It was in September when Weird, critics and viewers are bound to question the authenticity given it is based on the life of a celebrity as outlandish as Weird Al Yankovic.
Ever since the advent of cinema, dramatized biopics have been the norm. But to what extent can a film's creative liberties be justified and to what extent should a personality be glorified on the big screen, such questions are hotly discussed on Reddit platforms bringing the spotlight on some common and uncommon inaccuracies within the genre as a whole.
Adding More Glitz And Glamor
While it has been lessening in the past few decades, biopics have a tendency to prioritize style over authenticity. So, if glittery sets and costume designs would be stereotypically attached to a famous figure, the filmmakers might tend to go down the same route stylistically, disregarding the actual aesthetic of the person's lifetime.
This was particularly true in the larger-than-life biopics from Cleopatra as a major case in point, a trend that has carried on even in modern Hollywood with works by directors that focus on a "style-over-substance" approach like Baz Luhrmann's Elvis from this year.
Glorifying Evil Personalities As Saviors
It is difficult to explore a personality's grey areas when biopics are engrossed in embellishing them to new heights. Sometimes, even dark realities can be distorted. For instance, the Disney animated classic Pocahontas ignored most of the colonial history relating to the exploitation of indigenous populations in America, focusing more on its central love story between a white man and the titular protagonist of Powhatan heritage.
A similar and more recent example is brought out by Redditor The Greatest Showman falls in such category of inaccurate, personality-defying biopics. "In the movie, he [circus owner PT Barnum, the protagonist] is a wholesome and tolerant guy who loves his freaks- while in real life he was basically a slave driver." A 2017 piece in The Guardian reaffirms Barnum's racist history by pointing out how he often exploited minorities and people with disabilities while also propagating theories of racial inferiority. Dramatizing a person's life is one thing but absolving the person of their past misdeeds seems unjustified.
The Marketing Around "Based On A True Story"
Even if a movie is inspired by a true story (or just based on fabricated facts), the movie can still be marketed as "Based on a True Story" with these words appearing on the posters, DVD covers, and other merchandise. Howarthe on Reddit pointed out the case of Hidalgo which starred Viggo Mortensen as the legendary long-distance rider Frank Hopkins with the movie showing how he rode his American mustang in Arabia against the purebred Arabian horses in 1891.
The Reddit says that while Disney marketed it as a true story, an Arab historian Dr. Awad al-Badi claims, "The idea of a historic long-distance Arab horse race...is impossible simply from a technical, logistical, cultural and geopolitical point of view." Naturally, several biopics also double as historical films. Hence, it is a basic necessity for filmmakers to ensure that not only do they justly reinterpret a person's life but also the socio-political and cultural subject of this era. Films delving into ancient and medieval history do fall prey to this trend with some notorious examples being Alexander and 1492, both of which offer controversial representations of ethnic minorities all the while glorifying the Europeans.
Using Robin Williams As The Lead
The late Robin Williams acted in three biopics, namely Good Morning Vietnam (on Army Radio DJ Adrian Cronauer), Patch Adams (on doctor-comedian Hunter "Patch" Adams), and Awakenings (on British neurologist Oliver Sacks). While the last one has still received a better response among history buffs, the first two are infamously criticized for their inaccurate and misrepresented depictions. While a majority on Reddit has never doubted Williams' exceptional comedic prowess, they do wish that his biopics were more authentic.
As Reddit RabidSeason sums it up, "I'm noticing Robin Williams isn't used in biopics for accuracy." Redditor originalchaosinabox even added that legend has it that the original Patch Adams even told legendary critic Roger Ebert, "Don't worry. I hated the movie, too." For many viewers, Williams' take on these real-life personalities might be their only way of knowing about their work and, in this case, a misrepresented portrayal (that the persons involved themselves despise) doesn't help.
Smart People Get A Nerdy Makeover
Not just in biopics, it is quite common in other genres also for movies to turn smart characters into nerds with social awkwardness. They will come off as "freaks" in the workplace who can't build a sentence together without stuttering. The British mathematician Alan Turing received such an awkward portrayal in Thethe best Benedict Cumberbatch movies.
