Your description of the controller is actually very much more like the description of the "presenter" in MVP.
It's a subject with quite a lot of conflicting information, but this is how I recall it from the 2000s.
The presenter gets info from the model, then serves it to the View. The view has (as you say) no idea who the model is, to ensure decoupling. It does however know how to send inputs back to the presenter.
In traditional MVC, the view DOES know the model and DOES receive data from it directly. The view comes first, so to say and displays the data. UI events on the view will then call the controller who manages these inputs and calls the model as appropriate.
I assume there is quite a confusion with the terms MVC going on:
I would not say that the classical one is the correct one, but that one has to clarify what is meant. And comparing what is referenced in a conversation to one of the other meanings might not always be helpful.
I have the opinion that as long as nothing is wrong with a definition, we shouldn't change it.
There was nothing wrong with MVC; it was just different than MVP, yet we inject the meaning of MVP into MVC and call that the new meaning of MVC. All that while the original meaning of MVC is now lost and now both things mean the same thing.
Also that last sentence is kind of eye opening, because it implies that as long as I reference something, even when everyone else has a different definition in their heads, my definition trumps theirs...
Basically we change defitinions of things we misunderstood because that is easier than solving our cognitive dissonance internally
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.