#Biopics

[marzipanandminutiae]

a real historical woman in a fiction movie: "oh Hardjaw McHotbod, I love you so much, you manly masculine man!"

the actual woman: ...and she lived with her female partner for forty years, raising Persian cats and preserving old buildings, after which they were buried together under one tombstone. she once said "wow, sure is interesting how I've never been attracted to a single man ever!"

[whatcannotbesaid-shallbewept]

In theory, this is the most exciting thing I've heard about the new Beatles biopics.

In practice, I simply do not believe the four writers will be equally talented.

So. Now we have an exciting prospect on our hands. Instead of all the movies being Bohemian Rhapsody redux - maybe only a couple will be bad. Lots to think about.

[greatsaladavenue]

Two things about the upcoming Beatle Biopics I'd like to know, more than who'll be cast or anything else is it's said director Sam Mendes annouced that Sony Pictures had approved plans for biopics of each individual member of the band. through the eyes of each of its members; Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and the late John Lennon and George Harrison but two are dead and wont have say in anything so it's not gonna be fair. They should have only made a biopic of Paul and Ringo and the other would be called based on.

My other thing is, we will propably, given how greedy Apple is, have to buy tickets for four movies. But are they gonna be released at the same time or one at the time? Or are we gonna be forced to buy four tickets to see them all.

[bargainoriley]

I saw a post recently about badly described movies, and got a great idea! What if someone does this for classic rock movies?

So, everyone, try to describe your favorite classic rock movie badly!

This includes documentaries, any (inaccurate) biopics, movies adapted from a band’s work (e.g. Tommy, Quadrophenia or The Wall), concert movies (e.g. Woodstock, Pink Floyd Live in Pompeii etc.), and also movies starring/created by classic rock artists (e.g. A Hard Day’s Night)

Example: 4 British men save the world by having a psychedelic journey and realize that love is all you need

Do your worst!

[keeptheemptinessaway]

Gia, Michael Cristofer (1998)

Cinematography: Rodrigo Garcia | USA

[dougielombax]

Can we PLEASE stop with the musician biopics please!

[fansplaining]

Episode 210: The RPF Tipping Point

On Episode 210, “The RPF Tipping Point,” Elizabeth and Flourish welcome back Grace and the Fever author Zan Romanoff (@zanopticon) to talk about her new podcast, On the Bleachers, on Taylor Swift, football player Travis Kelce, and the pop-culture firestorm their relationship (???) has sparked. Topics discussed include the backlash against the ripped-from-the-headlines romance novel Roughing the Princess, the fuzziness between RPF, biopics, celebrity profiles, and social-media narratives, and how Zan—who’s written plain old RPF in addition to meta fiction about celebrities and fans—thinks about her own work in light of these thorny boundaries.

Click through to our site to listen or read a full transcript!

[maeofthenoldor]

Recently I watched a video by antiheroines on “Female Biopics: The Good And The Bad” and I hated it so much, so let’s talk about it.

In the video she talked about three biopics; Priscilla, Spencer and Blonde. When she said that she didn’t know anything about the women depicted in these films, and then didn’t bother to do any research, I knew this video was going to go downhill. I was quite a fan of antiheroines due to their usually in-depth videos, so it was quite jarring for her to dismiss Priscilla, a biopic based off a book that the real Priscilla herself wrote, as a watered down version of a fan fiction trope. The lack of research really shines through here.

But I gave it the benefit of the doubt, since this video seemed to veer into more of an opinion peice, and everyone is entitled to have their own. But when I got to her review of Blonde, I laughed in the ignorance of the review. For a channel that wrote a video on “female revenge” to have loved the mockery that was Blonde was shocking. For someone who talked of the exploitation of female suffering to turn around and like the biopic that made Marylin Manroes pain a spectacle above all else felt like some distasteful joke.

Even worse, antiheroines so unabashedly tried to justify her opinion that she accidentally gave herself somewhat of a superiority complex by saying “if your easily triggered by these kind of topics, you should look up these warning before hand, I personally don’t need warnings, when I can close my eyes and look away” as if the only reason people disliked the movie was because they were “triggered” by it. She also says “I was able to seperate the art from the artist” which was so ignorant because even if the movie was not about Marlyin Manroe it is so clearly trauma porn.

