It’s kinda scary how obsessed we are as a society with specific individuals, viewing them as almost godlike. We can acknowledge their achievements without glorifying them to the point of fantasy
Uuuh, agree 100%. “Separate art from the artist” - the biggest takeaway from dating a musician. It’s not good for none of the parties, since the “celebrity” gets heavily publicly disappointed when doing one wrong move. And us, falling in love with the art put them on a throne and warship their personalities, where it might have not one good bone in them.
Is it too much to ask for films to tell new stories? The endless Marvel phases, remakes, and biopics are exhausting. I get that nostalgia is comforting in times of stress, but so is escapism into a piece of creative work that feels challenging and inventive. It feels like media executives are ... infantilizing us? Like we're baby birds clamoring for the same regurgitated nonsense.
I agree! They say nothing is original anymore but its like the unoriginality is becoming more and more blatant. But old stories never fail to be popular. I think it's because there's so much content and entertainment at our fingertips that we're overwhelmed by choice and get drawn to what's familiar, which is the recycled and repackaged franchises etc.
I think that’s partially because , Hollywood has been around for decades , and so has been art , they told SO many stories and it’s not limitless , originality is slowly dying because we have nearly done everything , even though the society changes every decade or so that’s still not enough find multiple new stories and tell them , Hollywood is realizing that that’s why for the last few years international movies and stories are getting more spotlight because they are the stories Hollywood can’t tell because they’re not American culture nor American history , america has been milked dry because of content now they’re reaching out to other places for it . Even though they also existed for decades they’re new for Hollywood
The casting for Ted Bundy actually has a way scarier meaning then just "Ted Bundy was attractive for his time" It's actually supposed to signify how Zac Efron is a familiar face that you would never expect to do such a terrible crime. It's not supposed to be this love story it's supposed to make you question everything you believed just as Elizabeth Kendall felt at the time of the trial. I mean the Judge himself even said he would've made a great lawyer during his trial. It's sick.
Agreed. I thought Zac Efron was perfect for the role because what made Bundy so dangerous was his looks and charisma. That's also a big reason why his case blew up compared to a Jeffrey Dahmer or a John Wayne Gacy: Bundy as attractive, charming, outgoing. Before him people were under the illusion that you could tell if someone was dangerous. Serial killers were these ugly guys who couldn't get girls, or they were homosexuals or just weirdos. The idea was that you had to be an outsider in order to do these things and that you had to take sex because nobody would give it to you willingly. Ted Bundy shattered this idea, which is why many people just couldn't believe he had done it, despite the evidence (including the judge, as you said).
Having Bundy played by a former teen heartthrob was kind of perfect. Really helps you feel the charming side to him -- which is to say, monstrous people aren't all twirling mustaches. It can be someone who seems nice. Someone who smiles. Someone handsome. Someone you know.
I've seen a picture of Ted Bundy even though I have this fear of looking at serial killers or rapists, I forced myself to look at his pic to see what he looks like. And honestly people exaggerated and still do his handsomeness. He's average and maybe very slightly above. Idk I don't get the hype about his appearance really...
@@PlasticDoll. he fit the ideal of the time. And if you watch videos of him he's more attractive than on photos; especially the photo that is always used (he looks a bit crazy on that one). He was a charming guy hanging at the beach and chatting up girls, all during the sexual revolution, before people spoke about AIDS and other venereal diseases. This is the era of hitchhikers, cults promoting free love, women being more emancipated and going to university. People were naive, optimistic, sleeping with anyone and everyone. And he used all of this to his full advantage.
The thing about Zac Efron playing Ted Bundy is that Zac’s public image is seen as this wholesome heartthrob, loved by everyone-much like the way the public viewed Ted Bundy before his murders came to light. Society casted doubt on Ted’s maliciousness specifically because of that reason-that there was just “no way” someone like him could do such heinous crimes. That’s why I think casting Zac was a brilliant move.
I agree. We as a society have been raised to think that beautiful people don't do harm and ugliness is part of evilness. Part of why Ted Bundy was able to victimize so many women was because he was considered handsome, charming and just a normal dude. There are also a lot of other examples where heinous crimes are overlooked by people because the perpetrator is considered objectively good looking.
2 года назад+12
yes! finally someone gets it.
2 года назад+29
@@Venya9 yes exactly!! people thought the killer was always ugly and not a normal member of our society and then ted bundy comes to court and he’s handsome, clean, wih a good family, he was helping politicians, he was very charismatic. it’s called the “halo effect”.. it’s really common even in this day.. we can’t trust anyone 😂
@ There's a German "Girl Murderer" as he's been called. "Girl" referring to "female child", not "woman under the age of whateverI feel like". While he wasn't good-looking, hedid mow his lawn when he knew the police was about to come to his house. Notin order to appear innocent. But "because it should look properly around the house".
2 года назад
@@camelopardalis84 whaaat that’s interesting! what was his name??
the fact that they made pam & tommy w/o pamela's consent made me realize that producers can make a movie about anyone's life w as much creative liberty as they choose without consent...so creepy.
Pam is releasing a documentary on Netflix about her side of the story funnily enough nobody was interested in having rights to the documentary until Pam and Tommy came out
I this is this is peak irony. Making a film about a woman without her consent, who had a film of her published without her consent. They couldn't make it more absurd if they tried.
When you said that they are filming a project on Gabby Petito’s murder my jaw DROPPED to the floor. People are so disgusting and vile, to profit off of something like that is heinous. Thank you for talking about biopics. Amazing analysis and video as always Mina!!
noooooo. it hasn't even been five, no, ten years?? i'm SORELY hoping it's like a "vaguely inspired by" kind of thing where everything is fiction, technically (e.g. all fictional characters with their own character traits and stories) but the events are similar to the murder case. i don't know if it makes it more respectful (YMMV, like all things) but at least they wouldn't be trying to profit off the victim's name.
@@Bluey306 if people are saying it’s based off the case, advertisers will profit from that regardless :/ idky but the only thing i can compare it to is Amber Heard writing the op ed without naming the subject of the person, but everyone assuming that its about Johnny. they can do all the legal loopholes they want but it will always be associated with the case if it’s already obvious who it’s about. (i hope that made sense.) i’m honestly disgusted, though. Gabby wasn’t a public figure like Elton John or Marilyn Monroe and it’s not like there’s a shortage of other _public_ stories that need to be told. unfortunately, the producers know people will watch it and they’ll make a profit from the outrage, too. the sooner they release it, the fresher it’ll be in the minds of potential viewers. the whole thing is sad.
@@positivevibesveda that's true, they'd still profit, but if they use purely fictional characters there may still be a level of discretion allowed for the poor surviving family. though admittedly, no matter how you look at it and try to turn it, it'd still be tasteful, just on varying degrees. especially since as, you rightfully pointed out, Gabby Petito wasn't even a public figure in the way most subjects of these other biopics are about. and, while there are (sadly, horrifyingly) plenty of cases and stories of people being murdered by their abusive partners, a story that is in any way similar to the Gabby Petito case would be _too_ similar. people would know instantly once the key details are mentioned, and even those who don't could probably find out with a few key Google searches. people are just better off telling their own original stories rather than adapting (ugh) a real life thing that 1) had a MURDER and 2) isn't even given a decade or two to rest. the ramifications of the case is still happening!
Yeah and them casting Zoë Saldana was especially heinous because Nina Simone was a dark-skinned, unambiguously black woman. A lot of her struggles and pain were linked to her being dark-skinned. Casting a light-skinned actress was not only effed up because it spat on Nina Simone’s legacy, it also robbed a dark-skinned actress of the opportunity to play her. Them darkening her face and giving her a prosthetic nose was shameful.
So, shaming a dark-skinned woman for not being dark enough. Hmm where have I heard this kind of racism before 🤔. Oh wait, the very character Zoe is portraying. Zoe is dark-skinned not white, so the character shes playing is not white washed. Thats a plus. The message of being dark-skinned and being discriminated against gets across, because you yourself is discriminating Zoe for not being dark enough. Same principle. Would you like to speak to the singer Rhianna and how she was bullied because she wasn't dark enough? Or any black person who was told they weren't "black" enough because they didn't do stereotypical black things? Do you not understand how problematic what you are saying is? And how racist it is in of itself? And somehow you justify your racism with more racism! 🙄
I am from Nina Simone's home town. There is a statue of her playing a piano at the center of our main street. When I read that they cast Zoe as her I was stunned. No shade to Zoe but there are many MANY MANY more than qualified black actresses that could have played that role with out the use of skin darkening make up and prosthesis. It was just so....ugh.
