Biopics are having a huge moment in the 2020s. In just 2022, there were movies released about Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, Whitney Houston, and even Weird Al Yankovic, among many, many more. The huge volume of these films within the same vein invites questions and comparisons to be made about what works, what doesn’t, and why such different responses are given to each project. Different responses aren’t a matter of people responding best to the most accurate portrayals of their favorite celebrities. For instance, Blonde, Andrew Dominik’s account of Marilyn Monroe’s life, received a 14-minute standing ovation at its premiere in Venice, but was also slammed as exploitative. Meanwhile, Elvis, Baz Luhrmann’s take on Elvis Presley received more unanimous praise, though this movie is certainly not grounded in realism either.
MOVIEWEB VIDEO OF THE DAY
Additionally, there is the question of what ethical responsibilities the filmmakers have towards their subjects. Does it matter if a film is excellent if it had to exploit its subject to do so? Or can we divorce these biopics from their real-world contexts? With such a large crop of these movies to put under the microscope, we can judge whether or not good biopics stick to the facts or not.
What Makes an Effective Biopic?
Warner Bros.
When a filmmaker is thoroughly interested in the subject of their biopic, it can lead to really magnetic storytelling. This doesn’t mean they have to love the person they’re depicting, there just has to be a specific angle. Documentary filmmaker Tom Brook spoke to the BBC about what he thinks narrative filmmakers should consider before making their movies. He argues that “it’s finding an essence. It’s finding an attack,” and those that don’t work so well “are the ones that dutifully try to do everything, and in trying to do everything, end up with nothing.”
If there’s not a specific theme or idea the filmmaker wants to investigate in their subject, they may end up just recounting the individual’s life beat for beat. By committing to depict everything factually, it’s possible to end up with a less truthful portrait of the subject. Sometimes, it’s necessary to fictionalize events in order to convey a feeling or circumstance in a way that is effective on the big screen. The same can be seen in movie adaptations of novels, often the most successful adaptations must rework some of the source material.
Should Biopics Be Historically Accurate?
Participant Media
However, unlike adaptations of literary works, biopics are adapting a much more personal source. Therefore, when changes are made or events are fictionalized, this affects a real person and their legacy. Stephen Woolley is a producer who worked on biopics like Michael Collins and Colette. In an interview with The Guardian, he argues that “the renewed interest in bringing “true-life” depictions to the big screen also seems to be driven by a misguided wish to avoid fiction.” He goes on to say that sticking to the facts is “something that no filmmaker can possibly deliver.” But this leaves the audience and filmmakers at odds; viewers want pure truth and filmmakers need some creative license.
When it comes to something like blending two friends of the subject into one to streamline the story, this doesn’t affect the legacy of a real-life figure. But when you consider a movie like Green Book, which depicts famous Black pianist Don Shirley and his driver becoming lifelong friends as the driver learns not to be racist, it’s a different story. The real Don Shirley did not consider his driver to be a close friend and the movie alleging so much in the name of a good story damages Shirley’s reputation whilst spreading a damaging message. Or, with Blonde, there is a scene depicting Monroe being sexually assaulted, which didn’t happen in real life. Although this may have improved the narrative arc — in some people’s opinions — is it worth it when you are adding to the mistreatment of a famously abused woman?
What is the Purpose of a Biopic?
Netflix
A good biopic is created because the filmmaker had something to say, and retelling a real-life story was the best way for them to do so. They are so popular because audiences love to gain insight into these stories, and many celebrities being depicted already have a fan base. The argument that most viewers take everything that happens in a biopic as absolute fact seems unfair. The average cinema-goer will have the wherewithal to know that they watched a narrative movie and not a documentary. In fact, often biopics that are interesting enough will prompt viewers to research the subject after watching because they want to know how much was true. Filmmakers must maintain a level of trust in their audiences when creating their art or else movies will lose all semblance of nuance and creativity.
Where creative license becomes an issue is when filmmakers are changing so much that they may as well have made up their own characters. It’s not fair to use Monroe’s image to discuss the downsides of fame if you are going to make her suffer even more than she already did. Likewise, if you want to make a movie where a racist white man becomes friends with a Black man, you can do that without dragging a real person’s name into it. Just as filmmakers need to be able to trust their audiences to understand that what they’re watching is not 100% factual, audiences should be able to trust that filmmakers care enough for their subjects that they won’t twist their stories into something unrecognizable.
