Two Oscar frontrunners. One big complaint.
The Social Network and The King's Speech are both based on true event, from two very different time periods. Both films are being criticized for its portrayal of the real-life events it claims to mimick.
Judge for yourself whether these two films have stretched the truth.
First up - The Social Network.
The film has been criticized on many occasions for being a complete work of fiction. Recently Napster Founder Sean Parker spoke out against The Social Network at a conference in Europe, saying most of the film was untrue.
At its debut, screenwriter Aaron Sorkin insisted the movie was true. But, at the same time, Facebook labeled the movie complete fiction.
Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg did not participate in the film's creation, yet the depiction of the famous founder is critical to the accuracy of the film. Zuckerberg is represented as a brilliant, but power-hungry college kid, who wants to be popular at school.
Zukerberg himself has spoken out about what's accurate and what's not.
In an interview with 60 Minutes, he had this to say: "It's pretty interesting to see what parts they got right and what parts they got wrong. They got every single T-shirt that they had the Mark Zuckerberg character wearing right. I think I actually own those T-shirts."
It seems Sorkin has even decided his depiction might not have been the most flattering or true. When he accepted his Golden Globe for Best Screenplay, he sent this message to the Facebook founder.
"I wanted to say to Mark Zuckerberg tonight, 'If you're watching, Rooney Mara's character makes a prediction at the beginning of the movie. She was wrong. You turned out to be a great entrepreneur, a visionary and an incredible altruist.'"
So for The Social Network, both sides have had their say and it seems they are both retreating.
Now, The King's Speech is a different story. Although the film has been hailed incredible and has received a number of awards, people are now speaking out against the film's accuracy.
Debate about The King's Speech isn't really very loud in America, but critics have voiced their concerns loud and clear in England.
Some have said the film did not accurately present Edward (Guy Pearce), who abdicated the throne, as the Nazi sympathizer that he was. Winston Churchill (Timothy Spall) was also a Nazi sympathizer because of his friendship with Edward.
Recently, Slate.com columnist Christopher Hitchens, said the movie does not portray an accurate version of history and tried to hide much of the negative, sordid truths of the royal family at the beginning of WWII.
"This is not a detail but a major desecration of the historical record — now apparently gliding unopposed toward a baptism by Oscar," wrote Hitchens.
It doesn't seem like this debate isn't going to be over anytime soon. More and more historians will probably come out with inaccuracies and false representation.
At the end of the day, "Even if the film's politics are lacking, Firth's George VI seems to be true to his personality."
What do you think? Does this change the way you feel about these award winning films?