
Despite this notion, directors should at least acknowledge when they do not tell the whole truth. That is the difference between Truth and truth. "Truth" is staying true to the intentions of the story, meaning the overall series of events are correlative to reality. In contrast, "truth" is making sure everything matches exactly what happened in reality, with every quote correct down to the last comma. While I believe it is alright to exaggerate the truth a little bit, there is a fine line between Truth and truth. I think that Spielberg crossed that line in "Lincoln". By changing the vote of a state in the most influential amendment passed for African-Americans, some people may view Connecticut differently. However, I do not think that Tarantino crossed the line in his movie. Although Candyland is an unlikely name for a plantation, the overall essence of the treatment of African-Americans was true to history.
When do you think a director crosses the line between Truth and truth? And can the line be different for each circumstance? Please leave comments below.
No comments:
Post a Comment