cjrgreen: Oliver Stone, "JFK". Whatever we do know about the Kennedy assassination, we can be sure that if it's represented in Stone's willful fiction, it didn't go down that way at all. Total fabrication from beginning to end.
I won't bash "Da Vinci Code", because first, I was never quite sure it was meant to be taken as historical, and second, Bronze Dan is such an amateur that I am surprised anybody takes him seriously as a writer. Oh, wait, I just did.
"Amadeus" and "Shakespeare in Love" are likewise worthless as historical accounts, but they are too much fun to carp over.
Yeah, pretty much. I saw a documentary on the History Channel a few years ago that does the best job I've seen of explaining things. If you know anything about Jack Ruby or Lee Oswald, the whole situation of them being chosen is completely bizarre. Oswald was a known communist that had spent time in Russia and the Russians turned him down for any missions before he eventually returned. And Jack Ruby had easy access to the police station because he was on good terms with the cops. He also was fiercely patriotic and had a nasty temper, he was known to remove people he didn't like from his club on his own.
As far as the original topic goes, if a film maker doesn't have strong feelings, then chances are good that they aren't going to bother making the film about somebody. If it's somebody that you're kind of meh about, you might as well just make a fictional movie about somebody you're more involved in.