@@TheOriginal_Unaleska hey.. dawg.. wait a minute lmao. the original commenter just stated that it could've been given to an actress who didn't need prosthetics or darkening her face. nothing about hate to zoe as an actress. portraying a historical (big fucking emphasis here on the word "historical") figure is supposed to be accurate to life. casting someone who resembles said historical figure can be quite easy, as seen in many cases already, and considering how many people in the theatre industry want chances to act. but giving the role to someone who isn't as on the mark can be disappointing to other actresses who might have fit the spot more. don't put words in people's mouths.
@@v_bunny yeah they do the same for jewish people, they won't cast jews for Jewish roles/characters but will cast white people and give them prosthetics, like bradley cooper in his upcoming film (makes me wanna spit on everyone who thought it was a good idea to give a white man prosthetics to play a Jewish person, racist af and in 2022?) It's definitely a humongous problem in the movie industry
I am scared for the upcoming Michael Jackson biopic, his life is one of the, if not the most complicated in music history. His early life as a part of J5, his solo rise, his personal life, the allegations, and all that. It's a lot to put into a 2 hours time frame. Choosing the right actor itself is complicated in the first place, Vitiligo and pre-Vitiligo MJ. The biopic will either do justice to him or add more questions to his life, there's no between.
And, there are already Micheal Jackson biopics. The TV movie The Jackson's An. all American Dream and that movie where Flex Alexander played MJ. Like wtf
@@ladydiamond6611 yeah i think that would be the best way to go. michael jackson looks very different pre vitiligo and after. his cheek bones are much more exposed after. also the movie doesn’t have to be only 2 hours a lot of movies now are 3 hrs or more.
Please do keep talking about the desensitized nature of true crime. I can't stand the genre for the way it treats victims and I would love to hear more of your take on it.
I was looking for this comment I listen to true crime & its incredibly hard to listen to someone actually be respectful of the incidents like they use it as a form of getting people riled up increasing blood pressure while forgetting that these are actual victims that went through extremely traumatizing things, the gaby petite documentary or whatever sucks ass because bet the family didnt even want it to begin with & also the case wasn't that long ago like leave her family alone at this point its too much also 10000% bet they wont due her justice
I've definitely been someone who felt kinda desensitized from true crime (used to watch a youtuber who'd talk about it too). Then I saw that new Dahmer show and one scene for whatever reason just really hit me, I felt so disturbed I had to just stop watching the show and haven't seen it since. Now I've felt way different about true crime and kind of want to avoid it all together.
The fact that Zac Efron's Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile reduces Ted Bundy's final victim Kimberly Leach, who was only 12 when she was abducted from her school and murdered by him in 1978, to a passing reference really got under my skin. I had to rewatch to catch the reference because I had incorrectly thought they omitted it all together. The downplaying or skimming over that element of Bundy's monstrousness because of it being inconvenient to the glamour surrounding the myth is sickening beyond words to me. People were outside the penitentiary CELEBRATING his execution for a reason - and they said as much in interviews at the time that it was because his final victim had been an innocent child. Its not like it was a big secret. I can't imagine what her family still goes through
@@indiefairy09 Worst part is some firefighter was driving home after a long shift and SAW him dragging her off the school grounds but mistakenly thought it was just a father taking his daughter out of school because she had been suspended or something - only to later learn it was actually Ted Bundy abducting a victim. THAT'S guilt
The movie with Zac is kind of meant to be from a biased, unreliable narrator perspective (from the first girlfriend). In my opinion it borders between fact and fiction. The same guy made the netflix documentary which is much more realistic and breaks down notable cases if you care to watch it!
I actually work in film! It's editing, but I still hear things from producers and directors. The issue is not lack of new ideas, the issue is the executives that sign off on these projects don't think you guys will show up to theaters if the project is: 1) not based on already existing material-- ideally well known and can create nostalgia. It is not exclusive to movies or tv shows. This could be about anything, including games, toys, old famous figures we love (biopics). The list goes on and on. 2) not a superhero film or franchise series It sounds ridiculous because everyone is complaining about the lack of new ideas, but the issue is you guys will complain and still show up and watch the films anyways. Executives only care about their bottom line, the best thing you can do is stop showing up to watch these films if you want more original material to come out. Hollywood is very copycat culture. If executives see more original films consistently starting to perform well then they will greenlight more. You have to be willing to put your money where your mouth is and let the cheap biopics and nostalgia bait tank. Especially post pandemic with all the money lost from that time, they will only go with something guaranteed to bring returns. We need more Everything Everywhere All At Once or like the first Knives Out film kind of support from y'all.
Being a celebrity today is different than it used to be. Celebrities used to be a lot more untouchable and mysterious and there was a lot less of them. Now the line between celebrity and normal person is constantly blurred because of influencers and social media so people want to romanticize the classic old hollywood/20th century celebrities of the past
Very true. If like 20 years from now they decide to do a biopic on the Kardashians I wonder how many people will show up since their fans know so much about them in the sense that they are in the news everyday even if it’s dumb stuff like Kim wore this and it’s like what is left to know?
That’s something i’ve noticed too. I think it’s so interesting how nowadays “superstars” don’t really seem to exist, or at least they are not even close to being as big and impactful as superstars pre 2000s were. Literally look up “Beatles Mob”, “Michael Jackson mob”, “Elvis Mob” or “Madonna mob” and you’ll see what i’m talking about. These people used to get freaking SWARMED. Mj would have entire blocks worth of people outside his hotel, the Beatles had their stadiums smelling like urine because of how many people would literally piss themselves with excitement over seeing them and Elvis caused such a commotion with his moves that people wanted him jailed and had people openly thirsting for him. These artists made people go feral, broke countless records and were thought of as almost mystical figures. No one has an effect even close to that nowadays, probably due to social media. In a way that’s a good thing but it’s just interesting to see how inhumanely famous artists used to be able to get.
The idea of a Gabby Petito film makes my stomach turn. Since Mina mentioned early movies, it reminds me of "Saved from the Titanic," which premiered literally ONE MONTH after the sinking in 1912. It starred Dorothy Gibson, an actress who survived the actual event. And to make it seem even more realistic, she was asked to wear the exact same outfit she was wearing the night of the disaster. (From Wiki) One review described her performance as "a unique piece of acting in the sensational new film-play of the Éclair Company ... [which is] creating a great activity in the market, for the universal interest in the catastrophe has made a national demand." Other reviews called it "revolting" that she was made to commercialize her experience, which everyone was still obviously reeling from. Gibson suffered a mental breakdown after making the film and never made another. It's heartbreaking how the public wanted to be closer to the tragedy by experiencing it vicariously through her, and even more disgusting that the studio saw the profit involved and pushed it forward.
There has always been a vulture-y side to Hollywood. In the 40s and 50s they also made a lot of films about "war heroes" from World War II starring the actual veterans playing themselves (and I remember at least one instance of a battle scene triggering a PTSD breakdown in the lead actor. It probably happened a lot more)
I think Hidden Figures is an underrated biopic, at least in terms of commercial popularity! It's one of the few dramedy movies that aren't all doom and gloom despite the trials the 3 protags face. Like it has a lot of wit and emotional moments so it's well balanced imo.
Hollywood is really doing a disservice to Marilyn. As an admirer of Marilyn, seeing Kim being allowed to wear her gown and thus ruining it and Netflix making Blonde as a dramatized and untrue biopic about her life, knowing the mass audience will take it as a true story is really upsetting. I’d rather see a real documentary any day over a fictional story.
@@ilariaatzei it's based on a book that was a fictionalized dramatization of her life. It was not written as a biography, thus the movie adaptation is not going to be a true story.
