Truth and fiction in movies

Today, the audience seeing major films that are based on filmmakers’ reflections of their own lives, for exmple — Steven Spielberg’s “The Fabelmans”. Other movies, like “Elvis” and “Blonde”, are seeking to bring famous icons back to life. Then there are films being debated in terms of whether they are accurate to history, like “ All Quiet On The Western Front”, or whether their casting could be causing some controversy, like Brendan Fraser in “The Whale”.

The question of whether a film is faithful to history has been a point of discussion since the founding of The Academy Awards. And nowadays movie critics still argue on the point of delivering sophistication or historical accuracy. As a matter of fact, challenging the audience’s expectations with fabricated facts could be risky for a bioptic or a film based on real events.

But if something claims to be a true story, why can it get away with including details that aren’t entirely true?

Narrative films are not documentaries. Even documentaries often distort reality to serve their intended narrative, to a degree. To say that fact should always trump fiction in filmmaking is to ignore the purpose of the craft — to tell a coherent story.

The most important and vital part of any screenplay is the story. The screenwriter’s ultimate responsibility is to ensure that all other components adds to the story. Oftentimes, complete factual accuracy is sacrificed for the good of the story.

With that said, factual accuracy shouldn’t necessarily be thrown out the window entirely. At times, it’s best to hang on to some facts because their truth is in itself compelling and entertaining in a way that no fictional component could match. Finding the right balance between fact and fiction is the key to telling a truthful story.