If non-fiction is defined as the recount of a specific event that occurred in reality, then just how much creativity can be attributed to a real occurrence, before it becomes fiction? As in, the truth must be nothing but the truth, and if this is a fact, then where is the line for the creativity? And, what defines the “creativity” element for “non-fiction”?
Non-fiction should be as accurate as possible. Inevitably so, even for a film that utilizes “creative liberties” as it is called, to deliberately twist the truth, is the same as telling a lie.
Would then, the telling of someone’s tragedy to someone in the real world, outside of the pen and page, ever be “creative”?
To add creativity to a person’s tragedy, to turn what should be taken seriously into nothing more than a joke, seems a bit sadistic. Is that not how Batman’s Joker became the Joker? All of his life’s tragedy became comedy, after he was told that his life was a lie. Therefore, the Joker made it the lie that comedy is, as creative as possible with his murders.
Turn the truth, the tragedy, into comedy, and it becomes a lie.
We begin to not take seriously the event that should have been portrayed as dry truth, when we add creativity to the pile, so that we tell no more than lies.