Today I am slightly breaking some cardinal film blogging rules. Some of the films I am going to refer to I have not seen in their entirety, mainly, because frankly, no one should. Biographical films or "biopics" as they are commonly referred to today can be some of the most impactful pieces of cinema when done properly. In my post, you'll see me use terms like "done properly" quite often. The truth is this kind of phrase is subjective. What some find to be fine art, others will see as utter garbage; look at the current state of the White House for further proof of this notion. More often than not, we qualify a film as "good" by the mass critical reception it receives. Critics aren't always right, but average viewers like myself often have our finger on the pulse of decent quality cinema or television. When thousands or even millions of our opinions seem to reach a consensus, I personally believe it's pretty safe to assume a film or television show is what we see it to be. So to circle back to my original point here, what do most everyday people think of biopics?
The popular TV Channel Lifetime is the main culprit on trial here as they have inspired me to write this hopefully somewhat concise rant. With the release of last night's Searching for Neverland (2017), a Michael Jackson biopic I have simply lost patience with the lack of propriety this channel has in regards to the material it chooses to handle. Let me say, first and foremost, that if the individual whose life is the subject of the film does not grant you permission, or in the case that they are deceased, their family and/or estat, you should NOT pursue a cinematic adaptation of their life or story. According to social media, Michael Jackson, in this television picture, somehow magically acquired a British accent not heard of until now. Possibly because the actor (or rather an impersonator) portraying him did not feel the need to put much work in masking it in order to more accurately and respectfully portray the King of Pop, these films might as well be straight up fiction with a thinly written protagonist that not-so-ambiguously mirrors their real-life counterparts. That would be slightly less offensive than the subpar incredibly offensive and inaccurate biopics Lifetime has been excreting over the last several years. I could not watch Britney Ever After in its entirety, though I watched the majority of its convoluted running time. As both a fan of Ms Spears and someone with a fully functioning brain, honestly, I wouldn't say I liked the blatant disregard for a human's fragile psyche and complicated personal strife. Films like this very simply, have no heart. They thrive and rely on one single thing to live, nostalgia. People will watch because of their familiarity with the subject matter. Maybe they watch because they detest the subject matter and want to see it treated poorly for kicks. Cinematic fetishism aside, these films lose their audience before the title even appears on the screen. Both the Britney and Michael biopics could not even receive the music rights of the artists they were portraying. What is the point of crudely attempting to illustrate these superstar's lives if you aren't even going to show the talent that made them famous in the first place?! From a business standpoint, it is astounding that this message has not yet been received. These films cause legal issues, loss in viewership and make little to no money in after-sales on DVD or digital platforms. They are dead in the water and yet Lifetime continues to give stillbirth to them and shows no signs of slowing down.
Now some of these biopics are handled with some semblance of care or consideration for the subject matter. Whitney (2015) the story of Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown's tumultuous marriage was directed by Houston's friend and former co-star, Angela Basset. It is no surprise that it took a female African American director to finally imbue one of these tawdry biopics with some form of class and respect for the subject matter. However, seeing that her family were less than pleased with the biopic proves that Lifetime still has a way to go in creating both entertaining and respectful biographical stories for some of the biggest titans in the entertainment industry. I'm not ignorant, I know Britney Spears is not Harvey Milk or Erin Brockovich, but she and others still have a right to have their stories told with some speck of humility in them. Will Lifetime learn their lesson? In my honest opinion, no. They could care less about credibility. They are a manufacturing factory and will continue to assembly line personal stories which deserve much more tender attention and care with hasty indifference. In the era of nostalgia fever and remake influenza running rapid in both the big and small screen, these misguided television executives and filmmakers think they've cashed in on audience's ignorance to reality and their apparent apathy toward real human trauma. Prove them wrong, don't tune in; I certainly will not be anymore. Whether it's Fuller House or the Unauthorized Full House, people should let a legacy live on, but not die from a heart attack of creative cholesterol filled disaster!
A quick note about the big screen biopics: it was recently announced that Universal Pictures had secured the rights to a Madonna biopic titled Blonde Ambition which was voted the #1 script on this past year's Blacklist. I had the privilege of reading the script in my screenwriting class this semester. While I enjoyed the script on a personal level and found its structure to be impeccable in design, I never believed it would get greenlit. I knew Madonna would never approve. Alas, it has, and she indeed does not. If the film fails to receive the music rights to her music, I firmly believe it should not be pursued on the same basis of morality and decency that I have mentioned above. Tell your own stories, not your perverted or bias versions of other peoples.
