From the blood-soaked dissonance of the Civil War in Steven Speilburg’s Lincoln (2012) to the 1960’s glamour of Sophia Coppola’s Priscilla (2023), biopics have enthralled global audiences for decades. The unique depictions of real-life figures, intertwined with the allure of creative cinematography, offers perspectives from events and cultures that one may not otherwise get to experience. With the rapid rise of the genre, public attention has piqued surrounding biopics’ ability to illuminate issues relevant to a person’s life and better explain their impact on the world. However, along with its positive attention, many have also remarked that the creative liberties of the category can sacrifice historical integrity and romanticize the life experiences of those whose lives the biopic is based on. It has become clear that the genre is a double-edged sword as it balances precariously between fact and fiction. So at what point does a biopic transition from being beneficial to being misleading or even dangerous?
The Rundown
First of all, what is a biopic? The term is a combination of the words “biographical picture,” a type of cinema that seeks to depict the life of a non-fiction figure. Some notable, recent biographical movies to hit the big screen are Oppenheimer (2023), A Complete Unknown (2024), Bob Marley: One Love (2024), Elvis (2022), Harriet (2019), and On the Basis of Sex (2018).
The Good
To understand the benefits of biopics, it is important to examine a film that was triumphant, both in the box office and among reviews. Marked as one of the most highly rated biopics on Rotten Tomatoes, is Brian Gibson’s What’s Love Got to Do With It (1993). On its opening weekend the film reeled in $1.2 million. In total, it ended up grossing around $39.1 million in the domestic box office, with a production budget of $15 million. Starring Angela Bassett and Laurence Fishburne, the movie highlights musical sensation Tina Turner as she is caught between her flourishing passion for music and a dangerously turbulent relationship with her husband. Roger Ebert of The Chicago Sun Times writes in a review – “It’s a story of pain and courage, uncommonly honest and unflinching, and the next time I hear Tina Turner singing I will listen to the song in a whole new way.” This review pinpoints the qualities that make a good biopic. It forces its audience to reflect on both themselves and the world. It enhances a viewer’s perspective on the figures in the film and does so with the cadence of historical accuracy. What’s Love Got to Do With It captures Turner’s resilience and captivating stage presence as well as her husband, Ike Turner’s, abusive and commandeering aggression. Angela Bassett, who won an Oscar for her performance, remarked in a Variety interview that Turner did not see the film when it was first released. It was years later that the music star told Bassett – “‘You played me so well. Thank you.’”
The Bad
As mentioned above, biopics can become troublesome when they are not done right. With large platforms like movie theatres and streaming services, the wrong performance or directing can irrevocably change the narrative of the film and the audience’s perspective on the figure. Films like Andrew Dominik’s Blonde (2022) and Clint Eastwood’s J. Edgar (2011) have been heavily criticized for their approach to portraying the figure. According to numerous reviews, Blonde minimizes film star Marilyn Monroe to a litany of gruesome traumas and further perpetuates the public misconception of her legacy. Most agree that the film heavily operates around its shock value rather than its storytelling, as its grisly scenes earn it an NC-17 rating. Monroe once stated – “Above all, I want to be treated as a human being.” Tragically, the common consensus of the film is that it communicates just the opposite of what Monroe would want, objectifying her, exploiting her struggles, and profiting off of the star’s “ditsy-blonde” stereotype. Even though the film is praised for its cinematography and acting performance from Ana de Armas, those factors are soured by everything else.
Similarly, Clint Eastwood’s J Edgar. comes up short. In a review for CNN, Mark Rabinowitz states – “While Hoover is shown trying to blackmail everyone from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Martin Luther King and routinely circumventing the law, these are not portrayed as particularly bad things to do. Nor, it must be said, are they shown to be good things. Therein lies the film’s major problem. It refuses to take any position on Hoover whatsoever.” While Hoover accomplished a lot for the FBI during his time as director, he truly was not a great person. He operated as if he was above the law and routinely abused his power as a public servant. He fought to combat the Ku Klux Klan, yet he loathed MLK. His hatred for the New Left, a movement with the purpose of advocating for civil rights, gender equality, anti-war, etc., led him to initiate an illegal surveillance operation called COINTELPRO. He justified this by reasoning that the New Left was associated with communism. So in the end, his biggest motive seemed to be control, fueled by a tinge of fear. But this is not communicated in J. Edgar. Instead the film meanders slowly forward with an ambivalent opinion. Surely, it does not do justice for the many people who were hurt by his operations to dismantle a nation’s efforts towards equity.
Going Forward
There are many highly anticipated biopics that are expected to release in the years to come. Oct. 3, 2025 marks the release date for Michael, which will focus on the life of Michael Jackson. This year also will introduce Deliver Me From Nowhere, starring Jeremy Allen White who will play Bruce Springsteen. Additionally, the public has been buzzing about the announcement of a Beatles biopic set to release in 2028. Directed by Sam Mendes, the biography will be a four-part series, with each film focusing on a different band member. Many have already voiced their dismay upon the unveiling of the casting for John, Paul, George, and Ringo, who will be played by Harris Dickinson, Paul Mescal, Joseph Quinn, and Barry Keoghan respectively. Whether or not the public should “let it be” will be revealed in three years. More importantly, it is clear that anyone who tunes in to a biopic must learn to be a smart consumer – by doing some research on the figure and refraining from being easily swayed by the film. When nonfiction and art intertwine, it can be a beautiful thing. In order to honor that beauty and the individuals of the films, the power partially lies with viewers, producers, directors, and actors – the past speaks through them.
