Burning Questions: Can Biopics Help But Glorify Their Subjects?
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 11:30AM Michael C. here, just returned from witnessing Meryl Streep in all her awards bait glory.
When controversy arrives in Phyllida Lloyd’s Thatcher biopic The Iron Lady, it comes in the standard form of news footage montages depicting seas of angry protesters clashing with policemen. The actual substance of the issues - massive union strikes, war in the Falkland Islands – is not discussed so much as reframed in the most generic possible terms. Every issue boils down to the same dynamic: Thatcher’s opponents are invariably lily-livered scaredy cats pushing for compromise if not outright surrender, while The Iron Lady holds firm to strength, courage, and principle over popularity. The filmmakers would no doubt say that they are focusing on character over unimportant detail, but it has the direct effect of letting Thatcher off the hook for her positions. Conservatives are free to mentally fill in their ideology and cheer her resolve, while the rest are encouraged to ignore partisanship and admire her gumption.
To be fair to the filmmakers, if Iron Lady had taken the opposite tack and really dug into the thought process of why Thatcher did what she did it would no doubt serve to amplify charges that the movie was aggrandizing its subject. It appears to be a case of damned if they did and damned if they didn’t. The very act of storytelling itself invites the audience to understand the protagonist’s motives and actions. It begs the question: Can biopics help but glorify their subjects?
Even if the film in question isn’t an out-and-out whitewash it will usually highlight the most admirable attributes of the subjects, if only because those attributes all are likely the reason the film was made in the first place. We can admire Howard Hughes visionary mind or cheer Larry Flynt first amendment crusade, while their less savory personality traits are glossed over or made to appear inconsequential in comparison. The consequences of Thatcher’s policies are vaguely alluded to in Iron Lady, but the most damning material in the film portrays her as a demanding boss and absentee homemaker, which is actually just a roundabout way of flattering her for how seriously she took her position.
Biopics thrive on controversial big characters. But do they glorify them?
One would think that the solution to the problem would simply be to produce the most accurate, three-dimensional portrait of the subject possible and let the chips fall where they may, but ironically the more accurately a film portrays a person’s flaws the more willing audience can be to overlook them. If we feel we understand the lead inside and out then that is like a license to issue a pardon, much the way we excuse our own family members because we just know how they are. Sure Capote used many questionable tactics to obtain his material, but in his eyes he was justified, and after all, he never escaped suffering for his flaws. Sure Gen. Patton was a hard-hearted SOB but he was merely acting according to his nature and at least he was always honest about who he was.
There are two ways movies use to subvert the tendency of biopics to elevate their subjects. One is two make the lead totally unrelatable, someone with so little self-awareness the audience will feel no connection. Oliver Stone tried something like this in W but it made for a weaker film as the material became shallow and cartoonish rather than risk being seen as an endorsement. The other, more effective technique is to add a second protagonist to serve as an audience surrogate and subvert the viewer’s connection to the subject. Shattered Glass never comes close to softening Stephen Glass’s unethical weasliness because we witness it all through eyes of Chuck Lane and share his growing horror at Glass’s behavior.
But in this example we are already moving away from the biopic to a sort of docudrama. Some degree of hero worship is probably unavoidable in the traditional biopic model. Any halfway decent life story is going to involve the viewer in seeing the world through the subject’s eyes and even the worst among us are the heroes of our own story.
Thought of an example of a biopic that really holds its subject's feet to the fire? Want to defend Iron Lady's depiction of Thatcher? Let me know in the comments. You can follow Michael C. on Twitter at @SeriousFilm or read his blog Serious Film
Burning Questions, Oscars (11), The Iron Lady, biopics, politics
Reader Comments (31)
MIchael, I'm at a loss to think of a biopic that "holds the feet the fire" - in part because that's not a genre I gravitate toward. (What about, for instance, "Pollack"? I haven't seen that one so maybe someone else can say? "Fur" wasn't a biopic per say, as we were told up front "an imaginary biography"; but the portrait of Diane in it wasn't always flattering, even as our sympathy was encouraged - a woman who was rather neglecting her kids and husband, even cheating on him emotionally long before she did in fact, to pursue her passion/obsessions. But again - it wasn't meant to be factual, so it really doesn't fit here, does it?)
I have noticed the same tendancy in a lot of "documentaries" that focus on a single subject; such as the ones I watched last year about Joni Mitchell or Bob Dylan that play more like authorized bios that exist only to lionize their subjects and tell us how wonderful and flawless they are. Then we get the attack docs, so finding a balanced film (and I know they are out there) seems harder and harder.
