What's The Point Of Biopics?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 พ.ค. 2024
- This video essay investigates biopic movies and what purpose they are meant to even serve? When there is so much fiction blended into the facts, and so many possibilities of making a more true-to-life documentary, is the main point of biopics just hollow fan service? This video will analyze biopic movies under three categories; Impression or Interpretation, Celebrating the Celebrity, and Fact or Fiction.
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This video may contain copyright material; the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is made available under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made "fair use" for the purposes such as criticism, comment, review, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that otherwise might be infringing. All rights belong to its owners.
Music used:
Lines by Topher Mohr and Alex Elena
Habanera by Bizet
Blue Danube by Strauss
Mama by Emmit Fenn
Members Only by Tracktribe
Love Explosion by Silent Partner
Keep on Movin by King Canyon
&
Green Tea by Smith The Mister smiththemister.bandcamp.com
Smith The Mister bit.ly/Smith-The-Mister-YT
Free Download / Stream: bit.ly/smith-the-mister-green...
Music promoted by Audio Library • Green Tea - Smith The ...
&
afraid of expressing myself by Babasmas
/ babasmasmoosic
Creative Commons - Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported - CC BY-SA 3.0
Free Download / Stream: bit.ly/3juUqV2
Music promoted by Audio Library • afraid of expressing m...
Timestamps:
0:00 Biopics
1:34 Impression or Interpretation
5:22 Celebrating the Celebrity
10:00 Darker Interpretations
13:20 Fact or Fiction
#biopic #ragingbull #elvismovie - บันเทิง
I think the best biopics focus on a moment or event in someone’s life. When they try to cover the entire life of the celebrity, the plot becomes too thinly drawn. That’s why Lincoln is one of the better biopics. If a celebrity died young, it’s more dramatic to focus on their final days than their early years.
Its on point, yes
This is why I maintain that Love and Mercy is among the best biopics out there because it focuses on two defining moments in Brian Wilson's life (recording Pet Sounds and breaking from his domineering psychiatrist/handler, respectively) instead of trying to cram his entire life into two hours.
Very true
I adored Lincoln. The best part about it was that it gave a good chunk of screen time to a lot of the other actors rather than shoving Daniel Day Lewis into every scene. Very less is more approach.
100% agree.
The Aviator was so good that for like 15 years it convinced me that I like biopics. I now realize that I just like the Aviator.
Scorcese movies in general.
I don't understand, however, the movie posters showing Mouhamed Ali, rather than Hughes, being the main character in the movie...deceiving....
@@lynnpehrson8826 I couldn't get through The Aviator but I second this. It's Scorsese who makes those kinds of movies fascinating.
I will stand by the fact that “Love and Mercy”, the biopic on Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys is one of the best biopics I’ve ever seen. It doesn’t just show the greatest hits, it shows things about his life that wasn’t widely known, not to mention the incredible performances from Paul Dano, John Cusack, and Paul Giamatti
Say it loud!
100 percent agree
Completely agree and i generally hate movies about musicians
even that was too broad....spanned too much of his life....i'd rather it just focused on the PET SOUNDS era.
❤
Sacha Baron Cohen was asked to play Freddie Mercury; he wanted to portray him as honestly as possible. Since the band members were producers, they dropped him immediately because they wanted to keep Freddie's "perfect" image.
Its so fucking annoying how beloved apparently this movie is when it feels like such a lazy cheap cash-in that worked exactly like the producers intended becuz ppl cant get enough of this same story and image and eat it up. I mean Elvis falls into the same problem, there’s nothing at all critical about Elvis himself, he’s some hapless innocent victim. Its such a ridiculous myth-reinforcing movie about how this one evil dude did everything and Elvis was pure. And Elton John documentary does this too.
It's been said numerous times before, but that's because it's 100% true.
Bohemian Rhapsody is a remake of Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, but without the jokes.
@@eddy45ist Honestly, John Deacon comes out looking the best in this situation - he retired from music altogether a few years after Freddie died, and he had absolutely nothing to do with the movie.
@@eddy45istthis.
plus if I remember right, they wanted Freddie's death to occur much earlier in the film, and essentially most of if not all of the third act would've been about them moving on themselves. like can you imagine the meeting where you have to tell them that nobody gives a shit about that lol
Many biopics are cinematic Wikipedia pages that cram an entire person’s life into one movie.
I hope more movies do what Martin Scorsese did in ‘The Aviator.’ He focused on how obsession affected Howard Hughes’s life and career.
Finding a universal human characteristic is key.
My favorite biopic will always be "I'm Not There," about Bob Dylan. It tells a non-linear story, portraying him and his life events in 6 different characters, and as a huge Dylan fan, I found it fascinating
What’s sad is that a lot of documentaries have become just as fictional as the biopics 😑
Can you name a few ?
The imposter, supersize me, inconvenient truth, tiger king
It was never any different. Nanook was the same and thats the first documentary film.
Documentaries have never been fully "real" they are parcial, they focus on a narrative, and give you the director perspective. And that's not taking into account the embelesshing of things or straight up making things up
Documentaries are meant to have a thesis, not show be an incoherent list of events.
