MovieChat Forums > Fruitvale Station (2013) Discussion > How much of it was embelished?

How much of it was embelished?

posted 11 years ago by ludovico_88
21 replies | jump to latest

I looked throughout the board for this question but nobody seems to have made it so far. There's a few mentions of veracity here and there but nothing as deep as I want to cover. For example:

Did the director know if Oscar was having trouble with his job? Was he fired during those weeks prior to new years eve?

Did the director know if Oscar was trying to get straight? Perhaps through talks with his then-girlfriend that could've been known...

The same applies to the dumped weed on the ocean... Contacts with previous friends or dealers that could've also known some of those facts.

Did the comotion that sparked the events on the train involve the old prison rivalry we were introduced to early in the movie?

These are the kind of small details that triggered my curiosity as to how much liberty the director took to create movie Oscar... If you could help me with this I'd appreciate! Cheers.

vibes atm: http://tinyurl.com/a8v5g9k

[–] sandifay62 11 years ago

My sister said that she saw some panel on TV with the director and actor saying that the people that interacted with him and family members about what happened before the incident.

But I'm sure the things that they didn't witness were probably embellished, like the encounter with the dog and the flashback of prison as he dumped the weed in the ocean.

[–] FmUoCoKk 11 years ago

The director of the film worked as a video editor in the offices of the law firm where Oscar Grant's family were clients. He had unlimited access to the case files, and most of Oscar's last day was documented.

The writer/director has said that the part with the dog was fiction, and that the pit bull is a symbol for the stigmatized young black man in America. Also fiction was the scene where Oscar throws away the bag of weed, and the dance party that breaks out on the BART.

[–] ludovico_88 11 years ago

Thanks. That was rather enlightening.

vibes atm: http://tinyurl.com/a8v5g9k

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

Okay, the weed in the ocean is what I was wondering about, thanks. That gets the film an automatic 2/10 from me (not 1 because I heard those are thrown out, along with 10s). Super lame. Too bad, because I liked it up to that point.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] drjekell 11 years ago

Glad to see you went with a 2 instead of a 1. Otherwise it might seem like you're overreacting.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 11 years ago

I utterly reject the idea that it is in any way legitimate to take a real person who had a real life, and under their real name have them do something they completely did not actually do, without being honest with the audience about it. Same goes for Chris McCandless in another dishonest film, Into the Wild; but this case is if anything more egregious. "We need to make him more sympathetic before he dies, so let's have him just earlier that very day coincidentally do something saccharine-saintly (though idiotic) like in an afterschool special". GMAFB.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] GSmith9072 10 years ago

I utterly reject the idea that it is in any way legitimate to take a real person who had a real life, and under their real name have them do something they completely did not actually do, without being honest with the audience about it. Same goes for Chris McCandless in another dishonest film, Into the Wild; but this case is if anything more egregious. "We need to make him more sympathetic before he dies, so let's have him just earlier that very day coincidentally do something saccharine-saintly (though idiotic) like in an afterschool special". GMAFB.

+1000000000000

BUGS

[–] oh_no_mrbill 8 years ago

You hit it on the head. The film was good, but it basically canonized its main character.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 8 years ago

Yup. Which is actually offensive, as it is implying the real guy who got killed doesn't deserve our sympathy!

And the timing was terrible to canonize him in precisely this way, just before several states legalized weed. This movie will not age well, because in twenty years any young person watching will find that scene inexplicable.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] tripper-09331 8 years ago

Even though the pot scene was fiction it still served the point to show us Oscar was TRYING to clean himself up. Its a 93 minute movie. There isn't time to show the dozens of little real life, seemingly insignificant things he did to clean himself up that the audience probably wouldn't understand without hours worth of backstory.

It served it purpose to get a point across in a short period of time.

The fact that he was a thug, tried to change himself and most importantly was abused by the police is what matters. And that last part is irrefutable because it's based on live video and court documents.

Seriously if people have a problem with it then go watch a documentary not a movie.

"Common sense is not so common"

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 8 years ago

Selling weed doesn't make you a "thug". And why does he have to be "trying to clean himself up" for it to be wrong for the police to kill him?

