I would like to know the names of 3 films which deal with real events
and have in every way depicted the events in an accurate and fair
manner.
Mongolia

Wow, Mongo ... THAT is very challenging!

I can't think of any offhand.

Bryan

This is going to be difficult. I doubt that any such film is accurate
"in every way." For example, Ron Howard's "Apollo 13" is generally
considered to be an accurate depiction of the titular mission, but it
contains numerous errors and misrepresentations:

http://www.space.gs/apollo13.html

John Wayne's Alamo

There is no such thing as a film which deals with real events
and has IN EVERY WAY depicted the events in an accurate manner. That
would be a documentary, and even those are influenced by many
variables. The very action of recording an event causes the event to
be seen in a certain way, one that is different from any other
observer. Furthermore, individual recollections of the same event can
be (or seem to be) vastly different. "Rashamon" is an excellent look
at this. Finally, any movie will take liberties with chronology for
the sake of flow, or will gloss over entire aspects of an event.


"All the President's Men" is a reasonably accurate portrayal of the
actions of Watergate investigative reporters.

"Hurricane" is also a reasonably accurate portrayal of Reuben
"Hurricane" Carter's experiences.

"Man on the Moon" is also reasonably accurate.

So I guess that Michael Moore's films are out of the question, right?

Wonderful comment, Mark. Indeed, each of us experiences a historical
event (even those that we have participated in or experienced in our
lives) differently. I've recently watched a BBC documentary "Hollywood
and the Holocaust". The big question there was how can you - or is it
at all possible - to depict the real horror in a film? The answer is
no, but the artistic efforts are sometimes interesting (I remember
they were talking about Sydney Lumet's - sp?- works)

All the wonderfully erudite comments notwithstanding, you guys are
completely forgetting Dick:


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144168/


a great film, accurate in every detail.

I have never heard of 'Dick' but (thanks to Paf) I shall now try to
get a copy. (Maybe it was never released in the UK?)

Now, why did Paf's comment make me think of 'Dave' (1993), another
great movie? (Well, I liked it and I believed every word.)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106673/

I now wonder if Paf is actually Kevin Kline? 

Or just a look alike?

Well, Dave, I also enjoyed 'It's De Lovely' but, of course, I would
have anyway because of the lovely Ashley Judd.

Bryan

My vote for one of the three slots is Tora! Tora! Tora!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066473/plotsummary
http://www.joblo.com/reviews.php?mode=joblo_dvds&id=549

Perhaps "The Benny Goodman Story" or "The Glenn Miller Story"?

Well well 3 films can b as 1 is already know 
that is 
1: APOLLO 13
2: Men of Honur ( which is a Hollywood movie based on a Black NAVY men
of 90's who strugled to get admission into diving school and become
and proff DIVER (sea Diving))
3: A FATHER FOR BRITTNEY (Deciding what's best for Brittany shouldn't
be based on studies.)


I think it might solved ur question

What about that film about the German cannibal?

Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction and needs no embellishment.

I read the book and saw the movie "Amistad".  Both were disappointing,
but I sense the historical accuracy was as close as they could get it.

I think the "The Onion field" was probably quite close, besides the
supernatural bagpipe player.  I've not heard of anyone who disputes
the series of events, but not all was known or ever will be known.

I loved the made for TV movie "the missiles of October", and it
certainly deals with the events as they played out.  Accurate?  Who
knows.  Devane and Sheen do a good enough acting job that you'd vote
for them if they ran ....

Amistad is packed with historical inaccuracies (abolitionists carrying
crucifixes is one of the most glaring). Ron Maxwell's Gettyburg and
Gods and Generals are considered by historians to be very accurate.
Here's a piece about historians advising film makers:

http://chronicle.com/jobs/news/2006/01/2006010401c/careers.html

There are more than three films on this list: 

 Author cites the best and worst films for historical accuracy
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/02-00/02-12-00/b03li072.htm 

His list is : 
* "A Man for All Seasons" (1966)

* "Apollo 13" (1995)

* "Ulzana's Raid" (1972)

* "The Duelists" (1977)

* "Conagher" (1991)

I would add "All the President's Men". 

There is also interesting information here: 

History in the Movies
http://www.stfrancis.edu/historyinthemovies/
A history professor writes about the historical (in)accuracies in
various films. She writes that:
* Glory Road (2006) is "mostly true"
(http://www.stfrancis.edu/historyinthemovies/glory%20road.htm)
* Jarhead is also pertty accurate - at least it follows the book
correctly <http://www.stfrancis.edu/historyinthemovies/jarhead.htm>
* Ciderella Man is pertty accurate (in depiction of the Depression
era, less in some dramatic subplots)
http://www.stfrancis.edu/historyinthemovies/cinderellaman.htm
* Kingdom of Heaven "is an honest and fair treatment of the Holy Land
during the Crusades."
http://www.stfrancis.edu/historyinthemovies/kingdomofheaven.htm

The rest of her reviews are (also) entertaining and interesting. 

A lengthy analysis of JFK 
<http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkmovie.htm> 

The Truth Behind Historical Films
<http://www.geocities.com/tommay_e17/> 

ReelFaces
<http://www.chasingthefrog.com/reelfaces/reel_faces.php> 

Movies Based on Real Stories
<http://www.geocities.com/traciy2000/>

Hello Politicalguru

Please post your last comment as an answer to my question.

Kind regards

Mongolia

Some very interesting comments to my question. I do believe there is a
clear distinction between a Documentry and a film attempting to
portray an historical event in that documentaries do not normally use
actors/actresses to
protray the subject they are discussing.

Regarding All The President's Men it is interesting that the Film and
Book differ in one major detail. Both describe an event where the
reporters go to Ben Bradlee's house as Deep Throat has warned them
that their lives are in danger.

 In the book the event happens in early 1973 (around February/March)
where the story finally becomes a major news item.

 In the film , the event is related to a potentially damaging story
charging Bob Haldeman as one of 5 Nixon aides controlling the
Watergate Slush fund. The Story is printed shortly before Nixon's
reelection (1972 October/November timeframe). It also backfires on the
reporters because although the story is largely accurate, it wrongly
says Hugh Sloan told the grand jury  (that Haldeman was in Charge of
the slush fund.) In fact it turns out that Sloan was never asked the
question by the Grand Jury.

The White House goes on to crucify the Washingtion Post for the story.
the film more or less ends at this particular event happens about one
third the way through the book.

I suspect the book is more accurate in this respect.  

I have yet to see the film Dick. I am sure it is very accurate :-).

Mongolia