Favourite biopic has gotta be “Walk Hard: the Dewey Cox Story”. I like how they didn’t sensationalize how he wrote his hit songs too much, briefly showed how he invented punk music, but i wish they showed more of his 70s era 😢😢😢
I agree it is one of the more better ones and doesn't get in to too much fan service.
I don't know. I thought they portrayed him a bit unrealistic. I mean how can someone with that much money never pay for drugs? Not once.
Extended version on DVD explores Dewey’s 70s and 80s eras a bit more. 😊
Plus it dispelled the myth that it's difficult to cut a person in half with a machete
I don't think I've ever teared up more watching a movie than when Dewey got his sense of smell back. The heart wrenching journey to finally reach that triumphant moment got me in the feels 🥲
Rocketman movie was miles ahead of Bohemian Rhapsody.
Like visually, and Taron singing, the music integrated with whats showing on screen - liberty with Fantastical sequences... etc etc
that was probably one of the worst BIOPICS ever made. It was HORRIBLE. Elton John should never have a movie made about him anyway he's just a piece of shit of a human being.
But it was fantasy, not a biopic of Elton John. Another awful movie in my book.
They're both pretty awful. Like why do I need to see recreations of some of their famous performances when I can just go watch the actual performances. Every aspect of these biopics are just so overly romanticized and dramatized that they just end up feeling like a lame parody of what the real life moments actually were.
Honestly, Orson Wells nailed it with Citizen Kane. He was after the core of a fictional character loosely based on real person (who wasn’t a total POS) in a heavily-stylized but not distracting way. It wasn’t about trying to recreate certain historical milestones. It was a character study showing us things we’re not overly-familiar with.
I also enjoyed Mank, about the self destructive Herman Mankiewicz, who wrote the screenplay for Citizen Kane and has been largely forgotten due to the bridges he burned. Also, I love Gary Oldman and he's fantastic in Mank imo.
I don't like biopics either but I'm genuinely excited for the Oppenheimer movie.
Me too
Same here man that’s my most anticipated film of the year I can’t wait to see it finally were in July now just a couple more weeks
Personally I'm really nervous about Oppenheimer. No doubt Chris Nolan is very, very capable as a visual director but as a script-writer he's sub par. Dunkirk was virtually plotless. I believe he's written the script for Oppenheimer too. Teamed with a great writer, like the pairing of say Scorcese with Schrader, Nolan could potentially be one of cinema's greatest director's. However, as things stand I'd say his works are mostly an exercise in style over substance. Hopefully I'm wrong but potentially Oppenheimer might be nothing more than a slick looking remake of the old Paul Newman movie about the Manhattan Project "Fatman & Little Boy".
@@harveydean7952 u know he did both write and direct Inception by himself and I thought he did pretty damn good, plus he’s written almost all his films save for Insomnia granted he did hav cowriters with him but still
@@alejandrogonzalez9840 - Nolan is truly great at concepts. Interstellar and Inception being the best two examples but ultimately I feel those films didn't reach their full potential due to plots that needed more refining. Somewhere else in the comments someone mentioned the film Steve Jobs. That was by Danny Boyle. He's another director who's great at visuals but can't write. With a flawless Aaron Sorkin script on "SJ" Boyle couldn't go wrong. Equally Nolan could benefit from allowing better writers to develop his brilliant ideas.
The best biopics tell a story about a subject with sincerity, authenticity, and care, whereas a lot of biopics today seem more focused on being unfocused films full of filler.
There's one Biography which to me, actually was massive learning experience for me as a teenager and how I thought about the civil rights movement and did largely stick to what actually happened - Malcolm X by Spike Lee. Its an incredible film and if you havent watched it, I'd definitely recommend.
Agreed, it is a Great Movie, that takes in some great themes on Race, Religion, etc that just happens to be a biopic...the best Biopic I have ever seen and should have won multiple Oscars
The Aviator, Raging Bull, and The Wolf of Wallstreet were the most amazing biopics ever made because Scorsese knows how to find the human story and conflict within a famous person’s life story that’s compelling, fascinating or relatable.
Agreed, but I'm adding Oppenheimer to that list as well.
@@XiaNingTianOppenheimer is a perfect example of bland character writing hidden behind quippy dialogues
Selena is still my favorite biopic, the way her music is incorporated really assists the story instead of turning it into a musical.
This is why Steve Jobs is my favourite as it does something different with it' story being set in three different product launches and is more a dive in to Steve's ability to care for his daughter and his desire to laugh the mac. It's so much better than the 2013 versions where I was so bored I was wishing it finish.
Exactly! I love that movie becuz even though technically the Ashton Kutcher one is ‘more accurate’ or looks more like Steve or whatever, this movie has such a brilliantly efficient screenplay, it picks certain events to get across the arc of the character we follow, and the relations with other characters. It doesn’t waste time trying to carry exposition like a wikipedia page, its just a theatre-play that hones in on who Steve Jobs is as a person
scrolled down for this! After watching the movie I reread the official Jobs biography, and came to the conclusion that the movie perfectly caught the man Steve Jobs in his very essence.
