lune7000
Junior Member
@lune7000
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 678
|
Post by lune7000 on Apr 14, 2021 0:48:49 GMT
I am a very open person who likes a good movie in any genre but one: the biography film. This feeling only grew recently and i would like some different perspectives from you. But first, hear out my reasons. As I see it, there are two big reasons that repel me from biography movies:
Distortion- biography movies very often present a false image of their subject. There are two types of distortion I see.
1. Political distortion- when the subject of a biography movie is involved in political or social issues, the director's political views cause the subject to be depicted often as a sinner or a saint. Political biography movies almost always devolve into pure propaganda.
2. Personal distortion- biography movies often alter the real subject's personality. But this leaves the viewer with a false and often unfair image that is worse than not knowing about the subject at all. Millions of those who watched Amadeus through Mozart was a gross childlike imp- when he was nothing like this. Lies about someone's personality are truly cheap shots- in some ways worse than political lies.
Boredom- biography movies are usually really dull.
1. You know how the story will end, so there is no real drama
2. Propaganda films are always boring, so are movies which idolize or demonize someone
3. Biography movies rarely present any insight into how the mind of an amazing person worked. These movies are often like those "book reports" we had to endure listening to in school where a fellow student says "first he went there, then he married X, then he moved here" etc. Its all description and no insight. I rarely see the world the way the subject did- that's a shame. (the Ray Kroc movie -the Founder- was the only one that seemed to get into the mind of the subject a little)
Recently I went though my list of "critically acclaimed" movies and started watching "The Man of a Thousand Faces" (1957). When I realized this was a biography movie, I became concerned. Not knowing about Lon Chaney or his family was better than seeing a distorted view of his life; ignorance is better than a lie. Was the movie accurate? Who knows, it could have been dead on- but the realization that it could be very wrong bothered me a lot and I stopped it a quarter of the way in. Amadeus kept haunting me.
I realize that all historical movies are distortions and I watch them- but to mangle a person's complete life seems deeply wrong on some level.
Is there anything good about the biography genre? What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Apr 14, 2021 1:33:31 GMT
The best biography movies seem to centre on a short period of the subject's life (Lawrence of Arabia, Patton etc). And these 2 seem to be reasonably accurate in how the person is portrayed.
Those that try to incorporate an entire life end up as a "highlights" reel.
Like every genre, there is a vast range of examples from great to abysmal.
|
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Apr 14, 2021 3:23:23 GMT
People do not understand point of view. Amadeus was not in any way a biography. It was a fiction which used factual material about Salieri and Mozart to explore the idea of creativity, gifts, and jealousy , using Salieri’s point of view.
Patton was more like a biography but it still represented the point of view , first of Coppola, then of Omar Bradley and the Germans ,Eisenhower and Montgomery, and finally Patton himself.
Lawrence of Arabia was based on The Seven Pillars of Wisdom, Lawrence’s own mémoire, recognized as imperfectly truthful. Point of view was very important in this film. The Hejaz Arabs’ point of view was imperfectly represented, always seen through the eyes of Lawrence.
I do not think a film can be a good biography. It would need to be a documentary. But very good films can be made using the life of real historical figures . There have been several very good films made of the life of Lady Emma Hamilton. THAT HAMILTON WOMAN is a very good film that explores the life of Nelson’s mistress and his career.
There are loads of other examples
|
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Apr 14, 2021 5:09:25 GMT
Is there anything good about the biography film genre?
Some people (or events) are so big (or important, or interesting) that they beg to have a film in order to present them to a broader audience. For example, I could never have fully appreciated Gandhi's importance without an epic film such as Richard Attenborough's. Could his life have been presented to a broad audience any other way? I don't know but I can't imagine how it could be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Apr 14, 2021 5:36:07 GMT
By coincidence I just watched the The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm.
I am not going to second guess the biographical elements--to me this is like The Agony and the Ecstasy although Amadeus also qualifies in a way--it's the theme of how creativity and art can tear down and inspire people. The passion of art. In the case of Amadeus, the scene where Mozart and Salieri collaborate is that element. Despite the gulf of their differences, they come together for art in one scene.
In The Agony and the Ecstasy it is the scene where the Pope and Michelangelo discuss his plans for the ceiling while a battle is going on around them, and in Brothers Grimm it is the final scene with the children coming out to see them.
Ed Wood is like that too-the scene where Ed Wood meets Orson Welles--although fictional, the scene is about two artists, despite the differences between then, discussing the passion of art.
Could this type of story be done without using famous people?
Maybe but I think it would harder to move people.
Does it have any real value to tell a story this way using famous people?
I think while it is kind of crass on some level, there are people that will never read a biography or watch a documentary and maybe not even know the person by name.
I think those people who really get moved by the story-will research the person and learn more about them.
But I agree there's an ethical issue involved especially with the political angle of things.
|
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Apr 14, 2021 7:36:52 GMT
Could this type of story be done without using famous people?
Maybe but I think it would harder to move people.
Does it have any real value to tell a story this way using famous people?
I think while it is kind of crass on some level, there are people that will never read a biography or watch a documentary and maybe not even know the person by name.
I think those people who really get moved by the story-will research the person and learn more about theM
There used to be a popular type of essay or belles lettre, an imaginary dialogue between two people who never met in real life, as a wa6 of high lighting ideas and issues with the authority of a famous person. Some film bios are like this. Some authors ( Philip Roth is one) like to include famous historical figures or even literary characters . None of these are biographies but they can be used to note important points about the persons life.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Apr 14, 2021 11:09:27 GMT
No film biography can fully encapsulate someone's life.
