Who's it based on?

I love this film - I agree, it is totally underrated.

Sting had nothing to do with the funding or making of this film.

The film was inspired by a true story - John Boorman was shown an article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times in October 1972, written by Leonard Greenwood.

In the article the father searched for 16 years (I believe) and he found his son. This is as much as I know, if anyone knows anymore please post a message.

(I have tried to find a copy of the actual article, without success).

Very good question indeed.

The ending seemed, to me at least, to be tailored made for a sequeal should the original have enjoyed a tad more acclaim at the time than it got (which was basically none.) Perhaps details, etc. were withheld to create a vacumn for the possible sequel, who can say.

But all these many years later, to never hear another word about it really bothers me. I am certain the "based on a true story" claim had a LOT to do with the way this movie captured my imagination and now I guess it just feels a little empty without a shred of additional info ever coming out. I mean when http://www.feralchildren.com/en/children.php lists babies and toddlers that were left alone even for only portions of a day and even takes the trouble to list details of some hoaxes, you'd think there'd be something for circumstances like this too SOMEWHERE.

Should anyone who *does* know something, ANYTHING come along, do please take this opportunity to enlighten those of us who are left wondering... just how true the "true story" was that this movie was supposedly based on because "based on a true story" could be as tiny as once a blond haired boy lived in Brazil for all we know, LOL!

Is Leonard Greenwood still around??? Hey Lenny!!!

Harlan Ellison talks about this film in his book "Harlan Ellison's Watching".

SCAN, which is a library reference network, tried to get some background on this. Director John Boorman said it was all his idea after reading the story in "the Times" in 1972. SCAN called the agent for Rospo Pallenberg, the original screenwriter. The agent said "It was Rospo who saw the story, not Boorman." He further revealed that what Pallenberg had written was a conglomeration of several stories. Further research revealed the LA Times article stating that it was a Peruvian (not American) lumber worker (not engineer) who lost and looked for his child.

SCAN reports, "On the radio program All Things Considered, Boorman said that he did not try to contact the (actual) father again because the story had been changed so much in the film that he didn't feel it really pertained to this father and son any more. But he had talked to an anthropologist who had visited the tribe recently and the son was still living with them, now aged about 35."

In the Times piece, the tribe was identifed as the Mayorunas. "This is rather strange (SCAN continues), because an article in "American Indigenous" (April-June 1975, pp. 329-347) reports on the Mayorunas, with a detailed census by age and sex, and does not mention that one of them was an adopted outsider." (Anthropological journal articles usually include information like that.) So we don't even know if it was that tribe.

Ellison: "... A writer of fiction, Rospo Pallenberg, was sparked into creating an interesting fiction by an idea proceeding from a news snippet. So far, okay. It was then bought or appropriated by John Boorman, who sold it to the Embassy honchos as "based on a true story" HE had read. From that point on, it was never really questioned... you and I went to that film, amazed at the bizarre and heartrending circumstances transmogrified from real life onto the silver screen. We were lied to, and we bought it..."

This doesn't prevent it from being a good story. But I knew it was made-up when I saw the promos, because the boy was a blonde American. That's so standard it's almost cliche. I was not at all surprised to hear he was actually Peruvian. It's traditional to excuse this type of dishonesty by saying "Well, they could have cast Peruvian actors, but the audience wouldn't be able to identify with them". Like nobody but white people ever go to the movies, or a good actor (working with a good script) wouldn't be able to make you identify with him no matter what race he was.

Ellison's (and my) main objection to this kind of dishonesty is that it insults viewers' intelligence. I'm still waiting to see a film that shows what really happened.

http://www.richardandmimi.com/truestory.html Someone scanned the article to this webpage.