I agree with you and @Meghan Phillips I just recommend you two actually read the novel by Joyce Carol Oates. As a way to like prepare yourself for the move lmao. it’s not awful, and there is a lot of “imagination” as too, what “could have” been going on inside Marilyn’s head and for the most part it is quite respectful and semi believeable. Like always though there are certain aspects that are gonna be fictional or super dramatized. based off the directors comments about certain scenes and how they relate to #MeToo has said about the film, and reading the book as well as the headlines that it’s going to be n17 rated. There’s no official “proof” Marilyn was ever sexually assaulted by these filmmakers and producers but it’s highly likely, plus a couple of people in the industry form that time confirmed it. Marilyn was unfortunately “infamous” for her many affairs…. but again we don’t know how many were true and weren’t (and I’m specifically talking about romantic affairs not the r*p* stuff) so idk it’s all a weird mess and I just really really hope the film is good and portrays Marilyn as the three dimensional woman that she was. I hope they don’t overdo the victim thing again and just show her life like equally, through victimhood and victories, and also show how she not only was good and making the “Marilyn Monroe” persona, but also how she really wanted to be a serious actress. I really hope they portray that
I would hesitate to put Tick Tick Boom in the same category as other biopics. Jonathan Larson wrote it and based it on his own life. It's like the musical equivalent of a semiautobiographical novel. Biopics tend to speak to what a specific historical figure means to usamd the filmmakers who made the film. Larson wrote Tick Tick Boom before he was well-known or famous. There is very little intervention in the film version about his subsequent fame.
Yea. It was on off Broadway show when he was alive and early 2000s and Lin Manuel basically directed a love letter to the theater community. The Easter eggs are ridiculous. It’s insanely accurate from his apartment to various extras and places they filmed. The Broadway cameos are out of the roof! You can watch videos of Johnathan Larson doing tick tick boom when he was alive. It’s a musical more than a biopic. He just happened to write it about his life bc of his frustration over his career etc.
@@indiefairy09 yep yep it was done with actual respect to the person, their work, and they tried to depict it as properly as they could so I'd hate to include it on a list with Elvis or Marilyn's endlessly inappropriate biopics
not to mention Larson didn't have the time to experience his own success, to express himself to the world besides his early musicals, it is a beautiful way to get people to know who he was through both his own words and of his friends and family. it didn't get enough attention imo it's a great movie.
Spoiler ahead for those who haven't watched "Elvis" but The Elvis biopic is a great example of a good biopic in that it showed a fuller picture of how Elvis' art was inspired and appropriated by Black culture and music. As much as the movie shows Elvis' appreciation for the Black music and artists that inspired him, the movie also shows how a major reason behind his success in singing Black songs and dancing similarly to Black people was because his fans would rather support a white artist than a Black artist. Also, Austin Butler and his costars were in touch with the Presleys which I believe helped humanize the characters in the movie more and in some way tell their story.
Elvis once said “The only thing a n*gger can do for me is shine my shoes.” He was not “appreciative” of black culture, he was a thief and a useless person who was incredibly racist. The movie itself was also racist.
100% agree..I had NO clue his manager was a king of all SNAKES...I dont think i could ever make another Elvis joke in my life..if a biopic reminds you of the human behind the "Star" than its a story worth telling
Yep, true. What bugged me, though, is that his relationship with Priscilla was very romanticised while irl he was grooming a 14yo girl. In the movie Priscilla says he's the love of her life and all but in interviews she said how the biggest Elvis's love was his mother, how he changed Priscilla and manipulated her. Overall it was a great movie apart from this idealisation
What I dont like is the glamorisation of Elvis. He was not this „heroic person“. He was a literal gr00mer and p3dophile. And its so disgusting to glamorise such a person, even if they showed some of his flaws.
I personally think Rocket Man is a great example of a well-written biopic. The movie never claimed to be a factual "traditional" biopic, but rather made it a fascinating fantasy musical sort of biopic to tell Elton's story in a new way. It felt fresh from the MANY biopics I have seen in my lifetime. Although it was dramatized for obvious entertainment purposes, I think it still had a great message at the end of the day that was also clearly co-signed by Elton himself. Elton seemed to be a big part of the creation of the movie, which seems can't be said about many of the biopics that have come out recently where the subject of the film never consented to have their life/situations be exploited. Also not to mention, I think it was a cool choice to take Elton's hit songs and write the story around them to make the plot coherently move along and express the important moments playing out. AND I think it was great to be able to hear Taron Egerton sing rather than lip-syncing like many musical artist biopics tend to do. I can go on and on about how great that movie is!
I agree. I think that many people dismissed it when it came out because it seemed like a money-grabbing project that was intended to mimic Bohemian Rhapsody's success. I felt that same way, but I gave it a shot and I liked it waaay more that BR. Now I wish that it actually had the same success, if not even more, because it definitely deserves it.
Actually I'm pretty sure lots of people working on the movie (screenwriters, the director, the actors) refuse to call it a biopic? I read in an interview they kept calling it a fantasy musical, and that they took the overall emotions of Elton John's life and translated those rather than retelling factual events
Couldn’t agree more! Also, I don’t consider for example, Tik tik boom to be 100% a biopic, in any case would be an Auto-biopic, because it was written by Larson himself, and the movie is an adaptation of the musical.
I was just coming here to comment this! Rocket man really was unique and it made me so happy to hear that Taron and Elton went on tour together it was really something that felt unique for a biopic and genuine
I actually really like biopics if they're made with the consent of the person they're "documenting". Rocketman, for example, is not historically accurate but the dramatization of Elton John's life story was meant to drive a point that Elton John himself wanted to promote, thus making it a good biopic that really represented Elton John (not to mention, the musical format was revolutionary). Pam & Tommy and Bohemian Rhapsody did not feel like that; Bohemian Rhapsody because Freddie Mercury was a notoriously private person who would not only never sign up for a telling his life story, but also the way the movie interpreted him (specifically his queerness as being the dark part of him and AIDs as being some sort of punishment) would have most probably made him sick to his stomach and Pamela Anderson very much does NOT want to relive that very traumatic part of her life (according to her friends). Biopics should honor the person they're "documenting". Not by putting them on a pedestal or exposing them traumatically to the worst parts of their pasts; they should honor their message and what they want the world to remember and learn from. (Unless ofc it's a biopic about a terrible person, which I feel like you talked about much more eloquently than I could.)
This! There's a biopic about possibly the most famous songwriter in my country that was released recently, it literally reduces a talented musician to just a dumb idiot that happened to write songs effortlessly as Mozart (?!). Well he's dead but there some characters in the story that are still alive, like the singer that was just like a sister to him was changed into some sort of weird fling that's super inappropriate cause she was married already, and everyone just praises it as romantic (??!). The movie actually asked for this woman's consent and she understandably refused but went on and did it anyway and played out like she agreed with it until she bashed them on newspaper. Still, the movie makes extreme profit and somehow the majority of audience think it's a well-made film!
yes!! rocketman actually brought something to the table musical wise and story wise and it really did do him justice! its one of my favorite movies because its entertaining and doesnt follow the regular biopic formula. it really feels like elton (probably because he was a director (?) / writer for it) i feel like his trials were presented well and in a respectful way. i wish this movie was talked about more (and it deserved awards) and got more attention than bohemian rhapsody or other exploitative biopics.
The thing that I liked about I, Tonya was the tone. The “present day” interviews really set it apart from other biopics, especially when “present day” Tonya calls out the audience.
I was just about to say this. The interview scenes were really sobering and offered a very realistic voice to the overall biopic. I like how certain scenes broke the 4th wall as well to let the audience know that it may not have been completely accurate. In the end, I didn't walk away from the film thinking, "Tonya Harding = good, Nancy Kerrigan = bad". I did walk away feeling that circumstances can make or break a person, and that everyone has a different version of their truth, and THE truth is somewhere in between. It's true that she was complicit in the attack, but it's also true that details may have been kept from her. It's true that she may have been punished too harshly, and it's true that people kept kicking her while she was down. It's true that she had a rough upbringing, but it's also true that she had a difficult personality and a major chip on her shoulder...to the point that it was difficult to work with her. It's true that she was abused, but it's probably also true that she was an abuser. I really liked that movie, and I usually don't like biopics.
@@aquilaaltaire3007 I have to diaagree with this take a little bit, as a figure skating fan. Both Tonya and Nancy turned out years later to be not so great people but in that given circumstance, Nancy was a 100% the victim. Whether it was the intention of the movie or not, and I'm giving them the grace and say it wasn't, mostly based on the fact they said several times in the movie that it's Tonya's version and she doesn't always tell the truth... the disclaimer was still put in a somewhat comedic way and people did take Nancy as the stuck up spoiled rich brat when she was the opposite of it. And the press tour and Margot Robbie specifically put a nail in that coffin, never really putting any doub on Tonya's version.