Even the best of them (Amadeus, Lawrence of Arabia), are the equivalent of a Classics Illustrated comic book. For a film to do any kind of justice to the subject, it would have to be a miniseries.
If you are really interested in the facts, a movie bio can motivate you to visit your local library and read up on the person.
Even though I've read several books on famous people, I can still enjoy their film biographies for what they are. Some do them justice like Chaplin, with a magnificent performance by Robert Downey, Jr., and the already mentioned Man Of A Thousand Faces, another fine portrayal by James Cagney. Gypsy is a highly fictionalized version of her life, but it is grand entertainment, and led me to my library and the real story behind it (a true life horror film, if there ever was one).
Few, if any, of the Hollywood bios of the thirties and forties can be taken seriously, particularly those devoted to song writers and musicians, most of which look like the same script recycled with the appropriate musical numbers inserted.
No biography is entirely divorced from the prejudices of its authors or its era. Even an artist like Sergei Eisenstein (Ivan the Terrible, Alexander Nevsky) was forced to tailor his movies to fit the political climate of Soviet Russia.
But that should not be a reason to totally reject the movie biography, which is first and foremost designed to entertain and secondly to reveal the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Apr 14, 2021 15:07:55 GMT
There are biopics about people I had never known, or heard of, before. For me, Julie Taymor's Frida (2002) is an example of such a movie. The movie is based on a book by Hayden Herrera called Frida: A Biography of Frida Kahlo." I think it is important to notice what the source material for the movie is also. Frida (2002) is a great combination for Julie Taymor's talents--remember that she has an interest in folklore and mythology and designed the stage play, The Lion King. Frida was also a a perfect vehicle for Mexican actress, Salma Hayek. It is sort of a double biopic in that it presents some of Diego Rivera's biography too. Was the movie totally accurate? Probably not. However, for those interested in using learning more about Frida Kahlo there is always, at least, a wikipedia biography: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frida_Kahlo to cross-check the facts of the movie. One can also find examples her artwork too. But, without the movie, I may have never discovered that she even existed. So, to answer the question posed by your thread title: I think that these are good things about this type of film. --------------------------------------- Speaking from your point of view, I think that Mommie Dearest (1981) may have negatively influenced me about Joan Crawford. I don't think Christina Crawford liked the movie either, which makes me wonder....what was real Joan Crawford like? |
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Apr 14, 2021 15:08:46 GMT
Even though I've read several books on famous people, I can still enjoy their film biographies for what they are. Some do them justice like Chaplin, with a magnificent performance by Robert Downey, Jr., and the already mentioned Man Of A Thousand Faces, another fine portrayal by James Cagney. Gypsy is a highly fictionalized version of her life, but it is grand entertainment, and led me to my library and the real story behind it (a true life horror film, if there ever was one).
This really makes my argument about point of view. GYPSY’s factual material was based on Gypsy Rosé Lee’s memoirs. Her sister June Havoc was so outraged by the portrayal of their childhood that the sisters did not speak for some years, reconciling shortly before Gypsy’s death. It was Gypsy’s point of view, her sister experienced a different reality. I would not trade any amount of real factual biography ( which is also tempered by point of view, like all history) for the story of tge two children and Rose, a character so brilli@ntly written that she has been tackled by every great woman of stage who put her own twist on it and made it her own.
|
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Apr 14, 2021 15:33:31 GMT
I think what I like about film bios are the A: attempts to recreate a time period and B. The attempts to make its stars resemble their subjects. A. is generally interesting,
and B. is fun to watch even when the results are inaccurate or even bad. Sometimes a film bio that is historically inaccurate can be entertaining anyway, and makes a better story than a more realistic one.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Apr 14, 2021 15:35:44 GMT
Of course, it's one of my favorites. Artistic license is inevitable for the sack of running time or dare I say, entertainment value. Beyond a point, people need to remember they're not watching a documentary. It's historical fiction.
|
|
|
|
Post by mortsahlfan on Apr 14, 2021 16:25:39 GMT
No. Besides the inaccuracy, they're usually not good (sometimes for that very reason). I wouldn't wanna watch a biopic and have incorrect thoughts in my head, not knowing where they came from. It's just a vehicle to make money while spreading mass lies.
I think it's best to go to the source. Interviews, video, audio, etc..
|
|
|
|
Post by kijii on Apr 14, 2021 17:23:29 GMT
I just finished watching the PBS Ken Burn's 3-part mini-series: Hemingway
As with many public figures, Hemingway was a complicated person who had several periods to his life: he was almost a different person when he died than in his youth, while was struggling to write "the perfect sentence." Though it would be impossible to capture any phase of his life in any one biopic, I have read all of his novels (except Islands in the Stream, and Death in the Afternoon). His novels tended to be somewhat autobiographical. He was not such a fan of Rock Hudson doing the second version of A Farewell to Arms.
The Burn's series did stimulate me to try to find Death in the Afternoon on audible, it possible. I want to experience that one in an audible way. That is, I want to HEAR the words--spoken.
Hemingway and Gary Cooper were friends, and he liked to have Cooper representing his novel characters whenever possible. Hemingway's Adventures of a Young Man (1962) is an interesting compilation of some of Hemingway's Nick Adams stories. |
|
