Real-Life Drama?

I saw one of those classic films - Double Indemnity - not on TV but in a cinema, where you get closer to the original 'feel' of the production. The lights went down and the screen changed shape to the aspect ratio used in 1944. The scratched celluloid started to roll and I surrendered my senses to the monochrome entertainment of a bygone age - insofar as I was able.

For I was distracted from the magic by the details that distinguish past from present: such as the fashion of the time which required all men to wear hats out of doors; the primitive voice-recorder used in the office scenes; the way that everybody smoked - anywhere; the fact that all the people were thin and all their cars were fat.

And what must it have been like to experience this American film, in Britain, just after WW2 had finished? Americans appeared affluent, confident in their culture and years ahead in their material lifestyle. They had telephones, cars and supermarkets with fully stacked shelves. This level of affluence, and the social change that went with it, would be a long time coming in tired old Britain. It’s a great film but, given that the accurately detailed social backdrop came ready-made, and that the direction was top-of-the-range Hollywood, what really distinguishes it from others is the cunning, imaginatively conceived plot.

Within days I was making comparisons with a modern film, Rush, the story of the rivalry between racing drivers Nikki Lauder and James Hunt. In this case ‘plot’ is replaced by a dramatised account of actual events. It was made last year but is set in 1976 - which means that much of the production work went into replicating the costume, speech, behaviour and technology of the period in order to establish credibility with an audience who saw the events themselves and are still alive and kicking. And yes, I did spot one or two discrepancies – some only recently coined figures of speech, and the drinking of beer from bottles which, I am sure, was never done at the time – but, I wasn’t unduly distracted from the main point: the story.

So, which is the more difficult to achieve: inventing a dramatic story or dramatising a real-life story? I was pondering this in relation to my own experience one Monday morning during my recent solitary stay in London. I had woken up with a fuzzy head - the effect of over-enthusiastic socialising - and devised a simple plan to bring myself round to full operating capacity. It involved taking a walk to buy some of the particular bread I like, replenishing my pockets with cash and reviving my senses with coffee.

But I was too early: the shop had no bread. I bought some bananas so that I could get cash-back from the till but they didn't have enough money in it. I found an ATM half a mile away but it had been emptied over the weekend. I made my way towards my favourite coffee stall, a mobile unit set up to service the local office workers, but realised they would probably require cash payment and so made a lengthy diversion to find another ATM. When I finally got back to the coffee stall there was an ill-tempered queue and the two barristas were bickering.

My turn came eventually and they handed me the flat white I had been longing for. I walked to the park where I had planned to savour it in the sun but, with the first sip, I tasted the sugar they had put in by mistake. I couldn’t drink it and, lacking the will to go back, threw it in the bin.

Man Fails to Buy Coffee may not sound like much of a drama: but you couldn't make it up, I thought as I headed home, eating a banana.