Film is a work of art, and do not need to be accurate.

It doesn't bother me that much, for example The Social Network is not even close to reality

But in this case, Shirley's family may not be trustworthy sources either. There were some tapes of Shirley and Lip that back up events in the film and make them seem like they were legit friends https://deadline.com/2019/01/green-book ... 202541392/

Are they ever 100% accurate anyway? It's a film so liberties are taken or things expanded upon or interpreted in a way that fits the film. The family members should just be happy a great number of folks are learning about the man and his story in 2018.

Happy? lol. This is 2018. That's an entitlement.

I haven't seen Green Book, but if you watch the movie and enjoy it, that still counts for something, accurate or not. I cannot buy into this notion that a movie shouldn't have won an imaginary award (there is no such thing as Best Picture) because it didn't accurately represent one thing or it was a white person's movie. I can follow some people who want better representation in film, but I can't discount a movie for silly reasons, especially when it involves an awards ceremony that cannot accurately represent a mass opinion when film is subjective.

It depends on how much of the film is fictionalized. If the filmmakers purport and promote it as based on true events, then the film deserves more scrutiny on its accuracy.



No. Oscar winners are just results of industrial decisions and Academy members voting. Winners are not necessarily good or accurate films.

You are projecting feelings on the family. Maybe the family does not want the publicity?

I also have a cynical take: the writer and producer of Green Book is the real-life son of the central character Tony Lip. No wonder they sugarcoat the story and use it to promote his father's legacy.

It all depends on how much and to what degree a film is fictionalized. Is the central story or theme contradictory to what really happened?