|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Nov 13, 2018 14:19:24 GMT -5
In effect a biopic is only someone's fantasy of a real person or life? No thanks to that, but of course even that can be done viably, but mostly I would want a serious attempt at getting things right in all respects for a full picture on the focus and point of the film. I don't want to see a biography of President Eisenhower where he looks like a soap opera actor and wears overcoats. Control about Ian Curtis of Joy Division is the best biopic I can think of recently, I almost avoided it but was so glad I hadn't.  |
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Nov 13, 2018 22:14:41 GMT -5
The Elephant Man is another great biopic. I liked the feature film and also a tv version with David Bowie sans make-up. One of the poorer rock bios was about Ritchie Valens (Ricardo Valenzuela) which had a guy who looked nothing like him having premonition after premonition about his eventual doom (in which case the real Richie wouldn't have wanted to get on that darn plane so much, duh). It was still a nice gig for Los Lobos however, so a bit of good came out of it.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201 
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 13, 2018 22:20:01 GMT -5
The Elephant Man is another great biopic. I love the Elephant Man. It's a masterpiece and one of only two films that has ever made me cry. |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Nov 13, 2018 22:52:36 GMT -5
The Elephant Man is another great biopic. I love the Elephant Man. It's a masterpiece and one of only two films that has ever made me cry. Was the other Night of the Lepus?  |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 14, 2018 22:36:49 GMT -5
With Queen, there is definitely a more personal aspect to the film, as a fan of the band; but, I felt like they were deliberately manipulating an audience to tell their jazzed up story, rather than telling the actual story. For instance, Freddie was not diagnosed with AIDS until about 1987; yet they have him telling the band before Live Aid, to help convince them to reform and play the gig. In reality, the band had never broken up and had finished a tour some months before and were taking time off. The film would have you think that Live Aid was it for them, despite touring the following year and putting out 3 albums, before Freddie's death (and one after). They show his personal manager Paul interfering with word about Live Aid, yet he was out by 1984. They create motivations that weren't there, rather than Freddie and the band getting involved because of the cause, though being wary of whether the event would work or was a pipe dream and whether they could play up to their standards, in that kind of a set-up. It has MTV existing before they record "Another One Bites the Dust, yet MTV debuted in the summer of 1981. They claim I Want to Break free's video was banned by MTV, yet it was in heavy rotation, at first. It might have been retired early, due to concerns about the drag; but, I don't recall it suddenly disappearing, just appearing more sporadically, when the album wasn't getting much coverage in the US and they weren't touring here. To me, this film isn't remotely factual, as too much is fabricated or altered to tell something other than the actual story. It is a fiction inspired by events and people in Freddie's life. For me, a biopic or historical film needs to be true to the facts, while still presenting them in an entertaining way. A complete fiction that intersects with history is a different story (like Quantum Leap's various intersections with history, like when Sam meets young Woodie Allen or Stephen King). The defense on the other side is "It's not a documentary!" That's fine, if you aren't marketing it as a biopic. that implies that it is factual, with some events dramatised, condensed or whatever. This felt like a fabricated story, with some facts placed in for emotional impact. I am a die-hard Queen fan and had been waiting for a year now to see Bohemian Rhapsody, but I just hadn't been able to get out to see it yet. Yesterday, a student told me about the film ending with Live AID and with Freddy finding out he had AIDS. At that moment, I decided this was not a film for me. For what it's worth, the final albums happen to be my favorite ones. But telling the story of Freddy recording the video for These are the Days of Our Lives while horribly sick, or recording It's a Beautiful Day and nearly collapsing after each take, the funeral and tribute concert, and then rolling credits while "Was It All Worth It?" plays...that's the film I expected to see. I think we do have to keep in mind that the remaining band members had heavy input on this film, and that may be somehow responsible for the alterations, distortions, and omissions. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 15, 2018 9:11:50 GMT -5
I think we do have to keep in mind that the remaining band members had heavy input on this film, and that may be somehow responsible for the alterations, distortions, and omissions. Yeah, this film is very much the sanitized, official history of Queen. To be honest, you see that again and again when it comes to documentaries or biopics that are officially sanctioned by the band or artist themselves. Take the Beatles Anthology documentary, for instance: it's an epic, well researched documentary, with key insights into the group aplenty and tons of awesome archival footage, but it also carefully avoids any hint of controversy. In particular, the nadir of the desultory "Get Back sessions", when tensions within the group were at an all time high, and both George Harrison and Ringo Starr quit the band (only to be coaxed back by Paul McCartney), is barely touched upon. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Nov 16, 2018 12:28:46 GMT -5
A biopic isn't a documentary anymore than a fictional book is a text book. So I have the same expectations of a biopic as I do a fictional book. A great example is Bukowski's novels, that all but one, were "biographies" of his life that are in the fiction section of the library.