I really have a hard time they've made this film that so lionizes and adored Thatcher. And that Meryl starred in it. I guess if you're not one of the "little people" hurt by her politics it makes sense - Hollywood is run by very rich people after all who have done very well for themselves over the past 40 years.
Oh, there was Walk the Line - my friend Kendra told me that the depiction of the father as the villan of the piece was very inaccurate, that from what she had read father and son were very close. And then the Ray Charles biopic - did he have any faults in that film? He tended to be hard on his women and threw Regina King aside, but that's pretty much it. The rest of the film worships him.
It depends what your definition of biopic is, but I think The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford qualifies as a biopic in the sense of psychological analysis of historical figures. That film sets out with the specific purpose of demystifying or de-glorifying it's subjects, and I think it does so to brilliant effect.
My vote for best movie of the aughts, actually
Well, Meryl has said that The Iron Lady really is not your standard biopic....and most biopics all take some creative license for dramatic effect.
I see the biopics of people that I am interested in learning more about and I do not go to those I care less about. That's all.
'La Vie En Rose'. Edith was a talent but also fairly screwed up. What I loved about the film and central performance is most of the time (from young to old age) you wanted to slap her for being so self destructive despite her talent. I for one did leave the film thinking "What a talent, and what a shame". You could also argue for Teena Brandon in "Boys Don't Cry" since she put herself in a very very dangerous position knowing full well the consequenses of being discovered. Maybe even "Monster" could be argued.
Jamie - With due respect to Meryl, The Iron Lady is the definition of a standard biopic
Perhaps she was pointing out the dementia scenes and flash backing to her life as not a device usually used??
I left iron lady not exactly thinking it put her in a good light..but I did leave feeling that she was at least human (with all the flaws that go along with that)
I feel like the only time biopics show fair portrayals are when the contain subjects that are trully evil. Something like The Last King of Scotland, where it managed to balance how you felt about the man's charisma with how horrible his actions were. It's easier to give a balanced portrayal when the character is either almost or completely evil or so good their faults tend to stand out more.
Of course it's also up to the creative behind the projects to want to aim for that balance, but it's so much easier to gloss over the tougher elements.
Good Biopics: Milk, The Coal Miner's Daughter, Malcolm X, Good Night and Good Luck
I don't know if it really put her feet in the fire but in I'll Cry Tomorrow the film was pretty unsparing in showing Lillian Roth's slide into alcoholism from distinguished performer to skid row tramp and low self esteem punching bag and her struggle back.
Raging Bull? It's hard to feel much of anything good about Jake La Motta by the end of that film. Unless you count pity at how pathetic he's become by the end of it.
The best biopic ever in my mind is Ed Wood. It glorifies its subject while also laughing at it, and since most of Wood's glory was in how easy he was to laugh at, it's about as fitting a tribute as could be.
Rubi-Kun. I LOVE THAT. good choice and well put.
"Raging Bull" is a very good example.
No interest in defending "The Iron Lady" here. I just can't understand why they chose such a controversial figure to talk about dementia. Sadly, her politics are poorly handled by the script, and that's a bit dangerous considering how movies influence our points of view. And I don't get why Meryl insists in defining Maggie as a role model to women.
Maybe because she was a world leader for like 11 years? Regardless of what one thinks of her policies....
Correction Michael C.
Meryl mentinoned Iron Lady was not inteneded to be a "docudrama"....my bad.
Having produced dozens of "docudramas", including quite a few "biopics", while also a scholar in Cinema and Media Studies (MA from NYU, currently pursuing a PhD at UCLA in Comp Ed) and a Professor of Communications at USC, I might have a different perspective to offer in this debate. Are all biopics "hagiographics"? I would argue that they are informed by the POV and ideology interests of the writer, director and/or producer. This varies depending on whether this was produced for film or television; in tv, producers often dictate the "take away" of the film, having sold it based on a treatment or a book or rights they obtained and sought out writers and directors who share their "vision" for the story. Of course, that's in addition to the commercial interests of the financiers and distributors of the film. But then again, one's reading of the film is also subject to multiple "interests" and "perspectives". Look at The Life and Times of Harvey Milk versus Milk. Both served the interests of a positive portrayal of a man's life, although the underlying elements of Milk's life, captured in Randy Shilts' book, reflects a far more complex and less idealized character than seen in either the documentary or the biopic. Now shift gears to the mini-series The Reagans of The Kennedys. Here the reading lies in the political ideology of both the producers and the audiences. Whereas the Reagans were produced by tv producers renown for their left-leaning, progressive, pro-social and often gay-themed works, The Kennedys was produced by an self-professed conservative. This resulted in a polemical reading of the works that may or may not be confirmed by the textual content. Depending on where you reside on the political spectrum, you may perceive either of these programs as left or right propaganda. Or you may simply be blithely oblivious to the truth and read these as fictionalized entertainment or a non-fiction "version" of history. Which brings me to the question. How do you define "biopic" and "docudrama"? It appears as though you're placing these on different scalable locations along a fiction/non-fiction continuum rather than consider a biopic as a merely a sub-genre of the docudrama form. What say you?
