Do Disclaimers Work

There are two kinds of films. Some begin with a disclaimer that says “All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.” Stating that upfront reduces the possibility of being taken to court by any person who believes that he or she has been libeled via their portrayal in the work. But does that actually serve to make someone more eager to watch a film? Is denying resemblance a way to get the audience to the movie theater? And there are others that announced that the film is based real incidents. Which one is more effective in suspending disbelief - the real purpose of every story?

Intrigue?

To generate intrigue by denying any connection with an actual event, character or location, the story must complete a story that has remained incomplete. The disclaimer adds to the intrigue when the audience wants to know the inside story of an event that got hushed up. People go to watch the film to seek the truth. When the film Zubeidaa starring Karishma Kapoor, Rekha and Manoj Bajpai began by saying that all characters, events and places were fictitious, some people found the plotline of the film very similar to the events involving the erstwhile royal family of a state. A vast majority of the audience didn’t really know about the palace intrigues. To them it was just another story involving some kings and queens. Those who knew about the events watched the film with bated breath to check if what they had heard in hushed whispers was indeed true. The disclaimer was evidence that this was indeed based on real events and characters.The more recent Special 26 (2013) was supposed to be based on the high profile heist, carried out at the Opera House branch of Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri jewellery store in Mumbai, when on March 19, 1987 a total of 26 men posing as income tax officials raided the shop and walked away with jewelry worth lakhs. Those in the audience who were old enough to remember the Opera House heist watched the film with a very different mindset from the youngsters who were watching yet another Akshay Kumar starrer. When they learn that there was actually a conman called Natwarlal who had done something similar, their view of the movie did not change.https://youtu.be/DNi8nyn-v0s 

True Story?

Then there is another kind of a film that states boldly that it is “based on true story”. The film “Catch Me If You Can” was stated to be based on the life of the con artist Frank Abagnale Jr. He stole millions of dollars by posing as a pilot, a doctor and a legal prosecutor – all before his 19th birthday. For those who had no clue about Frank Abagnale, wondered whether someone like that could actually have existed for real.https://youtu.be/hFj3OXVL_wQThe Blair Witch Project begins with a statement, “In October of 1994, three student filmmakers disappeared in the woods near Burkittsville, Maryland while shooting a documentary. A year later their footage was found” The viewers assume that this "recovered footage" is the film they are watching. In this case just the shaky handheld camera footage makes the audience suspend their disbelief.And finally there are biopics, like Gandhi, where viewers generally claim that the film did not do justice to the real events. They want a movie to depict the “truth” as they know it but are comfortable having movie actors depict real or imaginary characters. They don’t want to be surprised by what they see.Why do you think people behave this way?---------What was the real name of the famous Mr Natwarlal? <click here>Join me on twitter @AbhijitBhaduri