The motion picture industry has come a long way. The exact date and title of the first film ever made are debatable, but the first successful commercial showing of a film took place in Paris on December 28, 1895, when ten short films by the Lumière brothers were shown to an audience in a theater. Earlier screening of films preceded this, but the Lumière brothers were organized and had strong financial backing. In a short time, short films were being made and shown all over the world.

Film studios around the world produce films on a myriad of subjects. Most are works of fiction. Some are amazing documentaries, and some are something in between. Not all films about historic events or biopics and biographies about famous people are historically accurate. Moviemakers love to tell a good story and moviegoers want to be entertained. Sometimes even the most compelling lives/events have boring moments. Is it okay to spice these stories up for the sake of entertainment with events that never occurred or people who were absent or don’t exist?

Yes, it’s just a movie. We should be getting our information from history books or trusted biographers, but often, the most compelling story is the one we remember whether it’s true or not.

Here are five films that fudged some important details and may be distorting how we remember the past.

The Patriot (2000) - The film is historical fiction, but many viewers believe it to be an accurate retelling of historical events that occurred during the American Revolution. The main character, Benjamin Martin, played by Mel Gibson is a composite of several historical figures including Francis Marion, the Swamp Fox. Martin is supposed to be a loving family man of great integrity. Marion was known for his cruelty to Native Americans and for raping his female slaves. The famous scene where British soldiers lock women, children, and the elderly in a church which they burn down never happened. It was based on an atrocity committed during World War II by the Nazis. And last, but certainly not least is the absence of slavery in the film. This was an unforgivable omission. The film is well-acted, and the story is exciting, but it gets two thumbs down as a history lesson.

The Sound of Music (1965) – According to the movie, Maria is a high-spirited novice at a convent in Salzburg who is sent to the home of a wealthy widower to be governess to his seven children. Maria and the crusty widower, Captain Georg von Trapp, a retired naval officer fall in love, marry and are forced to commit a daring escape with the children through the snowy Alps to Switzerland to escape the clutches of the Nazis who want Georg to command their submarine division.

The von Trapp home was more modest.  The family had to let their servants go and take in boarders. They began singing to make extra money and Georg was always embarrassed by that. Maria had been a novice, but she was only hired to tutor one of the children who was recovering from scarlet fever and needed to complete her schoolwork at home. They were married in 1927, not 1938. It was a marriage of convenience. Georg needed a mother for his children and Maria needed a husband and home after deciding to leave the convent. According to Maria, she and Georg grew to love each other and had a happy marriage. According to the von Trapp children, Georg was always a kind and doting father, not the stern figure in the film and Maria had a more mercurial temperament. Georg did oppose the Nazis, but instead of them trying to coerce him into service they were trying to woo him with promises of position and power. And finally, the von Trapp family walked to the train station and took a train to Italy. Though Georg was an ethnic German-Austrian, he was born in Italy and had Italian citizenship.  From Italy, they went to London and eventually to the United States. They sold the rights to their story to a German producer in the 1950s who sold it to American producers. When producers met with Maria von Trapp, they made it clear they wanted to make an entertaining film and would be making any changes to the story they wanted. The film has been an American family favorite for 55 years. The historical inaccuracies are mild, so I’m not giving them any thumbs down, but I will commit to a head shake and a stern look.

Pocahontas (1995) tells the story of Captain John Smith and the Jamestown settlement and a Native American woman, Pocahontas who is Chief Powhatan’s, daughter.  According to the film, Smith and Pocahontas are both adults. They fall in love but face opposition from her father and the young brave he has selected to be her husband. Pocahontas saves John’s life and John is wounded protecting her father from a bullet. He must return to England to convalesce, but Pocahontas makes the decision to stay and protect the peace between the colonists and her people.

Pocahontas would have been about ten years old when he arrived and there may have been a friendship between them, but they did not fall in love. There is little evidence to support the claim she saved his life. Three years after Smith returned to England, Pocahontas was captured by the colonists. She converted to Christianity and her name was changed to Rebecca. She married John Rolfe, a tobacco planter. They had two children. Rolfe took her to England and presented her to English nobility as an example of a “civilized savage” to drum up investors for the Jamestown colony. She died at the age of 20-22 of unknown causes shortly after they set sail to return to Virginia. She’s buried in St. George’s Church, Gravesend, in England, but the exact location of her grave is unknown because the church burned down and was rebuilt. This is a hard one to let slide. We have taken so many historic liberties with Native Americans. Her animal friends Meeko and Flit are cute, and nobody tells spins princess story like Disney, but the violent clashes between the settlers and Native Americans were glossed over. Two thumbs down for historical accuracy

Braveheart (1995) Here we have Mel Gibson starring in and this time directing a film that plays fast and loose with historical facts.  Where do I begin? William Wallace did fight and die in the struggle for Scottish independence. But during the time depicted in the film (the 13th century) England and Scotland were at peace. The main love story of the film Wallace’s love affair with Princess Isabell is problematic because the real Isabella would have been only three years old.  The “brave heart” referred to in Scottish history is Robert the Bruce, not William Wallace. Scots did not wear tartan kilts until 500 years later and they had stopped painting their faces with woad 1,000 years earlier. Wallace was a lowlander, so depictions of the countryside surrounding his home are inaccurate. As a gruesome tidbit, the torture and murder of William Wallace depicted in the film are tame compared to the torture he endured and his death. Because my late father-in-law was born and raised in Dundee, Scotland, I give this film two thumbs down for its many historical inaccuracies that could have been avoided, plus a grateful nod for not accurately depicting Wallace’s torture.

JFK (1991) is a film by director Oliver Stone. Stone examines the events leading up to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and the alleged cover-up attempts theorized by former New Orleans district attorney, Jim Garrison (played in the film by Kevin Costner). This is a tough one because conspiracy theories are just that…theories that may or may not have any basis in fact. Because Lee Harvey Oswald who was later identified as the shooter following hearings by the Warren Commission was shot and killed by Dallas nightclub owner, Jack Ruby after his arrest, there will always be unanswered questions. Stone asks a lot of questions but provides little to no evidence to back up his insinuations. Stone uses actual and recreated film clips from the assassination to lend a documentary feel to the film which lends an air of authenticity to many allegations that have no basis in fact. Two thumbs down for including a conspiracy theory that was debunked in 1972 almost twenty years before this film was released.