Biopics
I Walk the Line (2005, d. James Mangold, Joaquin Phoenix, Reese Witherspoon)
Coal Miner's Daughter (1980, D. Michael Apted, Sissy Spacek)
Buddy Holly Story (1978, D. Steve Rash, Gary Busey) Cheese please: This film shows Holly writing a score in the studio-- Holly could neither write nor read music.
Ray (2004, D. Taylor Hackford, Jaime Foxx) The state of Georgia never banned Ray Charles.
Backbeat (1994, D. Iain Softley, Stephen Dorff, Ian Hart, Gary Bakewell, Chris O'Neill, Scot Williams) No Lennon-McCartney originals were used, or harmed, in the making of this otherwise intriguing production.
Pollock (2000, D. Ed Harris, Ed Harris)
Beautiful Mind (2001, D. Ron Howard, Russell Crowe.) Omits any mention of his subversive period, his alleged homosexuality. And Nash didn't see things-- he heard voices. And his wife did leave him.
Great Balls of Fire (1985, D. Jim McBride, Dennis Quaid) Conveniently ended in 1959, before the suspicious deaths of two of Lewis' wives.
Schindler's List (1993, d. Steven Spielberg, Liam Neeson) That ridiculous last scene--- Schindler weeping and wailing that he could have saved more if he had only sold his rings-- never happened, and insults his memory. And Schindler's wife, shown fondly appreciating him in the film, actually left him.
Finding Neverland (2004, D. Marc Foster, Johnny Depp) This one might take the cake-- J. M. Barrie was likely a child-molester, but this version makes him look like a saint. But guess who owns the rights to Peter Pan? The Great Ormond Street Hospital. Would they like you to think ill of Peter Pan? The boy for which Peter is named threw himself under a train at the age of 65, detesting his association with the play. And Sylvia Llewelyn Davies was not a widow when J. M. Barrie began visiting and monopolizing her children.
Flight 93
Am I supposed to feel good about the fact that the makers of the upcoming film, "Flight 93", have received "cooperation" from all of the families of the passengers?
Some of these families were concerned that earlier accounts of the flight only paid attention to the "heroes". They want to ensure that their family member gets some exposure as well. This smells of political correctness. Maybe some of the people on this plane were assholes? We'll never know, because that is not the kind of "exposure" the families want.
I don't hesitate to acknowledge the terrible sufferings of the families and victims of 9/11. It was a traumatic event, unprecedented in scope, certainly deserving of respectful acknowledgement and a certain degree of sensitivity from the media and film-makers.
But they are not the only ones who have died in the world in the last five years, and not the only ones who have died tragically. And I am sure the the families of all victims, whether of violence, inflicted by misguided governments or fanatic organizations, or the random violence of criminals and psychotics, or the horror of illnesses that strike without reason or logic, all feel that their sufferings are unique and unparalleled and deserving of deferential respect.
But nobody seems willing to publicly challenge the families of the 9/11 victims, whether on the issue of the preposterously excessive compensation they receive (why on earth are they and they alone entitled to millions of dollars in pay-outs when even the families of soldiers are not?) or, in this case, on how history looks at the event.
"Flight 93" is being directed by Paul Greengrass, who directed "Bloody Sunday", about the 1972 riots in Ireland that resulted in the deaths of 13 unarmed demonstrators. According to some media accounts, he is a good director, and the film seems promising.
But, is Mr. Greengrass making a home movie? Is Mr. Greengrass making a movie that these family members will be proud to show at family gatherings in the future? Or is he making a movie that strives for accuracy and truth?
It all fits with a trend. We are now inundated with biographical films that are approved by the families or friends of the subject. Not one of these films would admit that they are dishonest in any way-- the people who approve of them (and sell the rights to the stories) love to tell Oprah or David or Conan that the movie will show "warts and all". But they usually only show the warts you don't mind people seeing, or the warts everyone already knows about. Ray Charles didn't mind that you knew how many women wanted to sleep with him or that he did drugs and Johnny Cash doesn't mind if you know that he did pills and alcohol and chased June Carter. But if either of these guys, or Mohammed Ali or Patsy Cline or Buddy Holly or Loretta Lynn or even Jerry Lee Lewis did anything really reprehensible (that you don't already know about), it aint going to come out in the film.
