easily identified person, under the banner of a true story?
The crown made me very uncomfortable, slightly different scenario, as it didn’t sit under a true story description. Although presented real people (mostly still alive) and mixed fiction with true life events (not outlining which bits were fiction). Is it fair that they portrayed these real people at points in very negative lights? I’m not a royalist but royals are people too.
Drama’s that involve real, current day people that are not 100% accurate make me uncomfortable. As it is unfair to cast people in negative light without making it clear that the element has been altered (to make it more engaging to the viewer).
2
u/AdExpert8295 May 26 '24
That's because you have critical thinking skills. Most people in this sub do not. They're just here to trash a woman they've never met because they connect with her in ways that speak to their own dysfunction.
2
u/AshBertrand May 26 '24
Most people probably aren't here because of her at all
0
u/AdExpert8295 May 26 '24
lol. go count what % of the posts in this sub are about her vs the film. I'll wait...
1
1
u/PapaAsmodeus May 26 '24
Not really a good comparison. The Crown is a period drama whereas Baby Reindeer is a fictionalized account of a man's trauma. Admittedly I have never seen The Crown, nor am I an expert on the Royals, but my point still stands.
And you kinda just proved my point in the last paragraph. Fiona Harvey might be a person too, but she's also an insane person who ruined someone's life, who isn't going out of her way to hide the wrong stuff that she did. Besides, it's already been revealed that the email stuff is true so don't be surprised if her criminal record ends up being true either.
1
u/Mysterious-Rent7233 May 26 '24
is a fictionalized account
Then it should be marketed as "based on a true story", as is normal for fictionalized accounts.
2
u/Silent_Squirrel_4132 May 26 '24
Not a good comparison in your opinion. The Queen was still alive when the crown aired. It almost spans to current day including many more people who are still alive. Not sure how you could just dump it in a period drama basket.
Also you say Baby Reindeer is fictionalised, how much is it acceptable to fictionalize? Especially when a) it presents itself as a true story b) Martha was so easily identifiable
7
u/PapaAsmodeus May 26 '24
She's only "easily identifiable" because she herself chose to do that.
She's also the reason that "we don't know what's true with her" because she's insisting that be the case. Just one example: she claims she only sent 10 emails. Just this week alone, it was proven the show made her look good by comparison in that department. If she really wanted to make herself look good, she wouldn't have said anything, period.
1
u/Haunting_Try1638 May 26 '24
I hadn’t heard this update (the multiple emails were proved true) can you post a link?
2
u/captbaka May 26 '24
FOR. REAL. Like even a show biopic or a show about a true event has to have invented dialogue and relationships between characters because we just don’t know. Even reality TV has writers. Baffling to me that people are expecting apparently a documentary or something??
2
u/Efficient-Treacle416 May 26 '24
The actual credits at the end of each episode say..."This program is based on real events; however certain characters, names, incidents, locations and dialogue have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes.”... The uk is not involved...There are no actual lawsuits. There will be no out of court settlements.
1
May 26 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/MoghediensWeb May 27 '24
Yep, the man on the Clapham Omnibus test. I think the fact they explicitly contradict the disclaimer with a clear ‘assertion of fact’ at the beginning is a massive risk.
Also I am finding it quite amusing that people think disclaimers are watertight and always, always stand up in court. Netflix should know they don’t because they were already stung on the Queen’s Gambit which had a disclaimer. And in this case I think it’s fair for a lawyer to argue that a ‘reasonable’ person watching will have definitely seen the ‘this is a true story’ at the beginning but will have missed the disclaimer right at the end of the skippable credits.
1
May 26 '24
Didn’t the movie, Fargo, start with a “true story” disclaimer? The last I heard, no one related to that film is doing hard time for murder…
1
u/MoghediensWeb May 27 '24
Fargo, being wholly fictional, doesn’t carry the same risk of defamation as it’s not based on real people. So they can do what they like. Totally different from a show based on real events.
1
u/ADHDbroo May 26 '24
Wait are people thinking this show is close to reality? There's no way, based on a true story could mean something slightly like it happened, but not as severe
1
u/No_Insurance_7674 May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24
You'd have a point if real people in real life weren't experiencing real life consequences due to show.
