Thread 26 : To feel disappointed - and disgusted and vindicated now too - after reading this in The Observer about the author and her husband from The Salt Path book and film?

[DisappointedReader]

NO POSTS PLEASE UNTIL THREAD 25 IS FULL

Please see the OP of Thread 25 for all the links to The Observer's reporting and podcast series, our threads one to 24 and so on.

After 25,000 posts there are still new things to discuss:
BBC Sounds - Secrets of the Salt Path - Available Episodes
If you are posting about a podcast, please start your post with the episode number you are commenting on, for clarity and to help others avoid spoilers if they wish to do so.

New posters joining us in the genuine spirit of our civil discourse are welcome. It would be helpful to get the background from at least some of the Observer exposé items before posting. The Observer's excellent podcast series The Walkers (link in Thread 25) covers most things.
To all - Please be extremely cautious when it comes to naming or implicating people and addresses not in the public eye or with no direct connection to the story, especially where details are unclear or still emerging. Remember, even Hollywood rabbits attract the odd flea: please do not engage with drive-by scolders who seem to have their own agenda and seek to derail. Avoid @'ing and quoting them as - from experience - this will only encourage them back to the threads. For over 8 months we have done amazingly well together for 25 very interesting, very serious and very silly threads so far. I can't be here as much as I'd like so all help with keeping our discussion walking along in our usual reasonable and respectful fashion is very welcome.

As ever, as we embark on our 26th thread riding the community charabanc, keep to the path, no saltiness, eat fudge and drink cider.

NO POSTS PLEASE UNTIL THREAD 25 IS FULL: www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5485730-thread-25-to-feel-disappointed-and-disgusted-and-vindicated-now-too-after-reading-this-in-the-observer-about-the-author-and-her-husband-from-the-salt-path-book-and-film?

I was just looking up Rialto, and there seem to be two different film distributors by that name. One is NY based, founded in 1997 and seems to exclusively reissue foreign classics, especially French films. The other Rialto, which has the CEO called Kelly Rogers who is quoted in the article, is a NZ and Australia company that distributes art house, world cinema and indies. Which obviously, TSP is, but my point is that it’s a pretty obscure company — none of the big US distributors picked it up, and it won’t be opening in many cinemas. Technically possible it could still become some runaway word of mouth success? Sure, but it’s pretty unlikely.

As with the book, on Wikipedia, TSP the film has 4 paragraphs outlining the Disputed Narrative. It also references the Sky documentary about the scandal. You would hope that would have made the film distributors think again but no there must be money in it.

It all seems rather shabby and a significant number of filmgoers did comment on the fake rabbits and the sea changing sides. I read about some people who laughed out loud when Jason's limp changed sides also.

We have both (that's DW and I) read TSP. More recently, just before the Observer article, viewed the film. Don't remember the fake rabbits or the limp switching legs (!) but it was all DW could do to prevent me from laughing out loud when, at the start of their trek, the hill climb proper was reached. I know Minehead well and there is NO WAY that ascent could be even contemplated with only one functioning leg plus rucksack.
As for the sea changing sides, it would always be on the walkers right for the MH to LE journey. So sea on left would indicate either an about turn or that the Bristol Channel/Atlantic Ocean had turned into the English Channel!
My only real disappointment with the film was that the producers decided not to film at Culbone Church (no proper road access) and so substituted a Cornish church's churchyard.

Thanks for this because I haven't seen the film. I did look up about the locations - because I saw the reviews of the sea changing sides. It looks to me that it is because they filmed in West Wittering, Sussex and south Wales and the north coast of the SWCP.

Because we are discussing how the film will now be released in the US, I have just read a review of TSP film in Variety. As with most reviews it is generally positive with some qualms. I was struck that this reviewer noted, what I feel we have concluded is, the worst of this whole scandal:

Though it shows Moth eschewing his prescribed pills in favor of treating his disease by walking and restrictive eating (and it is indeed a miraculous blessing this solution has proven successful for him), it feels irresponsible for the film to send the message to those suffering from the same terminal ailment to choose exercise and better food over doctors’ orders.

It shows that everything was out there - this was reviewed in Los Angeles, in August 2024. A review in Variety would have been noted by all involved, I'm sure, so maybe the revelations were not that much of a shock?