@@pjetrs thanks for scrolling down!
Was looking for this exact comment. Phenomenal film that is indeed not like any other biopic
@@jacksonpayne3477 I know and it’s the only one I love to rewatch over and over again
The problem with a lot of biopics is that they're afraid of scrutinising their subjects; which prevents them from understanding their subjects and saying something meaningful about them. A person's life can't be told in terms of cause and effect; life is too long and chaotic to be reduced to this structure. Raging Bull, Mishima: a life in four chapters, and Lawrence of Arabia remain the pinnacle of this genre.
I’d highly recommend ‘Mishima: A life in four chapters’. It was co-written and directed by Paul Schrader, who also wrote Taxi Driver and directed First Reformed. The story explores and breaks down the main protagonist, Mishima, in such a unique and structured way without jeopardising the story or being boring or inaccurate, it has an amazing score, breathtaking cinematography, set pieces and brilliant performances.
He also wrote Raging Bull.
It is also as weird as it's subject was. Almost. Such a good fil.
I can’t believe you didn’t include The Untouchables! From a cinematic fiction standpoint, it’s absolutely spectacular. But I was so disappointed to find out that pretty much all of the movie was made up for the screen. Really the only thing they got right was Capone being put away for tax fraud.
Maybe it does not count as it's not the story of just one person? I'd otherwise nominate Bader-Meinhof Complex, telling the story of the terrorist group, somewhat centering Ulrike Meinhof but it's not a biopic of her only. Both would then be just generally historical movies.
Bader-Meinhof Complex is also an example of a movie trying for accuracy, even recreating real news footage, and still managing to be good and not feeling stilted by this.
I thought you were talking about French movie the Intouchables, and then I was like oh of course it's an american one
That's why the Weird Al biopic from last year was the best one. It didn't even try to get any of the facts right and went for straight up mockery of the genre itself.
They could have easily called it Walk Hard 2. (My favorite subtle gag in the film is how he somehow parodies Gangsta’s Paradise in 1985.)
I hadn't realized before I started the movie just HOW much into absurdity they'd planned to lean, and so like especially when it got to the "Michael Jackson is stealing your song!" bit, it really threw me for a couple minutes. But once I understood what they were doing I was fully on board and it was great lol
I am a very simple woman. I see a video from "Just an Observation" with a topic I find interesting, I click and press "like". Simple, easy and done.
I'm a very simple man
That's it
I'm extremely simple man the titles don't even need to be interesting
One of the few biopics that actually surprised me with its rawness was another Elvis one, a made for TV movie starring Jonathan Rhys Meyers as the man himself and Randy Quaid as the Colonel. It showed lots of quiet moments, doubts, frustrations with fame, and Elvis' unfulfilled aspirations being hemmed in by that weird and manipulative manager.
huh, can you link the IMDB page or find any clips on TH-cam? I'm kind of intrigued now.
I tried to link to IMDB, but apparently the link caused the comment to be automatically removed. Anyway, here's a trailer: th-cam.com/video/DMw5o04SXhw/w-d-xo.html
Notably, the original runtime runs to three hours (split into two parts in the original television release), giving the filmmakers time for more depth. The film also limits its focus to the first half-to-two-thirds of Elvis' life, stopping just as he begins his Vegas years, which gives the narrative even more focus with the time it's given.
It's by no means a perfect film, and I can understand why someone would appreciate Tom Hanks' character study over Randy Quaid's, but for its time and budget and format I think Meyers' Elvis is far superior as a story to the recent blockbuster.
I'll take Kurt Russell's Elvis movie over all the other ones
Hollywood knows what they're doing.
A highlight reel of familiar content is EXACTLY what the masses want.
To be more exact, it's what studios can rely on being profitable.
One biopic that did quite the opposite of the Bohemian Rhapsody formula was Oliver Stone's The Doors. This movie focuses mostly on Jim Morrison's addiction and downward spiral. And while that seemed like a brave attempt at honesty, it just resulted in an unpleasant viewing experience about an a**hole I just couldn't empathise with.
Sure, it would've been weird to leave out Morrison's substance abuse. But the movie forgets to really include his humanity, or even his relationship with his band members. And that's something Raging Bull actually does manage to capture.
Todd Haynes’s 2007 film I’m Not There is an excellent example of a film that mashes-up the biopic genre and leans into the fictional lore of its subject Bob Dylan by casting 6 different actors of different races and genders to spin a yarn that evokes the spirit of the artist rather than simply depicting a facsimile of them.
I think biopics of famous musicians should rarely show their musical performances.
The show Atlanta is a good example of what you could do. Obviously, Atlanta is fiction, but you'll notice that the show rarely, if ever, showed Alfred rapping as Paper Boi for a performance. They always skip past it, since the show is more concerned with Alfred's personal life.