As for "it's not a documentary": that's fine--then just make a fictional movie and don't use any real names. Like what Gus van Sant did in the movie Elephant. The basic story is obviously inspired by the Columbine shootings, but because he used different names, he had no responsibility to portray people or events accurately. I believe if you do use real names, you do have that responsibility.

But even setting that issue aside: even if this were a totally fictional movie, that scene with him throwing the weed in the ocean would have been super cheesy and lame.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] tripper511 8 years ago

Of course he was a thug. He had been in prison and selling illegal drugs exemplifies the characteristics of a thug. Every scene in a movie has reason for being there. As a plot driving device it served its purpose. A person who lived one way and is now working towards living a different way.

As far as using real names: the key word here is BASED on a true story. That one word gives legal rights to take on fictional aspects. Especially once the movie writes were SOLD to the film studio. They can do whatever they want.

Consider that most people on IMDB boards are NOT the normal movie viewer so we hold different standards. In an interview with the director he was asked why he gave away so much of the plot in the trailer. Something that upset some movie goers. His answer was that against better judgement their marketing team researched that the majority of people want to know everything about the movie they are going to see before they pay to see it.

The (unfortunate?) state of reality is that the majority of movie goers are your action loving, happy ending, spoon fed plot explaining, viewers. There numbers and wallets out weigh ours and since movie producers want a return on investment they cater to them before people like us.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 8 years ago

Having broken the law and gone to prison does not make you a "thug". I just went to dictionary.com and entered the word, and their definition is "a cruel and vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer". The character we were shown was not cruel and vicious; was not a robber or murderer; and "ruffian" is dubious as well ("a tough, lawless person; roughneck; bully"). Basically, to be a "thug" the most notable thing you should be known for is that you are habitually violent and predatory. There was no implication of that at all about this character at any point.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] tripper-09331 8 years ago

Having broken the law and gone to prison does not make you a "thug".

He was a thug. The evidence is in WHY he went to prison. It's never stated in the movie what his charges were or any of his criminal history. We are left to make that up and maybe assume it was for selling pot. But it wasn't. He was in prison for illegal possession of a handgun. He also had fled from police in 2006 during a traffic stop, being stop by (ironically) a taser. Why would a non-violent person illegally own a handgun unless they felt confident they will use it?

The point here is that he was already an established, low-level criminal.

Your one source (dictionary.com) might say "thug" means "a cruel and vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer" but 3 other sources I looked up that word with also use the word "Criminal" to define a "Thug". [en.oxforddictionaries.com], [thefreedictionary.com] and [merriam-webster.com]

You can read the REAL FACTS behind Oscar Grant and the whole Fruitvale Station incident here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2013/07/25/fruitvale-station-is-loose-with-the-facts-in-an-effort-to-elicit-sympathy-for-oscar-grant/#758d37524153

Just like him dumping the weed in the water was taken with creative license, so was the "innocent" persona the movie established around Oscar Grant. Did he deserve to die or die in that way? Absolutely not. But he certainly wasn't an angel either.

"Common sense is not so common"

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 8 years ago

I don't believe you would call a white man with the same background a "thug".

[–] tripper-09331 8 years ago

I don't believe you would call a white man with the same background a "thug".

Don't pull out the race card. This was a discussion about semantics [thug] and the background of the main character. Whether he was black, white or blue still doesn't change the fact that in real life he had an established criminal background. Yet in the movie they tried to make it seem like he was just a troubled youth trying to turn his life around.

It's Hollywood.

"Common sense is not so common"

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 8 years ago

I didn't "pull out the race card". I noted the way you were using a racially loaded word.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] tripper-09331 8 years ago

No at first you debated that "thug" was an incorrect use of the word because (according to one definition) it defined "violence". Then after I refuted that with 3 other sources of definitions AND showed that he was violent you changed you tune and now made it about race. At no point in this discussion was his skin color ever mentioned until your last comment. Nor does any definition of the word state that "thug" is a racial epitaph for an African-American.

[–] infairverona1 10 years ago

I wondered if the encounter he had with the girl in store was real. And then running into her on the train.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] drjekell 10 years ago

You're free to have your opinions about these cases, but to blatantly lie about them doesn't help your argument.