You'd have to have one hell of an imagination to completely make up a story, but historians are very anal about what they think should be portrayed on screen. Thankfully they don't make movies; we do.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
First and foremost, telling historical stories is very tricky because it is something that is known. It is not like you can tell a lie or change something that is written in black and white.
I always take a story that's kind of out there, like an urban myth. I take some possibility that people imagine, that they are familiar with, and try to turn it into a story.
There is an odd sense of responsibility attached to appearing in a drama about a real piece of history. A work of fiction is fun.
I like storytelling movies and more than that I like historical movies; and I think someday I'll definitely make a movie about the past 50 years history.
It was interesting to shoot history as it happens, without anyone demanding a huge story.
I think you should make movies as long as the story dictates.
As a writer of historical fiction, I believe you don't want to fictionalize gratuitously; you want the fictional aspects to prod and pressure the history into new and exciting reactions.
Although this is a fictitious story the history is real. You don't want to re-write history but you certainly want to portray events and characters as realistically as you can.
It may seem unfashionable to say so, but historians should seize the imagination as well as the intellect. History is, in a sense, a story, a narrative of adventure and of vision, of character and of incident. It is also a portrait of the great general drama of the human spirit.
You could make a film out of just about anything so long as there is a clear vision about the story.