Bringing history to life on screen is a slippery slope. Filmmakers aspire to tell compelling stories, but where do you draw the line when exercising creative liberty? Can the free reign of artistic expression end up distorting historical truth?

With films like The Delhi Files diving deep into real facts, the debate around fact vs. fiction in historical storytelling has never been more relevant. So, where’s the line between cinematic drama and historical responsibility? Let’s unpack the moral dilemma filmmakers face when transforming real events in films.

Why We Love History on Screen

The audience is naturally drawn to historical films because they offer something textbooks can’t—immersion. Instead of just reading about an event, we get the opportunity to live it through characters, emotions, and dramatic moments that bring the past to life.

Filmmakers have the crucial job of making history accessible. A film needs to engage the audience, simplify complex historical events, and present a cohesive narrative. But here’s the catch—history is layered, unstructured, and often chaotic. It presents multiple narratives and unresolved questions.

This puts a major choice in the filmmakers’ hands. How far can they push the boundaries before the story stops being history and turns into something entirely different?

The Power and Responsibility of Storytelling

Movies shape the way we remember history. Most of us don’t retain our textbook history lessons, rather remembering the ones we got from films. That’s what makes historical accuracy crucial. A well-made piece of cinema can revive forgotten stories (Schindler’s List), challenge official narratives (JFK), or even rewrite perceptions of history (Braveheart).

However, no historical film is 100 percent accurate. It’s impossible to be. History is often documented through several lenses, some biased, some incomplete, and some conflicting. Filmmakers heavily rely on research but there also comes the factor of storytelling to create a nuanced experience.

Here’s where it gets murky:

1. Compression of Time: Real-life events span years, even decades. Compressing all of it into a 3-hour narrative can condense the content, and characters can become composites of multiple real figures.

2. Adding Fictional Elements: Dialogue, personal interactions, and inner conflicts are often created to keep the script flowing smoothly.

3. Dramatization: Real events don’t always follow a three-act structure. So filmmakers take the creative liberty of heightening conflicts, exaggerating moments, or even changing sequences to create stronger emotional impact.

4. Choosing a Perspective: No film can cover every side of the story. The director picks an approach, shaping how the audiences perceive the events.

Can Films Ever Be 100% Accurate? Should They Be?

Here’s the crux of the matter: If a film follows a strict path to historical accuracy, it would probably be slow-paced and documentary-like. Cinematic pieces need structure, emotion, and pacing—things real history cannot provide.

So, the question isn’t if filmmakers should take creative liberties, but rather how they do it. There’s a difference between weaving the story responsibly and distorting the truth for drama. The best historical films don’t just recreate the past but also make you rethink your perspective. They start conversations, challenge opinions, and encourage us to dig deeper.

Final Thoughts

Historical storytelling will always walk the thin line between fact and fiction. Filmmakers aren’t historians—they’re storytellers, and their job is to make history engaging while maintaining authenticity.

If a film is “based on true events,” it carries the weight of credibility. Filmmakers hold the responsibility to respect the essence of the truth, even when shaping a cinematic experience. Because it all boils down to how we remember historic events. And films play a pivotal role in that than we often realise.