I liked the ending. It was sudden and unexpected. It made me sad that life is rather short and pointless, and we spend it trying to kill each other.
See, the ending made me angry that the story is rather short and pointless, and we spend it trying to empathise with a bunch of lions. :?
The Lions WERE shot by the Marines. In real life.
So?
A story is a story. The inspiration for that story shouldn't have bearing on what worked in it and what didn't. That implies a heirarchy of certain ideas being inherently better than others, which is completely false. Every story ever made, documentary or no, that is based or inspired by true events has to cut, edit, restructure, and invent in order to tell the story the best way that it can.
For example, in ROME, which is based on
multiple true events recorded in history, they take the fact that there were two soldiers: Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo, and invent a plethora of events around the two characters that intertwine them into so many of the events that Titus Pullo is responsible for the downfall of Rome's republic and that he is the true father of Cleopatra's son. They cut the entire year where Caesar routed Pompey's soldiers from Spain, as well as ignoring several members of the extended families of the major characters - all in order to tell the story better.
Historical research (be it research from events a week ago to events 1000 years ago) is like any researching fiction or your own imagination - you take what you think works in order to tell the best story.
Now with stories based on true events, there are some non-negotiables - but those non-negotiables are totally decided upon by those creating the story, and as such, are based entirely on their own personal agendas, leanings, feelings and whatnot - it's arbitrary.
BKV may go, "The non-negotiable is the lions are freed and killed by US marines", but another writer may go, "The non-negotiable is that the lions are freed by US bombs". The writer determines how accurate their story is to the true events.
My point is - just because the lions were shot by US marines in real life doesn't automatically make it "the right way to end the story", nor "good". It just makes it factually accurate. If I think there is a fundamental story problem in the way the story ended, the idea that "it happened in real life" as a carte blanche to let any damn thing happen - it's a nonsense retort because most of the comic was animals talking to each other in English - and I'm pretty sure that didn't happen in "real life".
"But Bass" you say, "You've got to let some stuff slide."
And I agree. I do. I did. But if factual accuracy and its diligence to that accuracy is the comic's virtue, then surely, by that reasoning, the rest of the comic is nonsense and of no value. But we all know that's nonsense. Because without all the fictional elements, the story would have no emotional core at all. If BKV can invent talking lions, he can invent anything. It's up to
him what stays true and not, and "it happened in real life" is not a valid response to the quality of a story making decision.
Bass is being a silly-billykins... I think its a stupid argument, despite Bass having good points... And the Animals they run into are fictionalized, but specifically the Bear was there because it is a fact that Saddam had those animals in his palace.
Freed by Americans, Killed by Americans. That was pretty much the point of the piece.
I don't have a problem with that. My problem is:
I still think its terrific, powerful, and because the ending is important and necessary, works completely in tandem with it.
I disagree with that sentiment. I don't think that the ending was important, or necessary, precisely because it feels completely alien to the rest of the piece.
To emphasise - If BKV feels the lions
had to die (and if he wants that to be the case, then that's fine), and that they
had to die to US marine gunshots - he still has a million ways to
have that happen. And the one he chose, I think, is pretentious, shallow, and worst of all, a cliche.
I honestly feel that if BKV's mission statement was to, as you say, have the lions freed and killed by US Marines, then he possibly picked one of the worst endings to that story he could've picked.
If you don't think so, if you think it was perfect, fair enough. But can please no one give me the "but that's how it happened in real life" argument? Because you know what? I bet it didn't. I bet BKV didn't get a transcript from the marines and I bet none of them said, "Are they wild?" "No, they're free." I bet BKV doesn't know the names of who shot those lions. I have to wonder if its the right kind of building or just what time of day it
really took place at. There's loads in the ending he made up, including the meaning of the horizon. If he can make all that up, he can make up the meaning of the gunshots and the story's ending to his heart's content. And he picked
that ending, and I think, it was a
bad choice.
I'd also like to say that (again), the last five pages (or whatever) suck. The rest, I think, is absolutely brilliant.
