Frono takes its name from phronesis (φρόνησις), Aristotle’s word for practical wisdom: the skill of judging well in a particular, uncertain moment — given the limited facts.
Dhurandhar doesn’t present itself as history. Its disclaimer calls the films fictional and says that real events, characters and institutions have been fictionalised and dramatised.
When telling a story about the past, what should a film leave untouched ?
You can select up to 2 options
A film can compress events, invent dialogue and create dramatic scenes. But the underlying events should remain recognisable as what actually happened.
Historical figures aren't fictional characters. Giving a real person an invented motive, responsibility or action can fundamentally change how the audience understands that person, even if the surrounding events remain broadly accurate.
Every film selects and frames its material, so some interpretation is inevitable. The problem begins when that framing deliberately makes the historical record support a materially different understanding of what happened and why.
A historical film cannot reproduce the past in its entirety. It has to leave things out, combine events, invent dialogue and impose a narrative structure. Requiring every such alteration to stay within a fixed boundary risks making historical fiction little more than documentary.
Nothing picked yet.
The room is still judging this one. The split appears once enough people have answered.