I dont think it involves far-ness or stretching the truth. Closeness, sure. The way I understand it, reenactiment is reverential and ritualistic. It might jump analogically from one medium to another, for instance hunting and dancing...but its aim would not to subvert the underlying archetype, so to speak. Neither would it be, in my opinion, interperative in principle even if it is interperative in expression. Interperative suggests 'interpretation' as an aim.
Which then begs the question whether reenactment has an aim, anyway--if it subsists between the voluntary and the involuntary, the present and the past.
I'm quickly reminded of a short passage I read last night--
--which seems somewhat related to your analogically jumping comment/question.
Schumacher's passage unwittingly describes subversive reenactment. Is subversive reenactment then a key ingredient of avant garde design? See how Le Corbusier subversively reenacts via re-interpretation, the Villa Savoye.
There's the new movie Lincoln, which tries very hard to be as close to the original as possible, and earlier this year there was the movie Lincoln, Vampire Slayer. Does (historical) fiction sometimes easliy fall into the category of subversive reenactment?
The logisital objective of a crime-scene reenactment is to reproduce the crime as closely as possible, and the aim of the reenactment is for the police investigators to gain a form of eye-witness experience of the crime. Reenactment within the philosophy of history has the same aim.
Perhaps subversive reenactment just happens to be a very good way to come up with something new again.