Should filmmakers distort the truth when making a movie about someone's life, or a real event?

Movies are entertainment--but does that give them license to rewrite the past whatever way they like? Most of us would say no, but exactly where the line should be drawn--how far writers can stray from the historical facts--varies with everybody.

An example: my brother hates Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge. Brother wanted an entertaining, but historical piece. I find the movie highly entertaining, but it mocks history. An 1890s cabaret singer performing "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend" is funny and pointed, but no one believes it really happened.

OTOH, I get very irritated at movies that distort history but expect to be taken seriously. An example is Amadeus, which fictionalized the composers Mozart and Salieri in order to make a point about the nature of genius. OK, it was a brilliant point, but trashing a sweet old guy like Salieri was a rotten way to make it.

The Washington Post carried an opinion pieceon this topic on December 28, 2007: "New Rules for 'based on a true story.'" The piece by Ann Hornaday, brought out issues of truth and accuracy dealing with Mississippi Burning, JFK, I'm Not There (the movie about Bob Dylan), The Queen, Talk To Me (about DC DJ Petey Greene), and other films. Talk to Me's director said she didn't even read Greene's biography because "I thought I might get distracted with too much reality."

If that statement makes you cringe, welcome to the historians' side of the line.

Hornaday's article volunteers a set of rules to prevent out-and-out fraud when making movies that are "based on a true story:"

1. "Tell the truth when you can. Lie if you have to." This advice reminds me of a successful fiction writer who spoke at a conference. He said, "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." Hornaday points out that a film's standard of success is in how well the story is told, not how accurate it is.
2. Because film creates reality for the viewers, create an anachronism that compares past and present. "Sofia Coppoa's pink Chuck Taylors peeking out of a closet in Marie Antoinettereminds views that they're watching an interpretation of a life, not the life itself."
3. Life (and people) are ambiguous. Don't be afraid to show that.
4. Use DVD extras to correct the record and explain your dramatic choices.
5. Get away from the tortured artist syndrome we see in Ray, La Vie en Rose, etc. Actually, I don't think this has anything to do with historical accuracy; the author just went off on a rant here.
6. Finally, Hornaday advises filmgoers to raise their own expectations, and remember that no matter how accurate a film may be, it's still a fiction.

That's fine, for thoughtful movie-lovers who read articles in the Washington Post. I'm sure they all remember that movies play with the truth.

Let's face it, though: Most movie-goers are ot-nay at-thay ight-bray.

Years ago, I went to see the Disney animated Pocahontas with two other secretaries. . . after the movie, they all were very upset that Pocahontas hadn't ended up with the handsome Captain Smith. They assumed the movie told an absolutely truthful story, because otherwise, there would have been the big happy ending.

People believe that Charles Lindbergh was as wholesome and uncomplicated as Jimmy Stewart made him look in The Spirit of Saint Louis. People believed for years that slaves in the South were lovingly treated, as in Gone With The Wind. (Read The Wind Done Gone if you want to know the dark side of that!)

That last examples bring up another question. Does it hurt anyone if they put Charles Lindbergh on a pedestal because of the Jimmy Stewart movie? Probably not. Did the portrayal of happy slaves in GWTW do some damage? Most assuredly.

Do movies have an obligation to the truth, or is the obligation on the viewer, to be well-informed?