This would work better for biopics. Focus more on their behind the scenes stories, since the audience already knows what their performances look like. I didn't need to see Rami Malek perform as Mercury during Live Aid when its already been televised for the world to see.
i know lol the only part of their life that matters is the MUSICAL GENIUS and we get no insight into their MUSICAL genius hahahahaha. You just see 1 or 2 scenes of them performing to a PACKED CROWD.
Hey man, stop ruining my enjoyment of biopic movies with your very good insights 😂 Great video.
I'll never forget being angry in 2018 because I'm a huge fan of the band Queen and I knew that a Biopic movie about them would be pointless and didn't want it to happen because I had already seen documentaries about them and read so many books there was no point in a drama movie. However that same year there was a comedy figure about a real person I knew nothing about. "The Favourite" was my favorite movie that year and it actually makes you laugh while learning a little about this Queen I knew nothing about before. Same thing with the 2018 film "Beautiful Boy" about a real life man named Nicholas Sheff who was a drug addict. I have grown to hate Hollywood Biopics because as this video lays out they try to paint a sanitized story on screen because they want a mass audience to see it. In the case of Freddie Mercery the film really sanitized his sex life and his drug use because a film that portrayed him having lavish drug filled sex orgies would be rated R at best.
When I was a diehard Jeff Buckley fan a little while back, I felt the same way when I learned there was going to be a biopic. Brad Pitt was producing it or whatever so I thought it was going to happen. Doesn’t seem to be happening (until it does and they push out a bunch of dramatic trailers with hallelujah playing). Anyways, the true fans always suffer lol rip, they’ll always do a disservice somehow.
Also I do know there was a movie about Buckley, but I dismissed it cuz back in the day I heard it was supposed to be some romance movie.. I know very little about it lol, maybe I should give it a chance lol.. oh well. I just say Walk Hard is my favourite biopic because it just parodies popular musicians into one amalgamation. also John C Reilly has a good voice 👍
@@jacodspinata I did not see Walk Hard though it seems like very funny satire and parody. I think Hollywood tries to get these stories all wrong on screen.
One of the most creative biopics has to be 'Mishima: A Life In Four Chapters'. It adapts three of Yukio Mishima's books, each representing a certain stage in his life, intercut with the real life experiences that inspired him to write each story. It's a nice departure from the predictability of most biopics nowadays, although it helps that Mishima's life was anything but formulaic.
That's why Barry's finale made fun of biopic movies at the end in how can (or cannot) capture someone's life.
I wish there were less biopics and more categorically fictional films "inspired by historical events" that don't use real names and circumstances. That allows you to dramatize "truth is stranger than fiction" events while having the space to be very creative, AND you don’t risk glorifying horrible people with real life victims. Consider the fact that Albert Fish inspired three very different characters: Norman Bates, Leatherface, and (in part) Hannibal Lecter. The horror that Fish wrought was transformed into three masterpieces without giving him undue adulation.
I think movies like Schindler’s List and films that cover historical figures less known are absolutely fantastic. It tells a story about an interesting person I’ve never would’ve heard of without the film.
but they `also sensationalise the truth and turn on a lot of syrup while taking historical liberties
Given its most recent release, I would include Oppenheimer as an example of a biopic done right. This is mainly because it was made by a filmmaker interested in creating something cinematic rather than creating just a visual recreation of past events. It also helped that the subject was someone who helped articulate an abstract theoretical science.
I will defend Blonde as it was the most interesting film and the most daring. it's the closest we get to an old abandoned idea David Lynch and Mark Frost had, which was - funny enough - a telling of Marilyn Monroe's life.
I thought after "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story," biopics would have to change and reinvent themselves. The jig was up. Alas, they have not changed, and for the most part, they all follow the same formula and serve as nothing more than fan service.
Ironically, the best biopic (Walk Hard) isn't even about a real person.
That's an interesting observation. Westerns were already on the way out by the time _Blazing Saddles_ came out, but they really had to reinvent themselves after that. Same with _Airplane!_ and disaster movies. _Walk Hard_ never really made that kind of a splash, even though it definitely should have.
Raging Bull is more than just a Biopic its a deep character study into realism, in Raging Bull they show you how stupid some of the toughest guys can be, and in most BioFilms they just make it look like a simple chapter..I didnt like Elvis it was just a waste of time, and the Monroe film made her look like a Angelic Victim when she slept with a MARRIED PRESIDENT AND HIS MARRIED BROTHER.
I have to agree with you on many of your points. Most bio pics that stray off the “greatest hits” formula are at best pure entertainment. If they deviate off format, they are usually critically panned as you say. I was one of the few that liked the “Judy” biopic. It presented a slice of life Judy towards the end of her life….which most people have forgotten by now. No one wanted to see Judy Garland looking old and ravaged by drugs and alcohol, homeless and penniless, trying to support her children. Rene Zellwinger did a courageous job while trying to flesh out her humanity, as well as her self destructive behavior. When she eventually sings in the film, Renes voice has no resemblance to Garland….or at lease the Garland most remember. But the sad fact was at the end of her life, Judy Garland had lost much of her vocal range. This was not the Judy Garland from A Star is Born or The Wizard of Oz. If the producers went the formula route and did a timeline bio……maybe there would have been more of an audience.