Yeah but a lot of it was inaccurate like the dude who hit the “colored” sign off the womens restroom, that never happened, even in black stories we need a white savior
I love hidden figures the film but there really is a white man saviour vibe in some scenes, that the writers twisted to make true. Those woman are brilliant and that reflects more in the book than in the film, in my opinion.
People keep saying that Patrizia Reggiani was framed as a victim in "The House of Gucci" - but I honestly didn't see that. The entire movie I thought she was a greedy manipulative terrible person and that she felt entitled to be part of the company even though she was clearly not a part of it. Also: If I watch a Hollywood production that sells itself as a biopic it's clear from the beginning that it is made to entertain and not to inform. I checked the historical accuracy right afterwards and was kind of shocked to find that Paolo Gucci wasn't this ridiculous clown the movie made him. He was a fairly elegant and successful man.
I totally agree! I’m always surprised when I hear that people found Gaga’s depiction as sympathetic. Even when Aldo was cut off for being with her early on, I saw her support as her playing the long game. She was never going to let him stay outside the company for long.
Same! I watched it with a friend and both of us agreed just how much we hated that woman. But they did do some characters wrong. I forgot the name of the guy they ended up manipulating (the designer, I think he was a cousin of Gucci), they got those wrong. That guy was actually not a bad designer and he worked for Gucci for all I know as someone talented in design. They put all that solemnly for the drama
I'm scared of biopics because it makes people THINK they know the person's life and what really happen when they actually only know the hollywood dramatic version of it and not the truth - which tends to erase the more problematic aspects of a person's life to protray only one view of the events... :/ In the end, facts and legend become one and the same in people's head and they don't remember what really happen V/s what the film told them.
It also just comes with the territory. Some aspects of a public figure's life will always be romanticized or misconfigured for the sake of entertainment. It is not impossible to tell the story of a person's life honestly, but it is much easier to pursue fiction over fact.
when biopics are done well, they are GOOD. they somehow are able to capture the cultural zeitgeist of the time of release while still being mostly true to the protagonist. they do well at the box office and they have staying power. HOWEVER, this level of success isn't attainable for EVERY memorable icon. not only do bad biopics taint the sub-genre, but they have the potential to taint the real person's actual legacy
Are the films “Bohemian Rhapsody” and “Rocketman” considered good biopics? They hold such a special place in my heart, but I would like to hear your opinion on them :)
People don't watch them. And then the issue becomes that Hollywood is rewarding itself for niche movies that nobody cares for, essentially making it a circlejerk.
Playing a real person gives people something to compare them to, and I think as acting becomes a much more complex landscape with less and less defined guidelines for what makes "good" acting, the ability to quantify a performance makes it easier to judge than something that has no baseline.
I know right! Awards season has become so boring to me, it seems like all that an actor or actress have to do to win is to play someone who was famous in the past!
In my opinion it's nepotism and laziness. A bunch of people in the creative space Hollywood who are only there because their parents (who were talented) were established there and the legacy gave them the job. Bunch of writers who were hired by their friends and not because they deserve it. Bunch of clueless studios who give any project to anybody, even when the person has no interest on the thing, but they have to accept in order to get their own ideas on-screen later. And, the worst in my opinion, producers who don't know how to pick up good projects, so they play it save with only financing franchises, reboots, sequels, prequels, remakes, book adaptations and biopics.
I can't help but feel that if a celebrity is in charge of their own biopic, then that gives them a prime opportunity to reframe and restructure any narrative they want about themselves. They can paint themselves in any light they like. This happened in the Queen biopic: things were changed to be Freddie's idea, like splitting the band for side projects, when they actually were other people's ideas. That's because the living band members had creative input. So, I wouldn't be surprised if Madonna comes of sparkling in her biopic, if she's the one directing it.
i’ve been saying this! i mean if it were my life being painted on screen, i’d also like to have control over the way i’m being played. however, that just glosses over true fact. i feel like if madonna really wants to be part of the making of her biopic, she should at least find a co-director to help balance out the tone and structure of the film.
@@tiffanywardrop i feel like the fact that it’s a biopic leaves a lot of freeway to avoiding criticism. she can say “this is my movie- not a documentary” and move on. not saying that she’ll do that, but she could.
Yes!! It is wild how Brian and Roger made Freddie out to be a shit person, it was hardly ever a mutual disagreement, it was straight up Freddie’s fault everytime?? And him «splitting up the band» to go solo for a while, when Roger and Brian(?) literally had solo albums before that and none of them had any issues with that irl. I didn’t know a lot of Queen’s history before watching the movie, so when I walked out of the movie theatre, I genuinely thought Freddie was a shitty person until I did my research. Also sad how they HARDLY included Jim Hutton, and making Mary out to be Freddie’s savior from Freddies «wild-gay-party-life». They made Freddie seem like an annoying, boring burden to the band who did not know how to laugh, arrive on time or take his career and the other band members’ time seriously, when he was, although flawed, an entertainer in all areas of life, loved his art, happy and free, genuine and larger than life. Sad how they reduced him to what he did. I think Rami did his best with what was given to him, but it wasn’t much, and it was disrespectful to Freddie’s legacy. I think Rocketman should be remembered and Bohemian Rhapsody forgotten. There’s a clear difference when the subject is alive to tell their own story.
Oh, and yes, the subject being alive can definitely make them change the narrative to be in their favor, but that’s why I loved Rocketman, EJ was honest about his addictions, struggles, and how he hurt other people. It is definitely not perfect, but we can’t expect much from celebs, so it’s probably some of the best we’re gonna get.
I stopped watching the Queen movie cause I wasn't able to enjoy any of it but wasn't it criticized for some of its portrayal of Freddie (apparently to do with the involvement of the band)? You make it sounds a lot more positive than I remember people talking about this. I gotta say Rocketman vs Bohemian Rhapsody is a good comparison of how to do a biopic of a musician. Rocketman had Elton John's input but rather than just painting a glamorous side of him it touched on some of his personal life and issues, was quite insightful into his character. I guess it depends on the celebrity and their ego; and also the problems they faced during their career and how much they want revealed.
Another issue with all the award shows loving biopics is that now being able to imitate a famous person well is considered “good acting” and favored over other types of acting. Those side by side comparisons that say “look at how close this portrayal is to the real person!” are valued over other, more interesting, types of acting and stories. It dissuades actors from pursuing other types of roles.
People were mad about the Nina Simone biopic because they didn’t seek a phenotypically black woman with similar features as Nina. Instead they put prosthetics and essentially blackface on Zaldana who was too socially unaware to turn down the role.
Genuine question. Why is it blackface when the actress was black? Like, what's the difference between that and putting prosthetics on a white person to match the real person's face? I understand if she was white and they tried to match with nina. That's just plain wrong when there are so many amazing black actors.
@@meh_im_a_sheep6018 colorism allowed people like zoey to have access to opportunities that other people of color with a darker complexion could only dream of in the very recent past. The fact that she chose to do this role and “apologized” for her actions with an “I’m not black enough” undertone, very much demonstrates her light-skinned fragility (It’s like white fragility, just with colorism in place of racism). She was never in the position to understand the struggles of a darker skinned black woman. She’s even said she doesn’t understand colorism. So it’s wrong for her to masquerade as darker black woman when she doesn’t understand anything about that demographic. There’s so many layers to this, and people look at the surface level of things and think “well she’s black, what’s wrong??” And honestly this might be one of those things that you have to live to understand. The problem with representation in media these days is allowing the oppressors and other privileged people the opportunity to tell the stories of people that they can’t relate to in a deeper way
@@niaya9801 oh, ok! Its honestly the first time I'm hearing about this and im thankful to you for opening my eyes. I never knew there was a lot of difference between different "levels" for people of color. Also, thank you for answering in an informative tone instead of attacking me right away. I know im ignorant, but im trying to learn.
@@meh_im_a_sheep6018 also Zoe does not identify as Black she has said that she is “mixed” so why would a mixed person play a Black person. Non mixed Black people don’t have that privilege.
I remember saying how the Pam & Tommy series was fucked up for not getting Pamela's consent and the director acting ike he was doing the poor woman a favour when she herself said she was against it. The responses I got were literally soooo apathetic and cruel and I didn't understand how the same people insulting and belittling Pamela's distress also want to watch the biopic???? Like it's literally about how she's a victim, if you can't feel bad for her now, would you understand anything by watching it??? I just find the genre so heartless and exploitative when it's done with zero concern for the people it focuses on.
