How much does ‘truth’ matter in the stories we’re presented with on stage, television and film?

As we know, Hamilton wasn’t entirely historically accurate. As far as records suggest, the Founding Fathers didn’t often break into hip hop and none and dance, and were not in fact first generational Puerto Ricans.

And of course, while The Wolf of Wall Street was an accurate representation of New York broker Jordan Belfort’s rise and fall; the stories of drugs excess, rampant criminality and adventures with sex workers all real, it was pumped up a little. Belfort never once tried to bribe FBI officers. He wasn’t actually known as ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’; (the title arrived when creating the book title). And the office contests involving throwing little people didn’t happen with quite the same regularity as suggested.

Read More:

So, yes, writers are allowed/encouraged to embellish, to take dramatic or comedic license because true life is often listless and boring. The task of the writer is to compress, condense, and distil, and sometimes add a little piquancy to entice the audience along in the journey.

But how far is the writer allowed to wander across the line of truth? Audiences are now asked to answer that question given the accusations surrounding The Salt Path, a ‘true’ story which emerged firstly as a 2m-selling bestselling book and now a movie starring Gillian Anderson and Jason........

© Herald Scotland