The best biopic ever made is ANDREI RUBLEV. Raging Bull comes close, but Tarkovsky's portrait of the Russian icon painter works the way no other biopic does.
It's a great film, but I think it comes under 'inspired by...' I don't think much is known about his life, and other than referring go real historical events, I believe it's fully fictional. I haven't checked right now though.
It's important to keep in mind that even documentaries are not reality. They're closer than biopics, yes. But they craft their narrative by what they choose to show you, as well. Sure, they're going to use far more actual footage. But you can never represent reality perfectly on screen. Editing, shot selection, even the emotions you invoke via score and sound design and colors and such, everything has an impact.
So I don't think the issue is biopic vs. documentary. It's going into the film with an appropriate set of expectations, recognizing how it presents itself, and adjusting your credulity as appropriate.
My favourite biopic is arguable if it even counts as a biopic and that’s ‘24 Hour Party People’
Whilst the film ostensibly follows Tony Wilson the founder of Factory Records between 1976-92 it’s less about him and more about the music and the city of Manchester in that time period. Tony Wilson, brilliantly portrayed by Steve Coogan, is technically the protagonist he constantly breaks the fourth wall reminding people it’s not a story about him which makes it even funnier when they do casually drop exposition dumps about real life personal problems he experienced in his lifetime
Love your channel. Every video is worth watching from start to finish.
I'm always happy to see a new upload from this channel.
I was not convinced and dismissed your pov at first thought, but you won me over with this - another- excellent observation.
My favorite biopic is 24 Hour Party People starring Steve Coogan as Factory Records owner Tony Wilson. In one of the film’s funniest scenes, Tony catches his wife and a musician having sex in a bathroom stall. The camera pans to a janitor who says “I definitely don’t remember this happening”. The film pauses and Wilson says in voiceover “This is the real Howard Devoto. He and Lindsay insisted we make clear this never happened. But I agree with John Ford. When you have to choose between the truth and the legend, print the legend.” It’s a terrific wink to the audience that’s also completely in the spirit of the subject matter as a whole.
My favorite biopic is A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood by Marielle Heller and it hits a lot of your points well. It’s a unique and incredibly creative film about a particular point in time of a well-known person’s life. It doesn’t try to recreate historical moments shot by shot. Instead, they take their best moments and quotes, and seemingly integrate it into the film. They don’t even try to make Tom Hanks look like Mr Rogers, which ironically was one of the reasons I didn’t want to see it at first. At first, I genuinely said “I refuse to see this movie because Tom Hanks looks nothing like Mr Rogers”, as if that even matters at all. But I gave it a shot and I was blown away! Looking like or talking like the subject matter isn’t as important as portraying the essence and values the character represented in real life. To me and to most people, Mr Rogers represented patience, kindness, peace, and wisdom. And that’s exactly what Tom Hanks performed to the audience.
The film is an incredibly emotional and relatable piece of art that doesn’t even feel like a biopic. It’s a creative film with a powerful message that just so happens to have a famous person in it.
I highly recommend ❤
Awards always giving biopics a ridiculous amount of attention made me realize they aren't worth watching or caring about. Your videos keep getting better and better, great job!
Again an outstanding analysis/essay. What a great channel!
And ‘biopic’ does not rhyme with ‘myopic’.
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is the best biopic.
I was disgusted Spielberg left the vampire hunting portion out of his movie
@@JustanObservation
Right? Trying to potray him as Vampire loving human. Wouldn't even show him killing 1 of them. Disgraceful!!
this definitely made me rethink the way i see biopics, thanks for the eye opener with an usual excellent essay!
Oh man, you're so right about these movies ignoring the creative process. Seems like no one in these movies actually has an imagination, stuff just manifests from a sudden idea they're given.
"I ran into your ex, Adam, today."
"Adam? Ick! Hey, hand me that balm, won't you, Oppenheimer? ...Oppenheimer?"
"Adam... ick... balm..."
😂☢️
Elvis was actually a pretty decent biopic imo in the sense that it actually covered something not *that* well known to the general public
@@nickxero2740 Well, movies are subjective, and that very much sounds like your subjective opinion, just like mine. I guess it's nice the movie made you feel something atleast? Anger?
Biopics = “Cinematic reading of their Wikipedia page”
Yes.
Eh the different kinds of biopics have their place. The Scorsese Raging Bull style basically uses a framework of real people and events or an adapted play/book to explore subtext and themes like a fictional work.
The other style is more for actors to show how they can emulate a popular figure with their mannerisms or talents the figure had. It’s also something for costume and set designers along with composers to do the heavy lifting for a movie.
this was an excellent analysis! you said everything i wish i could in such a respectful and well thought out manner! cheers to you!
Thanks Torie!
One of my favorite biopics was founder, because it didn’t try to portray Ray Croc as some kind of business mastermind to be admired, but as a business manipulator, which is someone that is mostly looked down upon by the average viewer. It felt honest.
