And if I believed it I would tend to be more interested in knowing more about it. When I saw A Man for All Seasons, I read Robert Bolt's book. Every historical film that has been made has been called into question in some way. But generally speaking, the non-literal person, the person who would enjoy a movie, would tend to view a movie as a first draft, would deepen his perception with reading around it. I mean, books are another medium.
Books can go into more depth.
But don't tell me for one second that a person who writes a book is more objective than a person who makes a movie. I don't buy that, because so many historians have axes to grind and have subjected their own judgment to their own perception and their own subjectivity, and partisanship in some cases. It goes on all the time. And every history, in fact, is an omission of facts, because there are too many facts to put in any history. You're not a historian, but most historians will tell you that they make very discrete judgment as to what facts to omit in order to make their book into some shape, some length that can be managed.