She says that “she likes things that traumatize you” well congratulations, you like trauma porn. This is when someone shares a story of trauma without considering its impact, which she clearly did when making the video. Trauma porn is designed not for the marginalized group, but for the non-marginalized group to watch and indulge in, and then be entertained by it. Antiheroines said that none of the scenes felt like they were sexualizing Marilyn Manroe (they were) but the closeups of the actors horrified face in the most intimate places were not? Those are meant to be arousing, to those who enjoy seeing the pain of women, and proves that you like watching the trauma of fictionalized versions of real women. She says that she wants a movie “where everything that could go wrong goes wrong” and I think that really sums up who she is as a person. Trauma porn is a way for non-marginalized people to feel better about themselves, and though I am speculating about her identity here, I think her liking this movie is really telling of that.

She says that she will read the book the blonde movie is based off of, and makes a weird comment that she trusts it as fact because it is written by a woman. The book is by Joyce Carol who even as a woman was profiting off a fictionalalized market for female suffering. Don’t read the book, it fabricated to maximize the pain of public figure who needs to be laid to rest.

Overall I decided to share this rant, even though it is niche and differs from my usuals posts because it serves as a reminder that women can uplift female trauma porn, to be cautionary of antiheroines videos and a lesson in ignorance. If you’re a video essayist, or an analysis or whatever, always ALWAYS do your research so you do not perpetuate harm.

[burningvelvet]

have any of you seen byron 2003? i've always been too afraid to watch it and am looking for opinions/reviews...

[dailyunsolvedmysteries]

True Stories Left Out Of Biopics To Make The Person Look Better

Gandhi - the film assumes that Mahatma Gandhi was morally pristine because he was starving all the time. Not the case. As it turns out, the brave, peaceful hero of Colonial India was actually kind of a pervert. As a 'test' of his piety and purity, he would sleep next to young girls - including his grand-niece - and force himself not to touch them or become aroused. This disrespect for women fell in line with his documented assertion that menstrual blood is a "manifestation of the distortion of a woman's soul by her sexuality." Oh and he also believed that Black people are sub-human.

The Miracle Worker -  A 1962 film about tutor Anne Sullivan teaching Helen Keller about friendship etc.  Helen Keller is considered to be one of the most heroic people of all time, and for good reason: though blind and deaf from a young age, she went on to receive a Bachelor of Arts and inspire people across the country through lectures and writings. Despite her own disadvantages, however, she still didn't believe that other disadvantaged people should be allowed to coexist with normal citizens. In the early 20th century, as the international public began to embrace eugenics - AKA the process of filtering out undesired traits from the gene pool through breeding and genetic experiments - Keller was one of the first to write: "It is the possibility of happiness, intelligence and power that give life its sanctity, and they are absent in the case of a poor, misshapen, paralyzed, unthinking creature.” She also added that allowing a "defective" child to die was simply a “weeding of the human garden that shows a sincere love of true life”...

A Beautiful Mind - A biopic on John Nash, this beautiful, heartfelt movie about overcoming mental illness and finding true love was also about a  man who hated Jewish people and inappropriate advances. Although John Nash and his wife deny any allegations that he slept with men, the records prove otherwise. Several of his male friends from young adulthood have gone public about Nash's awkward passes at them. There's also plenty of proof that Nash had ill feelings towards Jewish people, but he has since blamed those actions on being crazy.

The Iron Lady - The 2011 biopic about Margaret Thatcher aka the Iron Lady seemed to fall to include Thatcher's toxic attitudes towards non-whites and non-straights. According to close associates of the Iron Lady she stubbornly stigmatized LGBT people in legislation and encouraged Australia to block immigration from Asia. 

‘Straight Outta Compton' - Left Out Dr. Dre's History Of Assault

[afrotumble]

Denzel Washington and Rubin "Hurricane" Carter.

[whatcannotbesaid-shallbewept]

The biopic epidemic is bad for a number of reasons (awful Pacing, misinfo, general boringness) but the worst thing about them, is how empty they feel.