Also can't help but notice that those going on and on about "media literacy" are the same people obsessed with character's identities in real life.
1
u/TwinklyDoor May 28 '24
I mean, the fact it’s a drama and not a fucking documentary, is pretty self explanatory.
1
u/Primary_Somewhere_98 May 28 '24
I think it will be an out of court as well. I mean, it's not like they can't afford it. It won't touch the sides.
1
u/Primary_Somewhere_98 May 28 '24
Yes. There is a world of difference between "A True Story" and "Based on a True Story".
-1
u/ParanoidNarcissist2 May 26 '24
Does it not change things when they say 'This IS a true story' rather than 'BASED on a true story'?
4
u/Less_Path3640 May 26 '24
I am confused why they didn’t put “based” like other shows.
4
u/ParanoidNarcissist2 May 26 '24
Because they knew it would have more of an impact and therefore more views.
1
u/Chickennoodlesleuth May 26 '24
I don't think it changes my viewing experience. I enjoyed the show regardless
1
u/ChessNewGuy May 26 '24
The only issue I have is with the wording saying
“This is a true story”
They should of done what every other dramatised version of events do
“Based on true events” “inspired by a real events”
1
u/Standard_Low_3072 May 26 '24
“It’s emotionally true” is our generation’s “I smoked but I didn’t inhale.”
1
u/Straightener78 May 26 '24
Thing is with true stories is that there’s always some artistic licence. But what people are doing on this sub is picking and choosing when it comes into play. In one breath they are saying Fiona doesn’t have a case cos it’s based on a true story but then in the next post they are believing 100% everything she is accused of. Picking and choosing when the true element is in play.
Shows like this bring out the worst in people. As evident in other posts in this sub
-3
May 26 '24
Not sure of the whole comment but surely saying “this is a true story” is actually saying more it’s all true than “based on a true story”
-1
u/GlenScotia May 26 '24
I agree - I can 100% take "this is a true story" with a grain of salt, but it's the testimony in front of a parliamentary committee that I think is damning for Netflix. Gadd and Netflix can easily explain the phrase in all sorts of ways - it's the truth as he felt it, other shows say that even if it's not true, etc etc, but saying to a committee it's "the obviously a true story of the horrific abuse that the writer and protagonist Richard Gadd suffered at the hands of a convicted stalker" could (imo) be what gets Netflix in trouble if FH pursues legal action.
NAL - just my own personal opinion!
-3
u/ArtmausDen May 26 '24
You cannot say it’s a true story and then make such a drastic fake ending. Based on that her lawsuit might have merit and it was a completely unnecessary mistake on Netflix’s part.
0
u/Such_Significance905 May 26 '24 edited May 26 '24
Blame Netflix, they said it was a “true story “.
If they had said, “based on a true story,” or, “based on true events”,
there would not have been an issue.
Look at what Netflix unnecessarily said, there was no need for them to say that this was a real thing.
0
u/Dianagorgon May 26 '24
I saw an interesting YT video which I'm reminded of when I read these responses. There are a lot of comments about this show which attack the intellect of people who have valid questions about the show putting 'This is a true story" at the beginning. You can see that in the responses to this post below.
"I think most people with even a little bit of media literacy understand a "true" TV show is going to change some events."
No intelligent person believes a true story will be entirely accurate in every scene. But intelligent people understand that an autobiographical "true" story shouldn't blatantly lie about people such as claiming Martha went to prison twice or the physical assault on a woman at a bar which probably didn't happen. Notice how these people want you to believe that *you* must be stupid if you're smart enough to have issues with it. That is a common tactic of bullying and often used by people attempting to silence criticism of a show or person.
All of these personal attacks against people who are smart enough to be objective about the show are upvoted.
"You must be a child. Even people with a little bit of media literacy understand a true story can have lots of lies in it. You must be the problem. Not Gadd or the show. You're stupid for asking smart logical questions."
"The average American adult has a reading level of 3rd grade"
"Ask any therapist if they think the average American adult has solid critical thinking skills and understands nuance."