Capote at least has a plot: he meets and interviews the later subjects of In Cold Blood. The question is: can he and you have empathy and humanize a murderer? It's what guides it. A lot of biopics just thinks it has to be Brith to Death for some reason.
The formula of your basic biopic [8:32]: "... A cinematic reading of their wikipedia page." Boom! Nailed it!
I don’t think I would lump Elvis in with films like Bohemian Rhapsody. It’s directed by an auteur, and has a serious artistic vision behind it. Sure, it’s about Elvis, but it’s more about capitalism and celebrity than anything. I think it’s pretty weird to say that we only get to see how Elvis feels about his career during that one scene. It’s pretty clear how miserable he is from the minute the Colonel becomes his manager. The final act even plays out like a Shakespearean tragedy, with Elvis being locked up in the hotel by Tom Parker. The movie isn’t there to say, “let’s reenact the life of Elvis,” but rather to say that Elvis could be anyone who was swallowed by capitalism. The “I Hate Elvis” scene perfectly sums up the entire movie. Elvis was a guy who had so much merchandise made around his name and image that he became this sort of myth that was worthy of being considered a sort of higher being by some. Bohemian Rhapsody, on the other hand, has nothing to say, is horribly edited, has weak performances, a terrible script, and only serves to tell the story of Queen.
brilliant, brilliant, brilliant. spot on observations and insight. a delight to watch.
I think my favorite part of Jake LaMotta's feelings about Raging Bull was the scene that made him most mad, the last fight with Sugar Ray Robinson where LaMotta said he never told Robinson you didn't know me down. Woman beating, his other terrible behavior, no issues with that, a few sentences after a fight, big problem.
Supposedly, Jake later asked the real Vicki if he was as bad in real life as he was in the movie, and Vicki replied "You were worse!"
I think the best biopic I've seen is Milos Forman's "Man on the Moon". Its subject, comedian Andy Kaufman, is obscure enough that the film actually has to do the legwork of introducing him, explaining his very peculiar brand of comedy and making the audience care. It actually has themes beyond "the highs and lows of fame", and perhaps most importantly, is funny as hell in the irreverent, fourth wall breaking spirit of the man's work. Miraculously, it also seems quite frank in showing his asshole-ish side, despite being largely produced by people who knew him personally.
I agree that most biopics are boring as hell, but I love that one to bits.
Counterpoint in the movie The Temptations the line "Nobody's coming to see you Otis" was adlibed and that one line that was never said has ellipsed all but one of their songs in the cultural zietgest.
i love your videos but I will never understand why some people decide it’s “bi-opics”, when its so very clearly “bio-pics” (biographical pictures)
Hits the nail on the head. I dare say we'll be hitting "Biopic" fatigue soon.
Though, have you ever seen the 2002 Michael Winterbottom film "24 Hour Party People"? Its a brilliant account of the rise and inevitable fall of Factory records. An indie record label based out of Manchester from the 70s to the 90s.
That is how one should make a biopic!
I know this video was made before Oppenheimer came out, but everything you mentioned here was expertly written and adapted in the movie. Cillian Murphy absolutely carried the film and Nolan knew what he was supposed to do. The film makes you really think.
If there's something I like about Nicole Kidman's Virginia Woolf in The Hours is that it feeks like a fleshed out character. It helps that it's just a single day in the life of someone.
This hits on why ‘The End of the Tour’ is so great.
A hyper-specific setting with a narrow window of time for our protagonist (and the audience) to learn about the worldview of DFW. Most scenes are just conversations in banal places like McDonald’s and the Mall of America.
Though you could say that GET ON UP, the James Brown biopic, falls into a lot of the tropes we talk about here, it experiments with these tropes, especially for a big Hollywood movie, that the way the story is brought forth to us is not only by the man himself (because it was the James Brown Show in real life after all) but doesn’t in any way shape or form shy away from his flaws. In fact, it opens up with arguably the lowest point of his life. It’s so well structured that any stereotypical tropes of the biopic are almost completely hidden because you’re so entrusting to the filmmakers to dissect and break down for us what made this man. If anyone here hasn’t seen it, I highly recommend as a good example of a modern biopic that kinda went under the radar when it got buried in with summer releases in August of the year it came out.
"The Color of Pomegranates" might be the best biopic I've seen... if we *really* stretch the definition of what constitutes "biopic." It tells the life story of 18th-century Armenian poet Sayat-Nova, but it does so primarily through a series of poetic and allegorical images. A beautiful, totally mesmerizing, and unique filmic experience.
Bronson is a great example of a biopic because the person himself is such an enigma. He chooses to stay in prison and constantly fights the guards all in the sake of being famous.
Bronson is a great film. I actually thought it was more about the notion of celebrity than a straight study of Bronson himself. Where Bronson wanted to be famous but couldn't sing or act he used violence instead as his means to gain recognition. Its a clever script that uses the main character to explore wider societal themes.
The Ian Dury biopic "Sex & Drugs & Rock n' Roll" is another British gem I really enjoyed.
I love how the real guy absolutely loved the film.