You absolutely have a point, and at the same time, I watched the series (without having any knowledge of the events portrayed) and... I empathize with her, I feel like I've judged her too harshly, like the society pidgeon holed her for no good reason and I feel that as a society we did her dirty. And thats where I'm torn - because I honestly think the show is great and does her justice, the enemy is definitely the fucked up law and societal norms and judgments - but the fact that she didn't consent absolutely taints it. Nah, actually makes it fucked up.
@@ankyfire yeah i agree, these Biopics are helpful to women and men, to understand how the media portrayed women back in the day, and even men, but mostly women. It was a wild time to be alive, and we need to show people over and over again how the media will go with whatever narrative suits them, and that we should question everything we hear. on any topic not just celebrities. Because I dont know if we have forgotten but the media is everywhere, talking about all the things, not just hollywood.
Pam and Tommy is an interesting case and I would argue sits in a grey area, even though Pamela did not give her consent. The series actively questions “When does a story no longer belong to you? When does it belong to the world?” Yes, the series does re-tell the story of the sex tap leak, but it’s about more than that. It’s also a broader critique of celebrity worship. Importantly, it’s about re-contextualising events that are easily trivialised as “just another celebrity sex tape” as a violation of these people’s human rights, simply because as a society we feel entitled to access personal information about celebrities. Yes, the show is hypocritical to some extent then, but I don’t think that it is exploitative. I think it is an important story to tell, so that we can continue to deconstruct celebrity culture and understand how we have victimised the celebrities at the centre of it.
@@ankyfire Unfortunately, our empathy now may actually be harmful if she's still recovering from this trauma. Is the potential of regressing her recovery worth changing opinions of people she'll never interact with?
@@TheMariekeJackson I don’t have an answer to that. I don’t think our empathy now is harmful to her - I think it teaches us something about how society treats celebrities, especially women. And it’s an important lesson. Whether the cost is worth it.. I just don’t know.
I HIGHLY recommend watching Spencer! Kristen Stewart gives possibly her best performance of her career. Has beautiful cinematography by Claire Mathon, who worked on Portrait of a Lady on Fire. The movies really breaks the mold and subverts what a biopic is. Also takes an interesting approach by having allusions to A Christmas Carol.
As someone from Mississippi, when I heard about the Emmett Till biopic I was angry. Especially since this story is still very alive and active with Emmett Till's family still fighting for his case. I expressed my anger about this on another video talking about it and had people saying there was nothing wrong when I can tell you this biopic will not be an accurate or a well-representative film.
As someone who works on Broadway, the same can be said for musical theatre. The biopic-jukebox subgenre has absolutely EXPLODED in the last decade. We've had: - "On Your Feet" (Gloria Estefan) - "Tina-The Tina Turner Musical" - "The Cher Show" - "MJ" (Michael Jackson) - "Summer- The Donna Summer Musical" - "Ain't Too Proud" (The Temptations) - "Beautiful: The Carol King Musical" - "A Night With Janis Joplin" Later this year, we'll be getting a Broadway transfer of "A Beautiful Noise" (Neil Diamond). It may not seem like a lot in the grand scheme of an entire Broadway season, but in the last four-five years, we've basically been getting one or two biopic musical each year. It''s exhausting. Let me tell you. The ushers, bartenders, other front of house theatre workers, and almost all my other actor and writer friends, we are all SICK OF IT. But we all know why producers keep funding these shows: They're easy to make, and draw in big crowds. Biopics are the perfect musicals for people who don't like musicals. Obviously, not all of them are successes, though a lot of them are. Good for everyone who got a job out of these shows. But the NYC theatre community is tired.
@@maria_pinto_05 I was thinking about this over the last couple of days as I worked it for the week. In a way, yes and no. Yes, as it adheres to the definition of a biopic--it dramatizes the life of Alexander Hamilton. But no, in how "Hamilton" interprets the material it was inspired from: "Hamilton" actively chooses to cast people who do not reflect the original ethnicities of the people they are portraying. (The exception is King George, who is always the only white named role.) The costumes, hair and makeup also reflect this.(Example: King George is the only one to wear a powdered wig, while everyone else dons their natural hair.) "Hamilton" is able to take this stylistic approach since the people from that time period are easier to mythologize. There are no photographic or audio records of them, thus it's easier to play with. The same reason why "Six" works in the same way. It's why you can make Elizabeth Schuyler Asian, but not someone like Audrey Hepburn or Carole King. Hope this makes sense.
I'm always hesitant with biopics made about celebrities who've died as we never really know if they actually want to be portrayed in this way. David Bowie stated publicly that he didn't want a biopic made of him, and some studio executives decided they needed to make the film, and when no one went to see it they blamed cancel culture of all things, despite most bowie fans wanting to respect his memory and wishes.
I'm with Lady Gaga on this one. This woman wanted attention from killing her husband and this movie unfortunately gave her that. Asking to meet the actress was her showing her hand.
@@marianne5055 I was thinking the same thing. If you’re going to give her the attention you claim she wants, may as well do a good job at it. Meeting her doesn’t mean you agree with murder lol
@@alexandria_aesthetic I think she might as well have met her. If lady gaga cared about not giving the woman attention she shouldn't have starred in a movie about her and made up stories about her sending bees to her while on set. There's no point in not meeting her to withhold the attention you're already giving her.
@@marianne5055 Exactly omg, why do the movie at all if that is a real concern of yours? Her job was to be as accurate as possible in her portrayal of this woman, meeting her would have helped a great deal with that.
Actually I liked Elvis a lot. I liked the fact that the direction tells the story of Elvis by the bias of Colonel Parker. It's not just Elvis. It's a confrontation between the image, the storytelling of the legend who was Elvis, made by the Colonel, and the true events with the drugs abuses, the manipulation, the life dramas, ... It was a biopic on Elvis and on the Colonel at the same time.
If u thought Pam and Tommy was exploitative enough, they literally changed the timeline with the miscarriage. Pam lost the baby quite some time before the sex tape was leaked, yet the directors changed things around and made out like the leaked tape was the reason it happened. That sat really wrong with me.
Selena is my all-time favorite biopic. Everyone involved did a phenomenal job! Like I have to give JLO her tens because her portrayal of Selena was extremely compelling IMO, especially since she spent so much time with the Quintanilla family (and they were directly involved in the film) to get the performance right.
@@audramcdonaldapologist3676 Yes, I know. The family said they did that because they didn’t want any other production companies to do it and not involve them. So they had no choice but to do it so soon. Mr. Quintanilla mentioned that in interviews.
@@audramcdonaldapologist3676 I think that's kinda sweet that the family was involved because it allows it to be like a tribute piece rather than a fictional cash grab like quite a lot of biopics
I agree. JLO’s performance was outstanding in that movie! Def still one of my faves. But didn’t she receive hella backlash at the time because Selena is Mexican and JLO’s Puerto Rican?
@@CaitAlexandria She did! Which is understandable, but I watched a lot of interviews and the Quintanilla family said JLO was truly the best actress that auditioned since she could act, sing, (despite them using Selena’s actual music in the movie) and dance.
yes. 100% yes. even in the drugstore yesterday - waiting line - all the mags - JFK, Marilyn ... I had a moment of " WTH? - what date is it" - I blame all the remakes and retread on the film studios fear of loosing a dollar on new ideas and never taking a risk - LACK of VISION - it is just about making money not about art - auto tune and CGI - we are STAGNANT.
My favorite biopic is Frida,I though Salma Hayek did an amazing job, and her being of Mexican heritage really gave authenticity to the role. I also love the fantasy elements within the film. The scene after she has a miscarriage and Diego is seeing the painting she made after the experience was so powerful. That painting in general is so powerful. Truly conveys the agony of losing a child. But Frida Kahlo Is hands down my favorite artists. So this is a biased opinion lol.
One of my journalism professors broke down to us that documentaries, as much as they are more based in the concept of truth, are still highly stylistic and edited. You have to have a perspective on a topic and you still need to have a storyline to make a documentary work. I think documentaries might be considered a bit gauche to spell out so obviously a message to the audience, while biopics are seen as a bit more between the lines and “artistic”. Imo biopics and documentaries both need to be taken with a grain of salt and both should have the same amount of googling after.