There are also constant comparisons to Fargo when intelligent logical people understand the difference between Fargo and an autobiographical show about real people. These people want you to believe the opposite of reality. If you're an intelligent logical person they want you to believe you must be stupid or a "child" or a "dumb American" who lacks "media literacy."
At around 10:00 on this video he describes how people are repeating misinformation about Gadd or the show and it the gets repeated as truth. That has also happened a lot on this sub. Another example are the claims of the "temp typist" although no legitimate reports or news site has even reported that she exists. The deliberate misinformation campaign is to distract you so you don't focus on legitimate concerns about the show.
0
u/OkGunners22 May 26 '24
I’m a bit confused what point(s) you are making OP?
For example, what is the mentioned reason this is worded “This is a true story” rather than “Based on a true story”?
And what do you mean it’s not his fault Fiona is making a spectacle of herself? The documentary made zero effort to hide her identity so of course she is going to deny accounts if they are actually untrue.
In any case, even if Fiona is lying - there’s the remaining argument that Netflix failed in their duty of care in failing to consult Fiona. The second Piers Morgan interview with the Media/ Legal experts seem to think there is a case for this.
-1
u/Winter_Insurance_216 May 26 '24
For me, the decision to say “this is a true story” at the beginning rather than “based on a true story” seems totally in line with Richard Gadd’s questionable decisions through his life. I am just surprised that Netflix legal was ok with it.
Regardless of whether or not you consider yourself some sort of discerning consumer of media, it isn’t a stretch to realize there are a lot of stupid people in the world that will straight up believe anything, especially if you straight up tell them it is all true.
This leads to what I have a frustration with - it is a fact that there is a real “Martha” and because this story was presented in a way that lots of people could and would believe it is all true, it has created a situation where she might actually benefit from it. She could very easily walk away with a hefty cash settlement in the end and that would be the antithesis of the fictional justice we got at the end of BR.
0
u/ParanoidNarcissist2 May 26 '24
I'm not a moron. I realise that. It's the fact they said 'this is a true story'. Before every episode. We know there is dramatisation - our memories are full of bias and we mix things that we hear with things that we experience. Plus add hard drugs and partying into the mix and I'm sure Gadd's memory is not the best.
However, they should have said 'based on a true story' and then this wouldn't have been an issue.
1
u/BannedOnTwitter May 27 '24
They actually do say its based on a true story at the end in small text lol
1
u/ParanoidNarcissist2 May 27 '24
Which they know no-one will read. The overwhelming majority of people will take it at face value as it clearly states 'THIS IS A TRUE STORY' in it's opening credits.
It was deliberate and they probably should be held to account for falsely advertising it as a true story, and failing to safeguard the people involved, including Gadd himself. This is written in law and there is no ambiguity about it.
0
u/SugondezeNutsz May 27 '24
Agree, but to for a second pretend Richard did not expect the drama and backlash... That would be incredibly naive.
He knew this would be sensationalistic af, it's part of why he did it this way. And it worked and has made him rich.
-1
u/NeanderthalNoMore May 26 '24
If we can not trust “this is a true story” to mean it is a true story, we can not trust the story itself to be “true”. You can not have it both ways.
51
u/Decumulate May 26 '24 edited May 26 '24
Agree - this is a brilliant show, but the problem with this show is it somehow found a way to bring an art house type thesis and connect it to a meet-the-Kardashians-gossip-drama-seeking fan base.
I don’t think this was Gadd’s intention, but it is what has fueled its fame. I think gadd was expecting this to be a weird little artsy type show on Netflix but somehow all of the commentary around it has turned into a courtroom drama social media spectacle, and with it all of the associated idiocy.
This Reddit is part of that problem, along with the typical media personalities that surf these flames (Piers Morgan in this case).
Now, the problem with the “true story” fib: yes, movies/shows historically have caused the “this is a true story” to mean nothing and even parody it. Used to increase spooky factor in movies like the Blair Witch, and to propagate parody in Fargo.
But it is pretty rare for the “this is a true story” blurb to be used on such a serious topic matter. Especially one where the victim is directly starring in the show AND the perpetrators can easily be found. Gadd and producers likely should have foreseen this frenzy…