The rabbit scene is hilarious! I think it’s meant to be a version of that scene in the Unflinchingly True Book where they pitch the tent by the path in the dark and wake up to find themselves on the edge of an overhang over a big drop that has been riddled by rabbit burrows, and thete rabbits all round.

But the film has clearly hired pedigree pet rabbits from some agency, and they’re all long-haired and fluffy and glossy and multicoloured and sort of peacocking around the tent posing. It’s as if you hired a bunch of very cherished pedigree Ragdolls and Burmese to play feral alley cats. TSP’s rabbits look like they’re about to insist on going back to their trailer for a snack!

I just started to watch the film again @MulberryBrandy, but don't think that I can, it starts with them thrashing around in the water with their tent, as if they are in danger of drowning, then cuts to them setting off on the walk, GA says in a weirdly Irish sounding accent, "What else can we do" already I'm muttering, you can stay at your nieces, GA stares down at her own feet, watching one foot in front of the other while JI limps along next to her, in the next moment they are walking down a hospital corridor, limping towards a consultation that didn't take place.

The limping is a troubling aspect of the JI performance, especially as it was decided to feature the limp to be symbolic of those with CBD, rather than based solely on Moth actually limping. The film must have been a relief for Salray, she could openly make bits up, JI like Moth would not look like he had CBD if he didn't limp. This film is such an insult to people who have CBD, it is fiction the same as the books, it can't really truthfully be said to be based on a true story.

I remember the rabbits @NervesofSteel, they looked like they had had a blow dry, I'm chucking thinking about them in their trailer :)

Yes, they were totally blow-dried!

It is so good that you know these places personally@UpfromSomerset, I'm sure I remember you saying once, that you used to cycle down an alarming steep bit of the SWCP in this area when you were a teenager, very interesting that you don't consider the ascent could have been made by Moth, you have local knowledge and experience. The SWCP looks beautiful and thankfully Raynor Winn's deceptive antics won't change that.

When it was shared, a couple of days ago, that the film would be aired in the US - I thought that this was becoming so tiresome that the main players refused to wake up and smell the coffee.

I learnt, from Ruth Saberton, that she approached the reading of TSP in an emotional way. This seems to be pertinent to the making of the film, also. The director had learnt that her mother's condition was terminal the day she first met Raynor. It feels as if the emotional aspect strongly clouded peoples' critical faculties.

The inside story of The Salt Path's transition from book to film

You've got a good memory, @Freshsocks . Only cycled down the path once in my life! Scariest bit was having to keep the speed up - with a dynamo-operated front light - as it was getting dark when heading homewards.
JI portrayed the limp (? left foot at first!) being so severe as to render that limb useless. Hence my comments.
Something I haven't mentioned re. our excursion to Somerset last year.

If we're doing our reminiscences of "the Path" .... I always (inwardly) groan when Sal waxes (not so eloquently) about the "endless horizon". As a child, at Lynmouth, I always used to stare through the sea mist very intently - to try to spot the steelworks at Port Talbot!

Oh it’s making me wince and grimace! The whole debacle is acted twice; once in TSP itself because it’s fiction which hangs on the barest minimum of fact and the film then does a version of that and secondly when the actors play the parts of Moth and Raynor who are the complete opposite of Sally and Tim. It’s like having thrice cooked chips except the end result isn’t as favourable. I also feel it’s the same effect as setting two mirrors opposite each other and looking into infinity. I actually might be going a bit bonkers at this point.
@Freshsocks you are absolutely right about the insult that this.
I wonder what Rotten tomatoes rated it as? I’ll check.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/thesaltpath#critics-reviews

Have they not heard the news? The blurb still calls it true story.
The very least that could happen now is that the film and book are no longer hailed as True! 😡

Sorry my last message ended abruptly having hit the wrong key!
Was about to relate a follow up to our trip to West Somerset last year. We managed to reach our goal - Burgundy Chapel, a well hidden ruin on the hill above Minehead. Built in the 15th century - very little remaining today - just the entrance through an archway and a massively thick wall facing the sea.
The links with TSP are :- that the chapel ruin is reached by making a short detour off the SWCP and :- as related in TSP, we also had an unfortunate encounter with the local insect life. For the Winn/Walkers it was a plague of flying ants. For us it was ticks. On return home, three days of "have you got the tweezers, dear, I've found another one!" Caused much merriment, details of which I leave to fellow charabancer's imaginations. Fortunately no side effects such as an infected bite or Lyme disease.