I love Llewyn Davis and Tick Tick Boom. Before those movies I didn't care about the early 60s folk scene, or a failed musical from the 80s. But those movies made me care.

Those movies were full of passion. Made by people who were obsessed with the topics they were making a movie about. And it showed!

But all these new age biopics (Especially music biopics) are supposedly about artists who were extremely passionate about their craft - but you feel none of it. None of them made me care.

The Biopic Epidemic has turned into a machine - put in a person's life, a barely serviceable movie comes out.

They can't lean too hard into comedy, because then the Oscars won't pay attention. They can't be about anything "frivolous" from the subjects lives, because the Oscars only give awards to movies about Important Topics.

How do serious drama movies adapt to a market full of IP, superheroes and franchises? You make a serious drama movie about something recongnisable.. like a brand. Doesn't matter if that brand is Elvis or Pop Tarts - it just has to be something people recognise.

So these movies can't be "too serious" or go too deep into any one topic, because they have to be scientifically precise brand of milquetoast to appeal to Awards and the general public.

So all the movies end up feeling the same.

No central conflict, no emotional core, no defining info beyond what you'd find on a Wikipedia article.

The bohemian rhapsody and Whitney Houston biopic might as well be the same movie with different actors. They didn't make me care about either of them.

I don't understand why I'm supposed to be excited for a Bob Dylan or Beatles biopic that will feel exactly the same as every other biopic I've watched.

These are unique people, with endlessly fascinating lives and characters. But no matter what, the movie won't feel any different from the last music biopic.

[theomenmedia]

A New BTS Featurette For Netflix's Senna Is Out Now!

Dive into the life of a legend with Netflix's "Senna"! Catch the behind-the-scenes magic that's revving up for a November premiere.

Check out the featurette right here: https://www.theomenmedia.com/post/revving-up-for-senna-netflix-s-inside-look-at-a-legend-s-life

[lyledebeast]

I’ve watched a lot of new (or new to me) movies in the past month, and the one that I’ve thought about and been devasted by the most is Shaka King’s Judas and the Black Messiah (2021).  I watch a lot of biopics, and it seems like there are a lot of movies about good people doing brave things and evil people doing terrible things, but not a lot about people who are not evil but do evil things because they don’t want to face the consequences of not doing them.  Apart from J. Edgar Hoover, of whom Martin Sheen somehow gives the most chilling portrayal I’ve ever seen, there isn’t really a villain. Instead, there are tense moments where Bill O’Neal (LaKeith Stanfield) and Roy Mitchell (Jesse Plemons) realize that what the FBI is asking of them does not align with their personal values. They could refuse, but they very much do not do that.

The most powerful moment for me comes when O’Neal, tearing up, offers Fred Hampton (Daniel Kaluuya) a refill, which the audience knows is a pretext for him to administer the drug the FBI has given him.  A refill seems like an odd thing to be shedding tears over, but Fred is not suspicious.  He believes he is going to be arrested soon and that his friend’s tears are a sign of love, which . . . isn’t not true.  After all, Judas loved Jesus.  But he also believes that love makes O’Neal trustworthy, which is definitely not true.

Love and morality aren’t worth very much if one’s actions do not support them. Before the credits roll, the movie tells us that Bill O’Neal committed suicide in 1990.  Like Judas, he faced even worse consequences than the ones he feared. The story, though, does not simply condemn one historical person.  Rather, it centers a kind of person that is far more common throughout history than the likes of Hampton or Hoover.

[dougielombax]

Biopics are the cinematic equivalent of hagiography.

You cannot change my mind about this.

I give some films a pass if they’re good though.

Like Amadeus (1984)

[randomfoggytiger]

☕️ what do you think about RPF (real person fiction) and biopics? Do you think biopics should 100% be correct or is it okay for things to be changed for *dramatic effect*?

I would prefer 100% authenticity-- when biopics or biographies or autobiographies deviate from reality without specifying and explaining their changes, then it gets annoying.

RPF is either or: if the person being RPFed is amused more than discomfited by it, go for it! XDDD If they're not, it becomes that weird area of "real person doesn't like that aspect of their public/personal life but also other people have the freedom to do/write what they want", etc. Personal morals or ethics would dictate from there. :)))