It is partly due to the onerous provisions of current copyright laws. It has become nearly impossible to make a biographical movie without getting permission from the various stakeholders, whether it is the copyright owners (of the music or images), or families. When the "Buddy Holly Story" was filmed, they actually had to use fictitious names for the Crickets because they had sold the rights separately from the Holly family. That is bizarre. If that is really the result of current legislation on copyright, the legislation needs to be changed. As his highness said in "Amadeus" (a movie without the problem because all of it's principals were long deceased), "this is stupid".
Can it be done otherwise? Check out "Backbeat" about the Beatles' early career. It's a great film. On the other hand, I just realized that I hadn't applied my own theory: who is shown most favorably in the movie?
It's likely told from the point of view of Astrid Kirchherr.
I just checked a few web-sites. According to this one, Astrid was indeed involved in the production. How about that.
I do not look forward to the inevitable biopic of Bob Dylan, even though the story of one of the most compelling artists of our age should be an important and significant film. Bob Dylan controls the rights to his music. Nobody will be able to make a film without the music, thus, without the approval of Bob Dylan or his estate. I have no doubt that when it comes, the owners of the rights will proclaim, loudly and insistently, that the biography will be "warts and all". And I have no doubt that it will really be a highly selective and probably distorted picture. [2008-05: I was wrong. The Dylan film, "I'm Not There", was brilliant. Dylan, after seeing "I Walk the Line", let it be known to director Todd Haynes that he could have all the rights he wanted and make the film he wanted because Dylan was not going to demand approval of the script or the film. He didn't want a typical "biopic". He wanted to leave the judgement of how the film was made to the director. Hallelujah!]
A fair question is-- is that any better or worse than the type of biography we get from Albert Goldman,
Copyright © 2006 Bill Van Dyk All rights reserved.
Thinking of doing a biopic? Here's the formula:
1. Choose a famous, successful star. Get an
actor with generally similar physical characteristics. And-- I don't
get this part, but it works-- have them perform the music themselves, if the
star is a musician. Astonishingly, audiences can't tell the difference
between, say, Joaquin Phoenix and Johnny Cash or Sissy Spacek and Loretta
Lynn anyway, and the PR value is terrific.
2. Add one childhood trauma of some sort- preferably the death of a
close family member. Even better if the star is partly responsible, so
we can explain the later addiction to drugs or alcohol.
3. Dramatize how nobody except the star himself, or maybe a lover,
believed in their talent, until a single revelatory performance, or a
meeting with a celebrity.
4. Show the audiences being incredibly enthusiastic about the
performer even though they don't know yet that he or she is a star.
Disregard the fact that most audiences are generally pretty clueless about
real exceptional talents. (Many people acquainted with Bob Dylan, for
example, didn't think much of him until Robert Shelton wrote his famous
review.) And make sure that no one in the audience ever talks during
the performance. Right.
5. Next, the artist is shown rising in popularity and acquiring
wealth. Along the way, he bumps into numerous other future "stars".
The artist inevitably recognizes their talents even when no one else does.
"One day, I'm telling yah, that young Bobby Dylan is going to be a star.
Mark my words..."
6. The movie ends. No-- it can't. That only takes a
half-hour. Now you show the incredible suffering artists endure,
because if you didn't show the suffering, you would find the subsequent
corruption, drug abuse, and venality insufferable. The suffering
usually consists of nay-sayers, bad agents or promoters, record company
executives, or abusive parents or spouses.
7. Show the artist down and out, even if they were never really that
low in real life.
8. The artist comes up with his masterpiece, Buddy Holly, for example,
sounding like a Las Vegas entertainer, or Cash planning the concert at San
Quentin, or Ray Charles inventing a new style. All of his advisors and
cronies advise him against it- but he goes ahead.
9. End in triumph.
