Lately I have seen a couple of biopics, which obviously are based on real people and events. I saw the TLC story last week (review will be up later this week) and recently also The Butler, jOBS, Zero Dark Thirty and Fruitvale Station. These movies try to stick to the facts, but if you do a quick Google after having seen the movie you quickly realise that some facts are missing or completely changed. It can diminish your appreciation of a movie, but on the other hand a movie has to be kept interesting to the viewer.
I’m interested in your thoughts on the subject:
Do you think biopics are woth watching and how closely should they adhere to real life?
It depends on the bio-pic and how they tell the story. Yet, if it takes too many dramatic liberties. That’s when I know it’s crap as I cite the MC Hammer movie from VH1 some years back as an example of what not to do.
I have never seen the MC Hammer movie from VH1. I’m wondering what was bad about it, could you further explain?
Well, there’s a lot of historical inaccuracies and such that bothered me as well as the fact that it took too many dramatic liberties.
Notably as it played with a lot of the events that happened in MC Hammer’s life where there’s a scene where he’s talking to a journalist while there’s a report where 2Pac was released from jail after he got shot. I was like “wait a minute, 2Pac got released in 1995 and this is set in 1992”.
There were also stuff about MC Hammer’s brief time with Death Row Records and his attempt to go Gangsta. Hammer didn’t sign w/ Death Row until 1996 and that song “Pumps and a Bump” was released in 1994. Plus, him and 2Pac were never friends since everyone who knew about 2Pac knew that he never liked Hammer. And Hammer wasn’t in Las Vegas the night 2 Pac got shot again and then died days later.
It pissed me off when these things happens where they take too many dramatic liberties as I saw some of the TLC movie and once again. There were some inaccuracies I noticed like Lisa Lopes’ never-released album. She recorded that in 2000 and it came out a year later in other countries.
For me, if you’re going to tell a story. Do it right and get some facts right unless you’re making something that is unconventional like “I’m Not There” or “24 Hour Party People”.
I’ve been studying scriptwriting for a bit and the rule is that you choose between 5-10 happenings you cannot do without in the pic. The story has to flow to give the movie its continuity and obviously it will never be the same. There are those rare cases when books are given precedence (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings) but even then, it can’t transmit everything you get from the book. It would be impossible.
I know in Lee Daniel’s “The Butler”, there was never a second son and the wife was not an alcoholic. But those elements were included to give the story an arc and make the viewer more emotionally invested.
Ideally, all dialogue should have a purpose in the film. Otherwise it should be cut. It is about taking advantage of your resources, which in this case is screen time.
I had an issue with the changes made for The Butler as people will assume that those elements were true. If she wasn’t an alcaholic why include it? There is still family alive of that woman.
I really like hearing your thoughts on it because you have studied writing a bit more.
“The Butler” is not a good example of a biopic. The main character was inspired by someone, but that’s about it.
Now, a true biopic based on the life of an actual person should be fairly accurate. If the creative teams chooses to consolidate events or people to add dramatic effect, then for the most part I do not have a problem with it unless they are taking too much creative license. It’s a fine line.
I did get the feeling it was a biopic from it, so I guess that is something other people will also feel.
So making it a bit more general, what do you think of something like JFK where the director injected his own interpretation of the events? I remember a lot of people who took the movie as facts.
“JFK” is an odd one. It’s a conspiracy theory movie and is designed to make you think. Whether Oliver a Stone truly believes everything he presented, I believe his main goal was to cast a shadow of a doubt about the culprits of the assassination. As such, it succeeded.
Yeah, he definitely succeeded with that!
Well, from some biopics I’ve seen lately, I was quite disappointed on how people try to not mention some flaws or bad events they faced (but people know it happened). I watched Lovelace, and you know that she appeared quite innocent there (but even though I did not know her a lot before, I read many reviews about it). And there’s The Iron Lady, The Lady, and some others. They aren’t really objective. So I don’t know. It’s normal to want to have a great biopic of ourselves but too much censored is just not real.
Yeah, objectivity often is missing, which is a shame. But then again you want the viewer to connect with a character.
I never view biopics as having that much factual information. So much needs to be Hollywood-ised to make the films viable and profitable products. I think they’re worth watching for entertainment, not for anything of value on the subject matter. Go read that stuff in a book if you really want to find out information on the subject matter of the biopic. In my opinion!
I agree with you, in the end a movie is there to entertain, getting across some information often is a nice extra. Thanks for you opinion Jaina!
Hi, Nostra:
If bio-pics adhered closely to the facts. The large majority of them would never have been made. More often. They have become a low cost, high yield propaganda tool (‘The Laramie Project’, ‘Game Change’, ‘You Don’t Know Jack’ ‘The Newsroom’ to name a few) of the left to shape culture or reinforce an agenda.
While on the larger screens, films like ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ and ‘Captain Phillips’ are thinly veiled attempts at cheer leading for the current NCA (National Command Authority).
I guess that is a good point, they usually take some liberties. Thanks for your comment!
‘The Newsroom’ isn’t a biopic. It’s not based on anybody real, only some real news stories.
Newsroom was not mentioned by anyone, was it? Or is my search not working properly? Have not seen The Newsroom, is it worth watching?