passions { sunday debate } The Crown’s blurred lines
When fact turns to fiction, when real life meets reel life, is creative licence necessary, or does one need to be told?
“Former UK Prime Minister, John Major, too, has called the show factually incorrect” AAKANKSHA SINGH DEVI
“The show must come with a clause”
D ame Judi Dench has claimed that the latest season of The Crown is “cruelly unjust” and must come with a disclaimer. Former UK Prime Minister, John Major, too, called it factually incorrect. I agree! The past seasons have proved that while research has been done into the royal family’s history, where fact ends and fiction begins, is left ambiguous. How can one ensure the lines aren’t blurred? Add a disclaimer.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve loved watching the show. But I’ve caught myself wondering on more than one occasion, “Surely that is untrue!” And if it seems even the tiniest bit
P misleading, then it must come with a clause. Especially when the show is about an institution that has existed for centuries, is still in existence, and any “artistic portrayal” can easily alter the understanding of reality.
It seems like the creators of The Crown were not perturbed by their art and creativity, in many ways, distorting reality. And if they mean for the viewer to pause and do a quick fact check, that’s misusing that artistic licence. And if a show, film or even a written piece of work is not entirely factual, then surely a disclaimer isn’t too much to ask for!