Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Bathroom Monologue: The Merits of Factual Inaccuracy

"My films have come under a lot of fire in recent years. People say I’m inaccurate to police procedure. It’s true, in that movie that Cracked now mocks, I wrote that it took three minutes for the FBI to trace a call when it actually only took a few seconds. And the sequel is now blamed for starting the urban legend that an undercover cop has to say he is if you ask him. Cops smirk at that. They know it’s not true, and told me so on my ride-alongs and interviews. I researched thoroughly to help my writing. The three-minute rule was simply more dramatic, which is why so many other screenwriters copied it without checking. That’s not the only reason I wrote things like that, though. My movies are full of inaccuracies like that on purpose. If there is some copycat who takes my serial killers for inspiration, or I want him to try and burn off his fingerprints or mail a note full of letters cutout from magazines. I want him to think he can stay on the phone line for one minute without getting caught. Now they say movies and videogames don’t really influence people. That’s fine. When undercover cops make fun of me for getting it wrong and demean some jackass dealer who thought they had to expose themselves – well, I’m proud."

6 comments:

  1. I've always wondered how many criminals get caught because they watched CSI and thought the could outsmart the cops...

    But there are no merits in getting physics totally super wrong in scifi...I'm looking at you movie 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What if 2012 draws mad scientists down the wrong path and none of their doomsday machines work?

    ReplyDelete
  3. you have revealed the undercover cop secret.. watch your back..

    ReplyDelete
  4. The best defense ever: I did it on purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'd be proud too, but no less annoyed, I must confess. The price of the greater good...

    ReplyDelete

Counter est. March 2, 2008