In fact when confronted with an inaccuracy to someone that was there for the event in one of his novels (in the documentary Bukowski: Born Into This); Bukowski replied "Baby, in my books I'm always the winner".
|
|
|
|
Post by mikelmidnight on Nov 16, 2018 12:52:35 GMT -5
I expect some things to be made more melodramatic, and other things to be simplified, and have no problem with that. I do have a problem when they violate known history in a way which changes the meaning of events.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2018 15:07:48 GMT -5
I do have a problem when they violate known history in a way which changes the meaning of events. Good point here ... I understand what you are conveying here. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 16, 2018 20:51:14 GMT -5
A biopic isn't a documentary anymore than a fictional book is a text book. So I have the same expectations of a biopic as I do a fictional book. A great example is Bukowski's novels, that all but one, were "biographies" of his life that are in the fiction section of the library. In fact when confronted with an inaccuracy to someone that was there for the event in one of his novels (in the documentary Bukowski: Born Into This); Bukowski replied "Baby, in my books I'm always the winner". Yeah, but "semi-biographical" books, like those of Bukowski's or Kerouac's, aren't the same as actual biographies. At all. I mean, you wouldn't read On the Road or The Subterraneans if you just wanted to know about Kerouac's life. You'd buy a biography of the man. To me, a biopic should ideally be as acurate as possible...just like a biography should be. I can stand a little artistic license in a film, but not much. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Nov 17, 2018 12:54:07 GMT -5
A biopic isn't a documentary anymore than a fictional book is a text book. So I have the same expectations of a biopic as I do a fictional book. A great example is Bukowski's novels, that all but one, were "biographies" of his life that are in the fiction section of the library. In fact when confronted with an inaccuracy to someone that was there for the event in one of his novels (in the documentary Bukowski: Born Into This); Bukowski replied "Baby, in my books I'm always the winner". Yeah, but "semi-biographical" books, like those of Bukowski's or Kerouac's, aren't the same as actual biographies. At all. I mean, you wouldn't read On the Road or The Subterraneans if you just wanted to know about Kerouac's life. You'd buy a biography of the man. To me, a biopic should ideally be as acurate as possible...just like a biography should be. I can stand a little artistic license in a film, but not much. I guess my thing with biographies and biopic films is the intent from the start; which if to entertain. Even if there is truth in either one, the intent is still to a degree to entertain. A text book or documentary should be to educate with facts and history. Bohemian Rapsody may have facts and history in it, but being a Hollywood movie it is first and foremost to entertain. And bring the moviemakers money. Not educate people on the history of Queen. Just like Bukowski and Kerouac’s “biographies”. They knew embellishment would sell. Just my two cents. But I certainly get where you’re coming from too. I think in the end it’s all about each individual’s expectations going in. |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Nov 17, 2018 16:02:02 GMT -5
On the other hand, we watched Hidden Figures and enjoyed it, even though they also played fast and loose with some of the events. For instance, after one of the three women has had enough and rants about segregated bathrooms, there is a scene of Kevin Costner's character tearing down a "Whites Only" sign. Never happened. One character is being passed over for supervisor, yet had actually been promoted to a supervisory role years before the time period depicted. To me, that one still uses mostly factual things to tell the actual story. It does shift some things around, time wise, and shifts experiences between characters; but, it mostly tells a great story with the real facts. It certainly plays to certain tropes, and was criticised for the Costner scene, as depicting the White Savior cliche, in context of civil rights. That seemed rather fair, though I didn't think it detracted from the film. The inaccuracies in Hidden Figures are problematic, because rather than being random, many seem designed to push a narrative. Basically, it's designed to give the impression that white nerds are particularly evil racists (compared to other people) and protected by privilege over merit. In the movie, the main characters go to work at the NACA/NASA facility and the white people there are almost uniformly bigoted. The nice folks are the exceptions. There's Costner's character and John Glenn (but he's a jock pilot). But if you read the book, it's sort of the opposite. The book is more about a place that offered opportunities that were a rare oasis compared to the rest of the world. The nerds were less biased than others. The women ended up working at NACA (later NASA), because outside of elementary school teaching, it was one of the few places they were permitted to use their math degrees. First, it was a federal facility, so to some extent it was able to eliminate racial restrictions while Jim Crow was still active in Virginia. Second, a lot of the white people who worked there were transplants, not Southerners. Third, it seems that the people there were more interested in meritocracy than the film gives them credit for. There are obstacles to career advancement in the book, but a lot of that is the difficulty of finding a place (and money) to earn advanced degrees. Another is sexism (rather than racism) that seemed to be applied to all the female "computers" (as the women who ran the numbers were called). Also, the mentor to Janelle Monae's character was changed from a Polish-American Catholic in the book to Jewish in the movie. The movie pushes a false narrative that this guy is accepting because he's an outsider himself (not like all the other awful white people), white scientists/engin |
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Nov 17, 2018 20:34:42 GMT -5
And there's just the formula for drama to make a movie bio...
"No Glen Miller, you'll never create a new style of music, bah!" "Why... I'll show you all!"