I do not know what the difference is between a biopic and docudrama......I was simply requoting things Streep has said in interviews about Iron Lady. It seems they were more interested in seeing how an elderly woman looks back on her life..and that woman happens to be Thatcher. And that the politics played less a role in the story they wanted to tell.
Oh I was referring to Michael C's comment in the last paragraph: "But in this example we are already moving away from the biopic to a sort of docudrama."
p.s. apologies for the horrible misspellings and incorrect grammar. I'm a lazy blogger.
David C - Interesting perspective. To answer your question, I was defining biopics as the standard sweeeping story that covers many years and incidents in a person's life such as Ray, Coal Miner's Daughter or The Aviator, whereas the docudrama is more of a contained story about one event that involves real people like All the President's Men or Shattered Glass.
To put it simpler I consider Nixon a biopic and Frost/Nixon a docudrama.
James - Raging Bull is probably the best example I've read yet of a story that is both a full rags to riches life story and not the least bit glamourizing of its subject.
Michael...fascinating although challenging...how much qualifies as "sweeping"? how many years or incidents? I've done soup-to-nuts biopics and single-event docudramas, by your definition. But I did a film called DASH AND LILY, which told the story of their relationship over many years but through the framing device of Hellman's testimony at the HUAC Committee in an effort to get Hammett out of jail. So how does that work?
FYI, thanks for responding and continuing this thread. I'm obviously very invested in this subject AND trying to figure out my own position, which is not fixed and evolves with the help of others, like yourself.
Clearly there is going to be some gray area between the two types. Which exactly would Ed Wood be, for example? I’d say bio but one could debate the point. My larger point was that it seems to be the further you get away from the traditional youth-to-fame biography template the less likely you are to tip over into hagiography.
To Michael C.
With due respect to you, I am An English Humanities teacher ... Jamie is correct... The Iron Lady is really a memoir and not a biography, as many of the episodes in the movie only reflect possible things that happened in her life.
I agree with Jamie, again. The Iron Lady is less about politics and more about a female politician growing old and slowly losing what she had. I think many film critics (and viewers) make this mistake. It was a remarkable performance.
What I liked best about the Iron Lady was the speculative leaps they took in portraying Dennis as a figment of her imagination (although I was crying mercy towards the last twenty minutes every time he appeared on screen) and how that shed light on a vulnerable side (which may or may not exist in real life) of such a rigid persona. My favorite biopics are the ones where they take a famous person's life and then use it to point out an insight into what it means to be alive. I love Coal Miner's Daughter because it is more about how a love affair evolves over a lifetime and weathers the storms of success and fame and ambition than a how-Loretta-Lynn-got-famous tale. In that respect, I appreciated how TIL examined the inevitable decline that happens to us all, and in a larger sense, how sometimes our biggest fear being realized (in this case, ending up being the lady who washes the tea cup) isn't the worst thing imaginable when it happens.
That being said, I know next to nothing about Margaret Thatcher. In thirty years when Rumer Willis is playing a dementia-addled Sarah Palin and sweeping the awards circuit, I don't think I'll be as objective.
Brendan - I gotta say, that framing device annoyed the hell out of me. What is it with films like this and Iris that have so much interest in the major female minds of the last century after they've begun to deteriorate? I want to know what it is Thatcher was thinking at her peak but that gets glossed over so we can have more time for her to chase her ghost children around the apartment.
(in fairness Iris is a much better film)
Citizen Kane, no doubt, to the point where William R Hearst wanted to quash Orson Welles' reputation entirely. Still one of the greatest and most three-dimensional biopics ever made.
Colin - Interesting that thinly veiled biographies like Citizen Kane are often better at getting at the heart of a person than a straight-forward life story. Primary Colors likewise got right to the core of Clinton without any romanticism. The freedom from touching all the life story bases really lets the filmmakers focus the story on what matters.
Citizen Kane and Primary Colors...add "inspired by" docudramas/biopics to the debate.
IMO you're just opposed to *any* Margaret Thatcher biopic, except maybe one that almost equates her with Hitler. She may have been too conservative for Hollywood's taste, but that doesn't mean she didn't have a good side. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess that Meryl Streep would do a gangbuster portrayal of Thatcher--even though I'm cheering for Viola Davis to beat her for the Oscar.
I feel like this has to do with whether the person is still alive and how well known/liked they are.