This is my point, generally. When I chose to watch this particular film, I was expecting a movie only. It wasn't billed as "what happened at the picnic". And it worked as it was.
But others I see as intending to be more historical.
Take two movies about the same event. My Darling Clementine and Wyatt Earp. Both dealing with the situation at the shoot out on Fremont Street.
Extreme liberties were taken with the first one, and in the second, well, not accurate either. But I would say viewers watching the first didnt come away with thinking that was the way it was whereas the second, with the name, Wyatt Earp, they probably did or else it was really close
Also folks watching Hitchcock's Psycho wouldn't expect that was what actually happened with Ed Gein.
Or, another example. Gary Busey won an academy award for his work in The Buddy Holly Story. With a title like that wouldn't a viewer think he was watching what really happened?
But for me. This is ME watching anything on TV spurs me to flip out my iPad and look up the stuff in the show. I think it helps me learn. Shucks, I know it does. Many times when I finish my exploration, I've drifted quite far from the tv presentation .
Like this one, the Hyde Park thing. First I had to see exactly where it was. Remember I've never been to New York. And how old were the characters. What did Daisy Suckley look like. (Couldn't find a direct closeup). Compared how Missy looked to the actress who played her. And then to find if Bertie really hated his brother.
See how I use it?
For once I didn't look up those Cameras the photographers were using to see if they really were used in 1939