"No Amelia Earhart, you'll never be the first woman to circumnavigate the globe, bah!" "Why... I'll show you all!"
"No Pablo Picasso, you'll never get people to appreciate paintings like those, bah!" "Why... I'll show you all!"
"No Albert Einstein, you'll never condense relativity in physics down to a short theoretical equation, bah!" "Why... I'll show you all!"
Add in some chases, some sex, and let half bake...
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 17, 2018 23:00:28 GMT -5
On the other hand, we watched Hidden Figures and enjoyed it, even though they also played fast and loose with some of the events. For instance, after one of the three women has had enough and rants about segregated bathrooms, there is a scene of Kevin Costner's character tearing down a "Whites Only" sign. Never happened. One character is being passed over for supervisor, yet had actually been promoted to a supervisory role years before the time period depicted. To me, that one still uses mostly factual things to tell the actual story. It does shift some things around, time wise, and shifts experiences between characters; but, it mostly tells a great story with the real facts. It certainly plays to certain tropes, and was criticised for the Costner scene, as depicting the White Savior cliche, in context of civil rights. That seemed rather fair, though I didn't think it detracted from the film. The inaccuracies in Hidden Figures are problematic, because rather than being random, many seem designed to push a narrative. Basically, it's designed to give the impression that white nerds are particularly evil racists (compared to other people) and protected by privilege over merit. In the movie, the main characters go to work at the NACA/NASA facility and the white people there are almost uniformly bigoted. The nice folks are the exceptions. There's Costner's character and John Glenn (but he's a jock pilot). But if you read the book, it's sort of the opposite. The book is more about a place that offered opportunities that were a rare oasis compared to the rest of the world. The nerds were less biased than others. The women ended up working at NACA (later NASA), because outside of elementary school teaching, it was one of the few places they were permitted to use their math degrees. First, it was a federal facility, so to some extent it was able to eliminate racial restrictions while Jim Crow was still active in Virginia. Second, a lot of the white people who worked there were transplants, not Southerners. Third, it seems that the people there were more interested in meritocracy than the film gives them credit for. There are obstacles to career advancement in the book, but a lot of that is the difficulty of finding a place (and money) to earn advanced degrees. Another is sexism (rather than racism) that seemed to be applied to all the female "computers" (as the women who ran the numbers were called). Also, the mentor to Janelle Monae's character was changed from a Polish-American Catholic in the book to Jewish in the movie. The movie pushes a false narrative that this guy is accepting because he's an outsider himself (not like all the other awful white people), white scientists/engin True; and, I read those criticisms after the fact. I suppose it seems more forgivable, since the performances, across the board, are so good in the film, and it was well made and compelling. With Bohemian Rhapsody, I was rather underwhelmed by the story, though there are good performances, especially Rami Malek. That said, I never felt you got to know the other band members, even within the context of freddie's relationship with them (since he if the POV character). In a lot of ways, it felt like they didn't know what to do, except play up the diva angle, Live Aid and the HIV diagnosis, and fit that into a narrative of Freddie knows he is dying and this is his last chance to make magic. The reality isn't even close, though Queen's profile in the US was way down and there was no guarantee that Live Aid would change that and really didn't. A Kind of Magic got little airplay on US radio and even MTV played only Princes of the Universe, when Highlander came out. They quickly bumped it down in the rotation as the movie did middling box office in the US. With Hidden Figures, they definitely bend things to fit their narrative, of a civil rights struggle within the space program, even if reality didn't support that. However, the film does succeed in showing the importance of the work the women were doing. I think that is where BR fails, in that the present a by-the-notes film, about a performer who was anything but by-the-notes. I think that failure is why the inaccuracies stand out more to me. There is a great lead performance in there; but, the script isn't really as up to the challenge as the actor was. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 18, 2018 11:27:28 GMT -5
I’d rather have a historical film or biopic be as authentic as possible, but as long as they’re not presented as documentaries I’m quite willing to overlook storytelling decisions that twist facts a little or that rely on a few invented events... provided that the end result still reflects what really happened. The dialog between King George VI and his elocution coach in The King’s Speech, for example, can be totally made up for all I care.
However, things like the Enigma machine being recovered by an American crew in the film U-571 are the kind of invention that kill a historical film for me. Or Marcus Aurelius being murdered by Commodus in Gladiator. I just go “WAIIIIIIT A MINUTE, THAT’S NOT WHAT HAPPENED AT ALL” and have a hard time taking the rest of the story seriously.
I am more lenient for historical films set in semi-legendary times... In the TV series Vikings, for example, we are meant to accept that two hundred years of history occurred during one generation, with the same people doing pretty much everything we heard about. I give the series a pass because while it’s hardly set in as obscure an era as that of King Arthur, there is still a lot of uncertainty aboutnwhat really happened and what is just folklore. In such a case, I will be content with verisimilitude if real accuracy is not possible.
|
|
