Mixing fiction with history is a crime.😂 Apparently, some people need a reminder that cinema is an art form, not a history textbook... Take Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds (2009), for example. The film is set during World War II and depicts Adolf Hitler being killed by a group of fictional characters inside a cinema, an event that never happened in real history. Did the filmmaker rewrite actual history? No. He created an alternate-history fictional narrative using real historical figures and events as its backdrop. That is the creative liberty filmmakers have been exercising for decades. Historical fiction allows directors to blend real events, fictional characters, dramatic situations and imaginative storytelling to create a cinematic experience. Now, when an Indian filmmaker takes creative liberty with a historical setting, suddenly some people start treating cinema like a history examination. There is a clear difference between deliberately presenting fiction as documented fact and creating a fictional narrative inspired by historical events. Historical accuracy can certainly be debated, and filmmakers should be open to criticism, but simply mixing fiction with history does not automatically make a film a crime. If Hollywood can explore alternate history through cinema, why should Indian filmmakers be denied the same creative freedom? Judge the storytelling, debate the creative choices and criticise inaccuracies where necessary. But calling creative liberty a crime is an entirely different argument. Cinema is about storytelling, imagination and artistic expression not merely reproducing the pages of a history book. #Prabhas #Fauzi @hanurpudi