I particularly liked the use of the opposite statement in Fargo[0] despite it not being a true story.
This is a true story. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred.
What "rules about not lying"? Movies are entertainment. Most of them are based on lies, regardless of what it says at the beginning or in the credits. Actors are professional liars. Hollywood thrives in fiction; story and tropes.
I don't think the intention was in any way to deceive the audience. I personally see it as part of their post-modern filmmaking[0] style.
What personally makes this style interesting to me is that there are usually several layers of meaning and intention. And usually references to other films or common perception or convention.
Even if the intention is to tell the truth or a true story, there's always the bias of the storyteller, the selection of what to tell, and what not to mention etc. So in this case, the Coen brothers re-used the "based on a true story" concept, and even exaggerated it. They re-use the format, but mock it at the same time.
It doesn't stop being an attempt to deceive just because it's self-aware, ironic, or motivated for other reasons. Likewise, murder during a robbery is still murder even if the primary is theft.
We have societal norms about it, maybe. But there are certainly no explicit rules about this, and the societal norms about lying are already pushed to their breaking point when you walk in to a movie theatre.
Rule and norm are synonymous, IMHO. What is the difference? What makes a rule explicit? Do you mean laws? Law itself is often rather abstract, does that still count as explicit?
I think there are specific laws about fraud. In film they can claim artistic license, though.
I remember as a kid seeing the "nonfiction" on the spine of the book cover, and thinking that mean it was a true story, rather than the reality that it was marketing spin.
In the sense that the author and the subjects claim it are non-fiction - yes, quite enough.
For people to approach it non-skeptically, no - not at all.
It's like that rubbish about the child that had visions of heaven or whatever while in hospital, they even made a "based on the true story" movie of it, and it was listed as non-fiction.
Non-fiction doesn't actually mean "factual", technically...
It would be nice if you said what the grey area is. Quoting Snopes:
> The truth behind The Amityville Horror was finally revealed when Butch DeFeo's lawyer, William Weber, admitted that he, along with the Lutzes, "created this horror story over many bottles of wine." The house was never really haunted; the horrific experiences they had claimed were simply made up. Jay Anson further embellished the tale for his book, and by the time the film's screenwriters had adapted it, any grains of truth that might have been there were long gone.
Here we have a co-creator of the story specifically saying that it was not real. We don't have that for the Bible. It doesn't mater if many of the same logical points apply when one rather big logical point doesn't apply.
In any case, many works of fiction, like Aesop's Fables, are classified as non-fiction. My belief that "non-fiction" means it actually happened was wrong.
This is a true story. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred.
Which was later used in the Fargo TV series[1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo_(film)#Factual_vs._ficti...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo_%28TV_series%29#.22This_...