@@harveydean7952 _Sex and Drugs and Rock & Roll_ is really underrated. Andy Serkis nailed Dury's voice and even physical appearance (he spent weeks in the gym building up the right side of his body so his left side would look stunted like the real Dury's was).
I was just thinking after this video and I would like and respect a biopic if it was made with authenticity, showing the bad side of my favorite person, maybe and abusive side. When it's all made too good or made for us to hate the subject than i feel like it isn't real because the writer/s were either lazy or high on emotions and they try to express it here or simply said they had an agenda. Movies and shows I really enjoy in general (not just biopics) are made with giving you the good and the bad side and not telling/educating you how to think but informing you and put questions that make you think about it. Love you channel, since I started watching you I notice many details in movies and shows I watch and I connect even better with the thing I'm watching. If you want a movie to watch and maybe make a video on the one I would suggest is Upgrade, I've watched it two times and it's enjoyable and emotional. Keep up the great work!
This is one of the reasons why I like Urban Myths (Sky Arts) a lot. All the episodes focus on celebrity stories (some more true to life than others, hence the title) that no one else would try telling, such as the Johnny Cash ostrich incident and Princess Diana visiting Vauxhall Tavern. Even when there are more familiar stories, those episodes give a more in depth approach to them. For example: We’ve seen photos and news footage of Muhammad Ali saving a man from jumping off a building, but not the full interactions between the two. “The Greatest of All Time” explores said interactions for almost the whole episode. The suicidal guy is given a name as well as a backstory, and Muhammad himself has character development, going from “I want my rematch with Larry Holmes! I shall return!” to “Joe, I know my purpose. You’re my purpose. And if you jump, I ain’t got a purpose”. A more conventional Ali biopic would focus on that for maybe 2 minutes tops, as opposed to 23 like the show. Even the episode “Mick and Margaret”, which focuses on the relationship between Mick Jagger and Princess Margaret takes place between 1965 to 2001, but it only focuses on specific years (‘65, ‘76, 2001 etc), the relationship and its effects on the Royal Family is always the focus, and the episode still clocks under half an hour. Also, unlike conventional biopics, pretty much every focused character is not perfect. Marilyn Monroe is unfaithful and difficult to work with, Bob Dylan is forgetful and alienating, and Charles Dickens is the most unlikable character in his episode. Basically, Urban Myths seems to be a more interesting biopic featuring multiple subjects than most Hollywood ones are with just one, and is a very underrated show that I recommend. You can find a few episodes on TH-cam or use Lavakino.cc for all of them like I do.
Rami Malek is a good actor but it breaks my heart that people might picture his face as Freddie's. Rami is fine looking but Freddie was beautiful.
Thank you for this, have always felt the same about biopics. Film industry's tendency to disregard truth even when telling the story of people's lives is infuriating
tick tick boom! is definitely among the better ones! Also, Miyazaki's The Wind Rises is insanely good.
Love & Mercy is a wonderful biographical film.
wrong
I didn't mind Gainsbourg: A Heroic Life (2010). In fact it was the original fantasy and life mixture biopic.
Attenborough's CHAPLIN (1992) is another case in point ... tries to covers too much territory across 70 years but does have Robert Downey Junior's Oscar-nominated performance to hold it together.
I believe the better biopics are the ones that focus on a story than, conversely, the person/celebrity they're about. You're basically telling the life story of someone that basically had an arc in real life, even with some artistic licenses. The worst, like Elvis for example, are the ones that are merely a long, big budgeted, TMZ clip with sensationalist details about the celebrity.
Have you seen Control? Based on the Deborah Curtis book about Ian Curtis & Joy Division
Have you seen 24 Hour Party People? Ian Curtis factors in heavily during the first act.
One of my favorite biopics is The Jolson Story(and Jolson Sings Again), even though it's mostly fiction. Not caring about the details of his life allowed the writers to craft an entertaining story featuring Jolson and capturing the essence of the man. Larry Parks manages to convey the charisma of Jolson, while making his massive ego charming. And, of course, Jolson's singing ties it all together. I've seen it countless times.
It's so funny that I got an ad for Oppenheimer during this video. I'm definitely curious to see how Nolan gives him the biopic treatment, since I've always been a bit weary about glamorizing his actions and contributions to the war. Very interested to see what you think of that one!
What can I say, I agree with everything 100%. It reminds me school where we would watch all of these terrible boring historical films. How dare you present cinema, a visual and intimate medium, as something dull like this? It's unthinkable.
Although personally, I don't mind at all if a biopic changes facts, because all I care about is a good story. The Social Network is much better like this as a narrative than if it would stick to the facts, and that's why I love this film so much.
So, if you just want a good story, what's the point of using real people and events?
@@CosmicPhilosopher To me, it doesn’t really matter, so there is no “point”. It’s just something that can happen naturally, real events are inspiration as any other.
If you read about T. E. Lawrence and you think to yourself “wow, that’s quite a story, I want to make a film about it”, why would you change characters’ names or something and pretend that you’re not filming Lawrence’s story? If you’re there, just go with it.
