Have empathy for the role of the nonfiction screen writer, where the stage in question supposedly mirrors reality in high degree, meaning the author is a somewhat of an authority, or has reliable sources at least, where reality is concerned.
But then how does one allow for reality checks? How does one pass along error corrections?
In cultures unable to admit error, the possibility of self correction is less probable, by definition. The narratives don't change, and one starts to hope reality is invented anyway, in high degree.
Just keep making up new facts. Isn't that how the other guy maintains traction?
Too much cynicism with regard to there being a real reality out there, may lead to many pathologies, mostly having to do with the malleability of said reality. The screen writer learns that made up fiction works in place of reality to patch up obvious plot holes. But maybe only imperfectly.
Once you've added to the pool of fiction, and seen it stick as true, you may assess yourself to be powerful, and you are. You're right to wonder how much history telling is bogus storytelling.
Lets remember that those with high regard for fiction may see it as encoding important principles with no hope of any literal expression. Fiction is their only guise, and yet these principles guide reality as well. If we think fiction is the best we can do, then why not say so outright?
I've been inclined in this direction: "there's science fiction, and there's nothing" is a bumper sticker I've at least imagined. "All realities are virtual" was another. However I admit a ratio of science to fiction, and in saying they're all virtual I'm closer to talking about the limitations of language in the face of reality, than to reality being faceless.
Most of us are not at the point of surrendering the reality principle to that degree. Stories tracing back to testing, experiment, lived experience, have an edge over those that were purely made up, precisely for that grist in the mill. Fiction has a sub-genre called realism. Back to square one. What makes it realistic?
As time goes on, holes in a story start leaking juice and the narrative starts needing an infusion. Maintaining the believability of a narrative is sometimes a tricky business, as the verb "to believe" applies to what in retrospect were dreams or fantasies. Our own beliefs may likewise be qualified, by some degree of confidence.
One way a narrative gets tested is when its true believers decide to take it on a road test. A good question is, will it hold up under stress? Again, the mere fact of stresses and strains is not necessarily experienced as checks and balances for "reality" per se. One suspects a little man behind the curtain maybe, if not a cabal. But don't we agree there's a physics to this physics engine?
Yes, this is some kind of philosophizing. One may not share these concerns, but most will.
The reality-minded will feel reassured that reality doesn't need to be believed in to work its course, meaning what we learn to be the facts of nature are not amenable to alteration by mere belief. That's all tantamount to a belief in a reality "out there" which some have their doubts about.
I think most nonfiction screenwriters (historians?) will admit to encountering reality checks from time to time. That goes with the territory. Those who can't stand to be wrong would find the continual flow of corrections intolerable. These reality checks may come across as chastisements from other people, with an independent sense of right and wrong.
Reality has a different way of letting us know we're misguided, than by speaking to us directly. Humans may voice their concerns or offer deterring views, or they may simply frustrate. Reality is closer to creating frustration i.e. plans simply do not work out. Reality, like a god, may be more forgiving because of its overwhelming power. Error is permitted and the consequences are not punishments. Moralizing comes later, when humans make up their semi-fictitious narratives.