Reddit Noobasdfjkl, "The film industry loves to make smart people in history into all socially inept nerds. Alan Turing was a completely affable, normally socialized dude." Similarly, Takver_ adds, "Turing was a sweetheart, the kind to write math puzzles for an 8-year-old girl, so she wouldn't be bored on a train journey." The Imitation Game's case should hence be a learning point for the film industry in not boxing up historical figures in cinematic clichés. The trope might be convenient for the writers but ignores the subjective traits that might differ from one person to another.
Ignoring Sad Realities For More Heartwarming Scenes
Some real-life stories seem to be fairy tales while some real-life stories are...well, rooted in real life. Unfortunate things can happen to the best of people, irrespective of their talent or influence. For instance, when Nobel Prize-winning mathematician John Nash's schizophrenia and other marital tensions led his wife Alicia Nash to divorce him, A Beautiful Mind changed this reality in favor of a more heartwarming scenario with Alicia staying with John till the end.
"The part of his story that annoys me the most, and in general in biopics are the small details changed to pull our heart strings." says lettersichiro. "It's a lie for me that undermines the entire movie. The movie has this theme of love conquers all and a good love can get you through your darkest moments." And even though Alicia remarried him in 2001, their marital life was not as Utopian as the movie showed. Offering audiences a fairytale-like romance in this context makes the movie speak on the couple's behalf, ignoring what the truth might suggest otherwise.
Changing Timelines For More Dramatic Effect
While the entire life story of a person cannot be accommodated in a two or three-hour-long biopic, the least the filmmakers can do is follow the correct chronology of the events chosen. Often considered as one of Bohemian Rhapsody is a major offender in this regard.
Even the biggest of Queen fans were disappointed with the way the movie handled the timing of Mercury's famous Live Aid Concert. While the concert took place in 1985, Mercury got diagnosed with AIDS in 1989. Despite Queen like Brian May being involved in the creative process, Bohemian Rhapsody shows the AIDS diagnosis to have happened right before the concert, done so for dramatic prowess. To quote Eraserhead310 on Reddit, "I still can't believe that they changed the timeline of his AIDS diagnosis to be more dramatic. Tasteless."
Adapting Stories Of Unreliable Narrators
Naturally, in the case of any biopic, the screenwriters would rely on historical records as well as the autobiographical s of the people involved. But the situation can be worse if these s themselves are unverified.
Similar disdain has been hurled towards Catch Me If You Can, the chronicle of Frank Abagnale Jr's exploits as a conman was also based on Abagnale's lies. While such biopics do make for interesting debates, they can be heavily misleading for those audiences who might not have done their research.
Dumbing Down The Protagonists
Numerous biopics tend to evoke emotions by playing around with the underdog formula, especially with the likes of Rudy, Invincible, and The Blind Side.
The Blind Side which deals with black football player Michael Oher being adopted by a white family seems to dumb him down to levels that annoyed even the real figure in focus. Reddit ralm02 adds, "The Blind Side basically made out Michael Oher to be a bumbling moron who was only introduced to American football by his adoptive family." Invincible, the biopic on another American footballer Vince Papale, similarly shows its muse to be inexperienced. According to cocoathunder420, ''The movie implies that his only football experience was playing in a parking lot with his friends, but in reality he was in a semi-pro league." Timeless movies like Rocky have shown how the underdog formula is well-appreciated but when applied excessively to such biopics, it might just get reduced to blatant capitalism.
Blaming Intoxication As The Enemy
A common trope in the lives of celebrities is their dependency on drug abuse or alcoholism. But just directly blaming such substance-related issues as the direct cause of their actions or life choices has become quite a cliché at this point.
So, even if the Jim Morrison biopic The Doors offered one of the best performances in musical biopics with Val Kilmer, Reddit MercuryMorrison1971 says, "The movie basically portrays him in a near constant state of intoxication babbling out drunken nonsensical ramblings of poetry in almost every scene he's in." Instead of actually building a discourse on substance abuse or how drugs can negatively affect the most genius of artists, such biopic elements end up turning the movie into a preachy lesson of morality. Similarly, the SNL alumnus Jim Belushi has struggled with addiction but as looney1023 comments on Wired, "The John Belushi biopic that flattens the complex man's very interesting life into a by the numbers 'drugs are bad' narrative, where everything bad happens because of drugs."
