One of the most satisfying aspects of cinema is when it reflects the human spirit, illustrating real life examples of courage and bravery.

And it’s quite reassuring how many films there are, based on true events, which can leave an audience feeling profoundly moved.

So how are they supposed to feel when a film states it’s based on a true story, but then it transpires that perhaps it isn’t after all?

The Salt Path film was adapted from a bestselling book, focusing on a 630 mile walk by real life couple Raynor and Moth Winn, starring Gillian Anderson and Jason Isaacs. But how true is this ‘based on a true story’ exactly?

Happily married couple Ray (Anderson) and Moth (Isaacs) are hit with not one but two pieces of bad news. The first sees them fall into such debt that their farm home in Wales, that leaves them literally homeless.

The second sees Moth diagnosed with a rare disease, CBD (Corticobasal Degeneration), a rare, incurable condition, with his doctor telling him that he has few years left to live.

Facing both these bombshells, the couple decide to go for a walk, along the English South West coast, and see how far they get. It’s a walk that brings them together as they face a multitude of challenges along the way.

So a premise that sounds fairly uplifting then, which many of the people that bought into Raynor Winn’s 2018 memoir, as well as those that saw it in cinemas.

But after an investigation by the Observer, the couple came under a huge amount of scrutiny, with much of what was written in the book allegedly false.

It’s unclear whether director Marianne Elliott and the production team were aware of this situation, but with Raynor on board as an executive producer, you would think not.

The Observer story not only claims that the couple didn’t lose their house as claimed, but also that Moth’s health condition were highly suspicious, with health experts stating that his turnaround health wise would have to be considered virtually miraculous.

So if you take out both these elements from the film, what you are left with is a couples’ walk along the South East coast, which is less than inspiring.

In the author’s defence, she has described the investigation as ‘grotesquely unfair’ and ‘highly misleading’, but the damage has been done.

So how does one critically appraise the film now? You could simply accept it as a work of fiction, with some elements of the story seemingly being just that, but surely that would be letting the film off easy.

That statement of being ‘based on a true story’ carries a fair amount of weight with audiences, and when that’s called into question, as it has been here, there is a sense of being betrayed.

So with the accuracy of the story itself up for debate, what’s left? Well, the performances are touching, with both leads giving a good account of themselves – if not the characters they play – and the film is a very good advert for the South East coast that is very picturesque.

It does make for a curious watch post Observer piece, but knowing that the validity of the story itself is questionable, it’s disappointing to think that we should really take what was sold to us as a true story, with a pinch of salt.