Hi Mina! Thank you so much for your discussion of true crime. I work in the mental health field and have major issues with the true crime industry. As you mentioned, I feel like the way true crime is now, with whole TV channels, podcasts, and RUclips channels being dedicated to it , twists it into a form of casual entertainment, desensitizing us to these heinous crimes as if these true stories are just another fictitious horror movie. People turn liking true crime into a personality trait, bragging about how "nothing phases me anymore," like wtf? These are real people who experienced real abuse and trauma whose families and friends are still grieving. Along with this, the glamorization and glorification (even if that's not the intention) of these events further stigmatizes mental health issues, which the U.S. definitely does not need any more of. Sorry for the long comment but this really bothers me and I'm so glad you touched on it! I'd love to hear more of your thoughts about society's obsession with true crime!
One of my favorite movies is Amadeus, which is the story of Mozart and his “rival” in the film, Salieri. The whole story is so completely not what happened but it’s a really entertaining movie nonetheless
There's a German cartoon series about Mozart as a child from 2006 (for the celebration of his 250th birthday). Not the most accurate obviously, but I loved it and I think it was a great way to make kids more familiar with his music
I think that they should stop with the Marilyn’s biopics, they should just let the woman rest in piece and she’s literally went through so much when she was alive.
I’m surprised that What’s Love Got to Do With It, which is centered around the life of Tina Turner played Angela Bassett, wasn’t mentioned! That was a very well done biopic that shed life on her past in ways that had not been as openly discussed outside of one magazine article. Though I will add here that while Tina Turner supported the film, she said in her recent documentary “Tina” that she’s never watched it because she doesn’t want to relive her own trauma and ab*se she went through at the hands of Ike Turner.
Personally, I think biopics work best when it's not actually about the person but rather the idea of the person. Both The Social Network and Marie Antoinette are perfect examples of this because they aren't really about either of their subjects; instead using their subjects to invoke an archetype. We feel a type of way about these people EXISTING in society so these movies lean into it. I do think that any historical fiction needs to ask itself why it's using that moment, that person, or that story and if the piece is only interesting because of the historical element rather than it enhancing the story than it's just lazy writing. If I wanted facts I wouldn't watch a drama.
Good points one movie critic from my country said something similar, he said a biopic should be focused on one period time of a person and have a point to have that story. For example Spielberg’s Lincoln He only showed his road to achieve the abolition of slavery and how he managed to accomplish that. We didn’t see his whole life just his most important achievement. There is also Quills about the Marquis de Sade, the film wasn’t totally about his life but it was a critique against censorship
"As someone currently in an acting conservatory" OMG MINA!!!! CONGRATULATIONS!!! Also, what you said about nostalgia as a unifying factor kinda sparked a thought for me from a sociocultural American perspective. The past few years have been culturally very divisive for the USA, and I feel like younger people especially are very disillusioned (in my opinion, rightfully so) by the mythology of the USA. I cant help but wonder if Hollywood's current fixation on the biopic is an attempt to create new mythology to re-enchant the disillusioned? Regardless, im tired of it all lmao. House of Gucci would have been fantastic as a fictional thriller, for example, and didnt need to leech off of existing people. I think, though, the need to remythologize "americana" and "american cinema" also shuts out opportunities for new film writers and filmmakers -- there is a reason why titles such as Everything Everywhere All At Once, Moonlight, The Last Black Man in San Francisco, etc. get released independently and dont get backing from most major studios/showings in most major cinema chains, and its because these newer independent films don't glorify mythos in the ways that biopics (and superhero movies! Let's be real here) do.
the video hasn’t even started but I hope you talk about music biopics and Walk Hard (2007)!!! It parodies them (especially Walk the Line and Ray) so perfectly that I haven’t been able to watch a biopic since without simultaneously thinking about that movie. The writing is perfection and SO detailed, with a real grasp of 20th century music history and niche references . Every second is stuffed. They pack every single tiny trope in it, down to a child actor playing a piano prodigy but cutting to a grown man’s hands on the keys. It makes them all look so cheesy and silly. Unironically top 5 favorite movies, along with Sunset Boulevard and Midnight Cowboy.
I’m glad I didn’t watch Bohemian Rhapsody in the cinema because I swear my husband paused it every five minutes to crack a Dewey Cox joke. Rocketman at the drive in theatre didn’t get so lucky. “You don’t want no part of this, Dewey!” “I dunno, I think I do.”
As a Baz Luhrmann fan, I really did like his over the top Elvis biopic but I can't help feeling like I would've liked it more if it hadn't tried to fit most of his life into the almost 3 hour runtime. It still felt very rushed and only really slowed down when we got to the latter half of the 60's. I don't think the biopic industry will stop anytime soon but I do hope that audiences are interested enough by these films to go and discover who the true person/story was.
He had originally made a 4 hour version, but it had to be cut for obvious reasons. It went into a lot more detail of Elvis’ earlier life, and he is thinking of releasing it in a few years.
I personally love a “Mythic” telling of a person’s life, much like Marie Antoinette. It takes this historical person and turns them into a character that director is trying to use to tell a certain story. The main character is an agent of the director’s vision. One of my favorite mythic biopics is The Music Lovers from 1971 about the life of Tchaikovsky. It’s less about Tchaikovsky and more about how a repressive and snobbish society can break us and make us break others with our residual trauma and how our hunt for physical and emotional intimacy is ultimately foiled by such a society.
I feel like your last example sums it up perfectly. So much of the time you hear about new biopics and feel like there is just no reason for them to exist. They feel lazy and exploitative. They seem to to reduce peoples lives to only the most dramatic parts. Not to say that all are bad, if those involved genuinely have something to say then it is ok. Love the video.
I can't say I agree about Gaga not wanting to meet her for acting cred. Academia would ask us to push our boundaries to have a "true" acting performance, but more important then accuracy is creativity. Gaga didn't wanna meet her, she doesn't want to talk to a murderer, and no art is worth her boundaries.
@@squattycoati931 She probably justified it as this is a fictionalized version, but it does paint her in a nicer light and therefore create sympathy, definitely a good point Mina brings up. I still think she's allowed to take a job for the sake of creative output, pay, and fun. The whole recreation of real (especially living) people, much like idolizing them, is bound to end up terribly because people are at best, never perfect, and at worst, are absolutely horrible.
one of my favorite biopics is "Lion" (2016)! It is based on the memoir of Saroo Brierley but I did my research rn and he was excited that it was going to be made into a film and was "Pleasantly surprised by the finished film! so its a beautiful story and theres no guilt in enjoying it
the only biopic ive loved recently is spencer. it displayed so many things that previous biopics hadn’t, in an artful and impactful way. the love she has for her sons, her eating disorder as a way to cope with the ongoing suffocation of being a royal. the entire movie felt like uncomfortable suffocation that you wanted to escape from. i love it sm
I completely agree! It let us see Diana in a new way, and openly informed us that it wasn’t depicting anything that really happened. It was giving us the essence of her life in a three-day fable.
Same! I also love his film Jackie. It’s very clear they’re all loose interpretations based on the facts but they’re not trying to be accurate depictions. They’re all mediations on complicated women and events. Though Jackie is p accurate with the sequence of events
@@lc3920 I love how they showed how Diana was also a difficult person to deal with. She was not perfect. She was a troubled women in a terrible situation trying her best and often failing but I loved that they emphasized she cared most about being a mother more than anything else. The ending was surprising but so fitting
It also had much more of an indie vibe. A lot of biopics are just blockbusters with nothing special to offer, but spencer had so many layers to it, and was so symbolic and metaphorical. I loved it a lot.
One I didn't realize was so poorly timed was the Selena biopic. It came out only two or so years after her murder which means it was filmed not too long after her passing which is just weird and insensitive.
It was made with the family’s permission tho the people that matter and it was actually good I like that it celebrated her life and made people aware of who she was
Her family made this choice. They were heavily involved & they wanted to get her story out there before any random person who didn’t actually know her just made some things up.
@This Nigerian Loves Drinking Garri it wasn’t exploiting her image tho it was made in good taste unlike the Britney Spears bio was most people wouldn’t even wouldn’t know who Selena is without that movie Some people find it weird that ex husband wrote a book about her and that was years after she died so you can’t win
I honestly can love a good biopic, especially if it has some kinda unique thing. The most recent example for me is “Tick, Tick… Boom”. It’s an adaptation of the musical written by Jonathan Larson about him, the creator of Rent, and is directed by Lin Manuel Miranda. This is so unknown to me because of the kinda grittier tone for a relatively tragic story, and is mostly not glorifying the person presented, and it is so heartwarming and heartbreaking, especially for musical theatre people.
