If a movie is made of factual or historical events which happened within three or four decades, should the movie makers stick as closely to those facts as they can?

I guess that is the difference between a documentary and a movie made with poetic license.

A movie based in real events I do think it is better to stick to the facts, because we audience members don’t know where the truth stops, and starts and I like to know. At minimum I want it clearly stated at the beginning of the movie that it is only based on actual events and not 100% accurate.

Similar discussion

I agree with you on this @Hypocrisy_Central. I think they should stick to the facts or, as @JLeslie says, state in the beginning that some license was taken. Another notable example is Selma where they distorted Johnson’s position on voting rights to heighten the drama. It was a great movie but that did Johnson an injustice. And I think it should not just be recent history but all history – I read that there were inaccuracies in Lincoln but I don’t recall what they were.

I don’t agree. A film maker of integrity has the obligation to state whether or not the portrayal is a documentary or merely “BASED on fact.” For any film such as American Sniper made within memory of so many individuals who lived through the events, any variation from significant facts will be hotly contested and loudly disputed by those associated with the episodes depicted. It is a mistake to condemn a powerful movie for liberties and embellishments which contribute to a compelling narrative. Some of the greatest movies ever made fall into this category and this is particularly true but certainly not exclusive to military epics. Lawrence of Arabia, Patton, the Caine Mutiny, the Great Escape, the list is endless.

@stanleybmanly The trouble is that many films that say “based on a true story” are taken as being a true story by the audience. And something like “American Sniper” or “Selma” where they are using actual names and events and not – at least in the case of “Selma” – saying “based on” are taken as true and often shown in schools. If they state upfront that dramatic license was taken, I don’t have a problem with it but then it probably shouldn’t be used for history lessons.

Yes. Especially when you use actual people, I expect you to portray them accurately.
You do have more liberties when you use fictional people in an historical setting, though.
That is one of the big differences between ‘Saving Ryan’s Privates’, which was about fictional characters, and that filthy propaganda flick “Colonial Sniper”, that turned a psychopathic mass murderer who enjoyed killing people, into a positive character.

Great point about using the names of actual people in history. If it was a fictional character in an actual historical time period then the audience is more likely to take for granted some of it is made up. I saw the movie Lincoln and I would have no idea where things were filled in and exaggerated. History is a difficult subject for me, and most of my knowledge is from movies or discussion, not from reading. I feel sure that means I have inaccuracies in my head about history and also I have not read much debate on historical facts to have a real sense if the impact on society over time. I think a lot of people rely on movies and what is said about history in the media, the problem is a lot of those people don’t realize they have only partial facts and not necessarily scholarly interpretations.

“Facts”—even ones a few seconds old, let alone years—are strictly in the eyes of the writer. Especially movie writers.

Should they? I think so, but do they have any legal or other pressure to do so? No.

This is a hot-button issue with me.
In the future, people will not read books, but watch movies to get an instant grasp on history. When you have films like “Selma”, which tells of the civil rights movement, which incorrectly portrays LBJ as opposing Dr. King’s efforts, you have misrepresented history.
The “American Sniper” thing isn’t as big a thing. I do understand having to encapsulate a story into a workable narrative.
Sometimes you can’t tell the big story, but focus on a small part, like “Hyde Park On The Hudson”, and that is fine with me.
“Unbroken” tells the story of Louis Zamperini, but without the thrust of what his struggle became. That angers me.
A film like “Inglourious Bastards” is not a retelling of history, and doesn’t matter here.
“Patton” and ”“Gandhi” had minor mistakes, but largely got it right. Those are models of how history should be handled.

Yes. But I’m also that guy that watched Troy and got pissed off when Ajax died, because he survived the Trojan War according to Homer.

Movies that attempt to portray real events should try to maintain accuracy. Fictional accounts within real events are fine, as long as what we know to be true isn’t distorted too much. But if a movie is going to massacre history, it should instead be set in an alternate world, with different names and events to the ones we are familiar with.

