As a prof of mine used to caution, "Don't get too close to Caesar."

What he meant was, apply great scrutiny to primary sources, which can often lead you further astray than can secondary sources. The latter often acheive a greater objectivity, and the distance between a secondary source and the actual events can lend both perspective and the benefit of analysis to a work.

Primary sources are invaluable, to be sure, but require as much interpretation and skepticism as any source, don't you think? I'm not by any stretch saying ignore primary sources. Just don't elevate them to the divine.

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I don't think that anyone is arguing that Blackhawk Down is anything other than a fictionalization of actual events. It's not a documentary film, we all understand that. It's primary intent is entertainment, not education. The reason it was made was to make money, not to change anyone's worldview.

Tuchman is an historian of towering integrity and ability, and to hold Hollywood to her standards would be unfair because Hollywood is showbiz, not history biz. You said it yourself..."The movie is a movie." Tuchman can't idly speculate by writing "Napoleon stood pondering his funny hat..." without corrupting her work. Hollywood, on the other hand, has to belly-flop into Napoleon's mind if he's the subject of a movie. They'd be remiss if they failed to do so. The fact that by doing so, they veer away from reality is of no concern because they aren't in the reality biz either.

wipes brow
Well, I'm floggin', but I think this horse is dead.