It’s also not really a biopic. Jon Larson wasn’t famous when he wrote it, so it’s really just a story about a normal guy (partly true, partly fictional) and his frustrations with his lack of success in his chosen field.
I watched I Tony with Tonya's cousins wife. She told us that it was a really good depiction of her and her mothers relationship. She also told us all the tea, it was such a bizarre situation. Her mom lives about 40 min out from me
When I studied Spanish my professor loved to use biopics to help teach us history in the language we were studying that showed us the culture rather than just tell. Frieda, Selena, in the time of the butterflies…
Omg if you still like Spanish biopics you should watch the one about Luis Miguel, he was (and I guess still is since he hasn’t died and is still doing concerts lol) a HUGE Mexican singer in the 80s-90s and his story is very interesting.
A biopic not mentioned that was a really great movie and an amazing performance is Ray (2004) with Jamie Foxx playing Ray Charles. I don’t remember seeing a real-life person being portrayed as well as Jamie Foxx does, sometimes it hard to tell if a clip is Foxx or Charles.
If a biopic is made about someone who's still alive, do they have any input or make money off of it? Like I bet any money Pamela Anderson is seeing nothing on her own life story being dramatized
I think the Marilyn ones are overdone. The Elvis movie might be my favorite movie of all time, it was so well done and Austin Butler really paid tribute to the amazing talent of Elvis. Walk the line and Bohemian Rhapsody were brilliant as well. I think if its done right it is a well paid tribute to an artist. I would love to see one on Kurt Cobain.
Good biopics definitely exist. I love Hidden Figures and Catch Me If You Can because they’re real stories about exception people I wouldn’t learn about otherwise. I also adore Rocketman and Tick, Tick Boom because they’re not exactly aiming for realism but rather want to tell a life story the way that makes the most sense for that person (Elton turning his life into a musical and Jon actually wrote Tick Tick Boom out of writers block frustration). I’m also incredibly sick of people lumping Rocketman and Bohemian Rhapsody together because they have nothing in common, and I do mean it.
i am so glad you decided to do a vid about this! i just saw elvis opening weekend and i feel like now hollywood is over saturated w biopics i'm exhausted of it all 😭
I always lean more towards biopics that are so stylized that can barely even be considered biopics: I'm not there (2007), Caravaggio (1986), The Music Lovers (1971) even Lisztomania (1975) technically fits the criteria. Also a more recent one that I really don't see anyone talking about but it's brilliant (no pun intended) is Tesla (2020).
Biopics are 50/50 for me. Some are well done and give you an amazing peek into someone's life and moments in history, while others are sloppy (miscast?) and boring. They sometimes try to cover too much time or change real events too much. I never thought too much about the ethical issues of making them. Thanks for covering that angle. Love hearing your analysis on different topics. I can tell how much work you put into your research.
I was interviewed about biopics for an article at my university's paper, and this was during the Oscar cycle with Green Book, so I talked about the idea of the involvement of those still living. With Green Book, the screenwriter was the son of the main character, and it was so clear that the film was from that point of view and attempting to paint him in the best possible light, whereas Donald Shirley's family was never consulted, so the whole film was just an opportunity to make this guy's dad look good. I think that veneer of fantasy versus reality and who's part of the project are really the dividing lines for the reception of the audience. With something like RocketMan or Tick Tick Boom, there's a fantasy and performance there, a demonstration of the art that made these men famous that makes the film more about appreciating how their life influenced their art then the factual story of their lives. I think that's the kind of thing that's going to be important going forward, is the removal of strict reality in favor of the use of the life to reflect on their legacy. Shifting the POV away from the person the film is about, breaking the fourth wall, and being honest about alterations seems like the best way to go forward with the genre.
The Hollywood industry really needs to stop this endless cycle of biopics and give newer/minority creators a chance to tell their own original stories.
Ok, you have a point there but honestly... They're not doing that any time soon. I mean, why should we wait until Hollywood pays us attention? Why don't we start consuming movies and cultural products from other countries without the saying of Hollywood? We can't say that other countries don't have their own movie industries. Yes, they're not as big and powerful. But if we start supporting them, then we wouldn't need Hollywood standards or the Oscars... Which we already don't need, we have the internet. PS: I'm latina and if you want to watch movies entirely made by POC (don't like the term btw), you could watch "La casa del fin de los tiempos" for example. Mexican and Argentinian cinema are also widely praised.
@@sweetembrace6706 That's right, you should get to see people that represents you in a country that's so diverse as the US. I don't lie, I would love to see a Colombian or Venezuelan character being the protagonist (not depicted as a criminal as always) of a successful series or movie in Hollywood, it would be amazing. Nonetheless, the industry has demonstrated (sadly) that they don't care about that. I'm saying that if the industry doesn't provide us with the representation we need, we have to consume that representation from other sources and then, maybe, they would considerate to adapt their industry to people's needs. Here I suggested to watch movies from other countries, but the same goes with indie movies. If we support those creators we could get Hollywood to pay them attention (as it happened with Lin Manuel Miranda, for example). On the POC question... I was born in Venezuela and I lived there until last year (I'm 18yo and had to migrate because the situation there is not the best), so as a person from outside of the USA I can tell you that I don't feel represented by that term. That term was invented by people within a segregationist society in a really specific point in time and in a specific place. That context cannot be translated to the rest of the world and it is confusing, because it is based on race and race doesn't really exist. In other words, you can be brown or black or yellow or white and that unique feature of yours doesn't communicate your entire experiences as a human being. I am white, my grandad was Italian and I look italian. I've always considered myself white (cause' my skin is white), but in the USA some people would called me POC because I'm latina and others won't because I'm white. I'm both latina and white and that fact alone (sadly) cannot convey that I lived a really though time in my country and never had the privileges that in the USA are associated with white people. Not saying that the term POC is wrong, you can use it and can identify with it yourself (that's up to you). But I don't like it, because it is so general and subjective. Most Latin Americans don't like the term POC or simply don't know it. It's an American thing. Not all American things are universal and that's fine. Americans should ask assumed POC if they want to be called that way. At least that's what I think.
This is such an interesting topic, I've always been confused about the appeal of biopics. I find biopics about people who are still alive (and especially without approval/involvement of the person) really weird... it must feel so creepy to see your life dramatised on the big screen. But when i think about it, the ones made about people after they die are arguably worse because the protagonist has no chance to approve or dispel any mistruths. They're just all a bit creepy to me given they're dramatised retellings of real lives. I dunno, maybe the appeal just goes over my head... I'd always rather watch a doc about someone I find interesting I guess 🤷♀️
As a Michael Jackson fan I'm not excited about the biopic. Other fans express worry as well mostly because media and other outlets were/is never truthful portraying him. Will they put enough effort to study him and not go along the tabloids is questionable so as you say if it's done correctly it can shed a new light onto the person but if not it will be plain mockery.
Also you are so right about documentaries. The 2015 A24 documentary about Amy Winehouse is soooo good it actually made me a huge fan of her music. It showed EVERYTHING, the good the bad and the ugly… it was extremely honoring to her memory.
Yes! youre always so on point with your takes. everytime i see a trailer for another biopic i immediately roll my eyes. im so glad im not the only one who noticed how many there are, especially recently.
I love how everyone thinks Hollywood or the film industry running out of ideas is a new phenomenon. You do realize that the film industry as a whole has been out of ideas since the dawn of time right? There’s so many common tropes out there that get re done or re-invented. And so many stories that get retold. Especially when new technology comes around ie. when movies went from silent to sound or when CGI came around. Do you know how many Robin Hood movies there are? How many takes on Cinderella or Beauty and the Beast in film form? Or how many times classic myths or fairy tales are gonna be retold again and again? Criticizing the film industry for using common tropes or stories again and again is like criticizing someone for using a word in the dictionary. There’s been countless remakes of so many movies or stories and there always will be because everything has been done. It’s why execution matters. Not what you do, how you do it
I don’t dislike the idea of biopics. I’m tired of hearing about Marilyn, Elvis, Princess Diana, etc Some people in history have really rich stories that have been mostly forgotten. I’d like to see a movie about Clara Bow personally.
God yes. It’s not biopics that are the issue. I just don’t care what new way they have found in projecting something onto Monroe that probably has nothing to do with who she was.