Once again, a great film is a great film. There used to be and probably are disclaimers tied up in the credits of most films, credits that few of us bother to read. But in the end, it is NOT the responsibility of the film maker to educate an ignorant viewer on the veracity of events unless the work is advertised as a documentary piece. There is a difference between say the movie Lincoln and Ken Burns’ Civil War. They are both outstanding pieces of work and invaluably useful as educational tools. Either would greatly aid a good History teacher in filling the vacuum between the ears of the average teenager. It falls on the teacher in the case of kids, and we adults as citizens to discern the truth of what we have viewed. In the case of American Sniper, and any worthwhile film, variations in accuracy will nearly always be blared out in the news, and the controversy debated ad nauseum. Those of us who would prefer to watch Dancing with the Stars (like my wife) as opposed to the PBS evening news get exactly what they deserve. Now that may sound like a fair proposition, but the problem is, as I endlessly drone at my beleagured wife (to no effect) – the problem is that the rest of us, and more to the matter OUR COUNTRY ITSELF gets what THEY deserve. And frankly, it pisses me off to the point of apoplexy. To state it bluntly, anything imaginable can befall a nation, and nothing is more readily manipulated than the “facts” in a land where the bulk of the population simply fails to pay attention.

It sounds like we are worried about the ‘Historical Documents’ from Galaxy Quest. In order to put butts in the seats, you need a good story. We’re talking about movies here. They are bound to take a few liberties. Most have trouble being true to the book, let alone historical accuracy.

I’m fine with artistic license being taken with ancient history, particularly because much of what he know as history is derived from folklore, which, honestly, may not be all that accurate itself. Something like Netflix’s Marco Polo series is fine because Marco Polo is a much a figure of myth as he was a real person. There is some debate among historians about the veracity of the account of his travels (keep in mind that Polo himself did not write his accounts, someone else did based, supposedly, on what Marco had told him). The series Marco Polo is severely fictionalized, but that’s ok because the Travels of Marco Polo is probably (to some degree or another) fictionalized as well.

For more recent history, especially with figures still living, I think there is, or ought to be, more of a responsibility to adhere to the truth as far as possible. I especially detest when history is distorted to fit some contrived Hollywood plot formula. In the film Seven Years in Tibet (in keeping with the oriental theme) much is made in the story of Heinrich Harrer’s marriage falling apart because his ego drove him to go climb a mountain rather than remain at home with his family. In reality Harrer and his wife were divorced long before he ever set off on his Himalayan expedition. That is, perhaps, a small issue, but it’s an example of Hollywood fluff.

A more egregious example is the film’s treatment of Ngawang Jigme. In the film Jigme is depicted as a coward who sells his country and people out to gain favor with the Chinese. In real life Jigme surrendered because he knew that the small, untrained and outdated (many being armed with only spears, a few had ball-and-powder muskets) Tibetan forces had no hope in Hell against the large, modern and mechanized Chinese army. He surrendered to avoid the pointless slaughter of those under his command. And the impression I get of the real life Jigma is one of a man led by a genuine desire to work from within the Chinese government for the benefit of his people rather than out of personal ambition. But this is distorted because Hollywood demands convenient heroes and villains.

@FireMadeFlesh Troy really angers me, because of the changes made. Another is “A Beautiful Mind”. The filmmakers changed the symptoms of John Nash’s illness to make a better story to film.

Why?
A movie is a movie.
If you don’t know that, you are the problem, not the producer.

@janbb The trouble is that many films that say “based on a true story” are taken as being a true story by the audience.
Even if it says ”based on a true story” unless you know the genuine story how do you know what parts are true and what parts are fake or made up. When I saw American Sniper I actually thought he got “bloodied” in country by waxing a kid, and that was part of his trying to just separate bad guys from good guys. I would have also thought he killed Mustafa with an incredible over a mile shot, much less guess he was behind a flapping piece of tarp, and making a head shot when he could not even see Mustafa’s head. I would not have known if any of those events were fake or not. I believe ”based on true events” means that some dialogue or events were added to add clarity but the actual facts are presented unadulterated.

@filmfann When you have films like “Selma”, which tells of the civil rights movement, which incorrectly portrays LBJ asopposing Dr. King’s efforts, you have misrepresented history.
Exactly! It would be like me doing a movie about the My Lai massacre but made the reason it happened was because a VC sniped a popular captain while he was walking with his troops and he fled into the village prompting the massacre, I would be taking liberties to rewrite history, doctor facts, and do an injustice to all those involved. I could get people to believe it was the Vietnamese in that village that caused their own massacre.

@filmfann Agreed. RIP John Nash.