` :::Until an agreement is reached on what fiction means in this contect there is no point in continuing this 'discussion'. Simply stating that it is fiction (three times in the previous contribution) gets us nowhere. Even the source you refer to includes mention of another source (``Today's Cinema``) which states that the film ``could almost be called a documentary, in that it is a scrupulously factual, unvarnished account of an actual event``. The author's note at the end of the book you cite concedes that ``accuracy was both aimed at and claimed for the finished film``. Whether that accuracy was achieved is irrelevant for this discussion; the film aimed to accurate, not to be a fictional account. If the film's omission of someone being injured when a dog was run over is a decisive argument for its being fictional, then there can't be much else in favour!    `