I wonder if JI and GA will be doing the publicity rounds for the film in the US or whether they will be able to sidestep any contractual obligations due to the scandal. I can't see either of them being too keen to field questions about the scandal or what they knew/suspected.

I think the film could only ever be billed as 'based on a true story' simply because so many things have to be changed when you adapt a book for the big screen. A book and a film are not the same animal - when you can spare several pages in a book for lingering (cliched) discussions about things, they will be glossed straight over in a film, and scenes added to link parts of the story together. A film is not like a book.

But TSP the book should definitely be stripped of its 'unflinching truth' label. 'Based on a true story' is stretching the truth to breaking point too, if you ask me. I don't know what they could call it though, if they switch it to absolute fiction it will lose most of its readers (which the publishers will know and not want), but they can't keep calling it a memoir, so where do they shelve it? There isn't yet a section for 'invented memoir to make us look good' - although I suspect the shelf would be overloaded if they did label one as such.

I get your point, but isn't even "based on a true story" a stretch in this case? That tagline seems to chime with the die hard defenders who argue that memoir is bound to have artistic licence so what is the fuss about...they care about the story not the veracity. The issue I have is the entire foundation of the story is built on lies for both the book and film dramatisation. While film adaptations have more leeway for understandable embellishment and narrative jiggery pokery for the screen, I don't think it lets the film off the hook here if it is claiming to be based on a true story. Ultimately, surely the benchmark should be "will the audience feel duped if they later find out the film distrubutor billed it as based on a true story at a time when the knew it to be false"? I know I would.

You are quite right. 'Loosely based on a story that's loosely based on a story where some bits might bear a passing resemblance to something that has a grain of truth somewhere very deep down' won't fit on the posters though.

For sure. I suggest it should be the following:

The Salt Path: based on Raynor Winn's fictional story that duped millions of readers.

Even with pure fiction I noticed a differentiation recently. This was with the two, 9-10 year apart adaptations of John Le Carré's The Night Manager.

IIRC the first one was "based on" and the second was "inspired by". I have no doubt that the fastidiousness, in this case, was due to two of the Cornwells (John's sons) being behind the production team. It shows the producers can be more accurate if they have the will!

I know they will want to cash in on the 'success' of the books, but maybe they should not advertise any connection between the book and the film at all? Let the film stand on its own merit as a barely coherent story of two people walking a bit. Pretty scenery, some moaning, see what people think of it if there's no link to the books.

Plus that would piss Sal off royally because she'd be disconnected from it all. Although she'd still earn money off it. But I think she wants to be SEEN to be successful, just earning the money and not able to flash it where everyone can see her must be absolutely grinding her gears.

So that's a result.

This is perfect 👏
Two grifters go for a walk, otherwise the disclaimers on this thing will fill 7/8 of the poster. You might be lucky to still see the top of the title’s typeface.

I’m going to assume that they’ll have lawyers breaking that aspect of their contract, if indeed they were contracted to do publicity for a US opening — it would presumably involve arguing that the actors took on the roles and did UK publicity with the Walkers in good faith, but after the Observer revelations that the book is a pernicious fiction and the Walkers scam artists, they can’t now pretend they’re unaware of this, and them on chat show sofas talking about the film would be likely to harm, not enhance, its box office.

Of course, that may not even be on the table. The UK premiere was nearly a year ago. Both actors will have long gone on to other projects, and simply may not be available. I don’t know enough about film publicity to know whether there would be a time limit on the stipulation for overseas publicity obligations?

I think the difference there was that the original series The Night Manager was an adaptation of Le Carré’s novel of the same name, but he didn’t write a sequel, so the second series uses some of the same characters, but in an original screenplay not based on any Le Carré work. (JLC did give the producers an idea for where he thought a second series could go, but they decided not to use it.) So while there’s still a connection to the world of JLC’s novel, it’s not an adaptation of anything he wrote.