Control was a very good biopic, full of drama and in good taste.
Disagree about Dahmer whilst appreciating the point about respect to the victims. It can still be valid to examine how absurd, dangerous and horrific his actions were. Their contrast against humdrum everyday life in Wisconsin and Dahmer's strange mannerisms especially when viewed from our modern sensibilities , is often what created the humour. I dont know if its possible to capture these events in a thriller whilst also showing significant empathy, as many scenes are from Dahmer's POV which is exactly why they are so entertaining. I dont agree with the position being simply not to make shows like this as they dont add value. They often inspire people to look up the real case details and victims to discern what was actually fictitious, which is most likely a good thing.
Yes. WHY do I need to see Jim Carrey mimic Andy Kaufman's comedy act, when I can see Andy Kaufman do his comedy act?
Also far more importantly, because they're not documentaries, I hate that feeling when the movie is over of not knowing what I know is true or not.
The classic, cinematic biopics you forgot:
Ford V Ferrari
Moneyball
Argo
Lawrence of Arabia
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
The thing I hate most is the montage that sums up their rise to fame in less than 2 minutes, which in reality, rising up through the ranks takes years and years.
Great video! It’s true they’re made to inform the people who are already fully informed, so mostly pointless
I believe Rocketman (2019) manages to avoid most, if not all, of the pitfalls mentioned here. If you haven't seen it, it is a retelling of Elton John's life. What sets Rocketman apart is the unique approach taken with the story. It's actually a fantasy/musical/biopic which uses most of Elton's songs non-chronologically to match his life's story. For example, "I Want Love" which was released in 2001, was used during Elton's childhood struggles for family acceptance, this taking place decades before the song. It also doesn't shy away from Elton's "bad side", showing his anger towards others at moments and drug/sex addicted life in the 70s-80s. Most of the movie covers Elton's personal struggles at the time, something that wasn't known to people then. So the movie feels fresh in that way. It isn't just, "Hey, he's making that song I love!". I highly recommend everyone checks it out, it might surprise you!
Damn I've been saying this for so long. I couldn't really describe why I thought some were good but most were boring and meaningless to me. I love watching documentaries and I generally hate biopics. This whole video is exactly why
Biopics are interesting
There are those that are clearly cash grabs (Elvis), then there are those true works of art (Lawrence of Arabia)
Yeah, and so what that Lawrence of Arabia changes facts if it adds to the narrative and themes it explores? When people have nothing interesting to say about films, they bring up such boring and dull stuff like this. Films are all about an exploration of states of consciousness across time happening to different indivituals, yet somehow nobody sees it that way, and that’s how we arrive at our mediocre art awareness and analysis, that’s really sad.
lawrence of arabia was completely FALSE and full of shit
Amazing video, man. I also have to recommend the film "Love and Mercy", that i knew thanks to the Patrick Willems video about biopics.
I so agree with this analysis. If I have a strong interest on a certain person, whatever he/she is known for, I will search for documentaries and books. And for historical figures, a biopic for me becomes more relevant, although it is shown that there can be many discrepancies with the reality. So back to Books and documentaries (with paintings replacing photos).
If 'Walk Hard' a parody of biopics had been a box office success biopics today would be different. Since that movie skewered all the cliches still present in the genre.
I agree with most of these examples but I kinda disagree with the elvis critiques. Though it often indulges in itself and can be very by the books, it tells a different story to the Elvis mythos. It skips over a lot of the career stuff to get to the relationship troubles with his manager, which is what the movies really about despite being marketed as a full on biopic. That’s why I kinda like the Tom hanks narration throughout as it’s full of inconsistencies and straight up omissions as you mentioned, all because it’s from his point of view, he wants himself to look like the hero of the story. Hence the opening line being ‘see that man, well I am the legendary colonel Tom Parker’.
It certainly goes into classic biopic territory at times but I’d say it showed a fairly new side to the man that most people didn’t know. I doubt most people knew how terribly he was treated by everyone around him. It could of done without so much montages but it’s about Elvis Presley lol, it’s gotta be super flashy and chaotic to match the man
This!
I didn’t like the film, nor do I like Baz Lurmann in general, but I respect what he was going for.
I’ve always hated biopics but never delved into why.
This is why I think Walk the Line was a pretty good one. It covered his terrible drug addictions, his unusual and uncomfortable at times relationship with June. However, it was drawn thin because it covered so much of his life.
Been feelin like this for years about biopics and when asked why, I always had a hard time explaining my reason clearly!! Ppl seem to like these weak films w/o much thinkin. Thank u for putting words to my frustration! Lol
Great biopics without repeating directors: 1) Ed Wood 2) Andrei Rublev 3) Sayat Nova 4) Enigma of Kaspar Hauser 5) The Flowers of St Francis 6) Mr Turner 7) Wolf of Wall Street 8) Lawrence of Arabia 9) Che 10) Social Network
Love and mercy is the best biopic because it focus in the pet sounds and smile era, inside the fragile and creative mind of brian wilson