I’d like to have a biopic of Jeannette McDonald and Nelson Eddy, Jeanette and Nelson were the soprano and baritone of the ‘30s if you needed a soprano or baritone they were your people and they were always paired up together, I would love a Julie Andrews biopic too
I totally agree with your take on the true crime biopic-like when I saw Hulu was making “the girl from plainville” after those events only took place a few years ago, I was horrified. Truly so disrespectful and cruel. Same with “don’t F with cats” on Netflix, when those events took place less than 10 years ago.
my favorite biopic is based on brian wilson from the beach boys, called love & mercy. it cast two different actors to play two different parts of his life and it perfectly shows his struggles with mental illness while also creating one of the most revered albums of all time, pet sounds. highly recommend!
The fact that Brian Wilson helped in the way the film was made really does help too! Despite me knowing next to nothing about the Beach Boys before watching the whole thing kept me engaged throughout. I hated the fact that when I said I didn't like the Elvis film people told me it's just because I wasn't around when he was popular - then explain why I thought this one was good then??
I don’t see a lot of people talking about this a lot but SELENA, i think is one of the best biopic out there. It is how 2000’s babies got introduced to the power house that she was and i think that it is so well done, like true to facts and if i’m not mistaken the family was heavily involved in the production. It did a great job keeping her legacy alive.
35:47 actually, Princess Weekes made this really damning connection to how we acquit famous men of any wrongdoings they are accused of and there is hard evidence for, and how this is directly tied to how women will have infatuations with attractive serial killers etc. They just can’t believe someone who is so handsome etc could do anything wrong, because men are infallible etc.
On Lady Gaga not wanting to meet the woman: I agree with her not wanting to meet and being so disgusted with a murderer. I think it makes sense that she wanted to distance herself from her even if she was playing her in the film.
Yeah, I found it odd Mina took that stance. I personally wouldn't want to meet a killer if I was playing them because they could try to manipulate the narrative in their favor further.
Then why take on the role of acting like her? Acting as art requires you to embody and become that person, you can watch and read everything you want, but they are secondary sources, you only see what the medium and creator of that content seems important or necessary. I get Minas stance. It not weird to wonder how can you distance yourself from someone you supposedly encapsulate, embody and become for a prolonged periods of time (filming most of the day for months). I also kind of get gaga stance cause it’s like not meeting the murderer is boundary between who she plays and who she is/ her reality and beliefs which I’m not mad at.
I really appreciate your nuanced discussion of true crime. My mother was brutally murdered just over a year ago and it’s really made me aware just how abundant and normalized true crime content is, with most of it being insensitive. I feel like I’m still triggered nearly every day. I do wish people would consider more the impact of their entertainment.
One biopic everyone should see is Behind the Candelabra. It’s about Liberace and his strange relationship with his partner Scott Thorson. It’s based on the book written by Scott of the same now. It is one of my all time favourites. The movie gets into the gritty details of their relationship without sanitising anything or worrying about portraying its characters in a positive light (which I find is a problem with lots of other biopics). The acting is fantastic and the sets are amazing. The writing isn’t awfully cheesy either
This whole discussion reminded me of when Olivia de Havilland sued for defamation (at the ripe age of 102) regarding her portrayal in "Fued", FX's show about Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. Her case was specifically about how there aren't any protections for public figures being misrepresented in biopics and docudrama. Unfortunately, her suit was denied.
A good biopic to check out is What's Love Got to Do with It. It's based off the relationship between Ike and Tina Turner and stars Angela Bassett. Tough watch but definitely one of my personal favorites. Tina is an absolute icon and her story is super important for women's rights. Thanks for the new video Mina!
I think that the Brian Wilson biopic Love & Mercy was absolutely amazing, it’s my favorite biopic because it’s so different. They could’ve easily done a cradle to grave story from the Beach Boys’ first recording all the way to the 50th anniversary reunion but they broke the formula (much like Wilson himself) and told a nonlinear story focusing on his life in the mid 60s while recording Pet Sounds and the Smile sessions and the 80s while he was under the abusive conservatorship of former Dr. Eugene Landy. The decision to cast two different actors to portray two different Brian’s was pure genius, Paul Dano and John Cusack were brilliant and 100% robbed cause they should’ve at least been nominated for Best Actor in 2015. TL,DR; watch Love & Mercy, you’ll be doing yourself a favor lol
Yes. I liked how a significant part of the biopic was Brian IN THE STUDIO and the techniques he used to make his music. They focused more on what made him an iconic figure, his songwriting and not the typical "I did drugs and screwed up my life" story.
I would love if you did an in-depth analysis about the biopic Spencer. The life of Princess Diana, I feel, opens many avenues of discussion. Still, all these years later, she as a person remains incredibly relevant. I think portrayals and public opinion of her could even be a part 2. I, personally, would love your perspective. Anyway, keep up the fascinating content!
My main issue with biopics is there are telling stories that we already know about people we are very used to being talked about with some exceptions, I feel a good biopic should be a jumping off point about learning about people of their time who are not relevant today. Drop biopics that you recommend to others Little Ricky
I’m glad you touched on the Pamela Anderson one because I really dislike how Hulu did it and that they didn’t get her permission to make it. It was one of the main reasons I didn’t watch it
I’m really getting annoyed of these biopics especially when they don’t even get the story correct! & hollywood needs to let Marilyn Monroe REST! 😭 anyway… out of all of the biopics I loved Elvis. Austin Butler was great!
🌏 Get Exclusive NordVPN deal here ➼ nordvpn.com/minale
It's risk-free with Nord's 30-day money-back guarantee!
You said it, Mina. I'd love to see more videos about the movie industry!
To answer your question about recommended biopics- I actually enjoyed Ford V Ferrari
Finally its here. YES
ruclips.net/video/GTHlCk7fEOY/видео.html
@@Newciouss Girl when the pink cow say “Boy bye 🙄🤚” I was on the floor farting and peeing to the point of dehydration 💀 loved that show
I like only Frida Kahlo and Freddie Mercury's biographical movies. The others turn in their graves.
It’s kinda scary how obsessed we are as a society with specific individuals, viewing them as almost godlike. We can acknowledge their achievements without glorifying them to the point of fantasy
edde ruclips.net/video/xp06i9Zet-o/видео.html
@@wonderland.5 as much as i dont like self promotion this the only time ill accept it cuz this song goes
@@wonderland.5 I literally never click random links but ngl I’m kinda glad I clicked this one
Uuuh, agree 100%. “Separate art from the artist” - the biggest takeaway from dating a musician. It’s not good for none of the parties, since the “celebrity” gets heavily publicly disappointed when doing one wrong move. And us, falling in love with the art put them on a throne and warship their personalities, where it might have not one good bone in them.
Celebrities are very very over rated
I love Britney’s response to this “all these people writing scripts about me and none of it are true…I’m not DEAD”
Is it too much to ask for films to tell new stories? The endless Marvel phases, remakes, and biopics are exhausting. I get that nostalgia is comforting in times of stress, but so is escapism into a piece of creative work that feels challenging and inventive. It feels like media executives are ... infantilizing us? Like we're baby birds clamoring for the same regurgitated nonsense.
People that keep watching them deserve to be treated as babies.
I agree! They say nothing is original anymore but its like the unoriginality is becoming more and more blatant. But old stories never fail to be popular. I think it's because there's so much content and entertainment at our fingertips that we're overwhelmed by choice and get drawn to what's familiar, which is the recycled and repackaged franchises etc.
Yes even with TikTok trends and how the same thing is so popular for so long, like haven’t we had enough the first time?
I worked at the movies 10 years ago and even then everything was a reboot, remake, prequel, crossover, or based on a book.
I think that’s partially because , Hollywood has been around for decades , and so has been art , they told SO many stories and it’s not limitless , originality is slowly dying because we have nearly done everything , even though the society changes every decade or so that’s still not enough find multiple new stories and tell them , Hollywood is realizing that that’s why for the last few years international movies and stories are getting more spotlight because they are the stories Hollywood can’t tell because they’re not American culture nor American history , america has been milked dry because of content now they’re reaching out to other places for it . Even though they also existed for decades they’re new for Hollywood
The casting for Ted Bundy actually has a way scarier meaning then just "Ted Bundy was attractive for his time" It's actually supposed to signify how Zac Efron is a familiar face that you would never expect to do such a terrible crime. It's not supposed to be this love story it's supposed to make you question everything you believed just as Elizabeth Kendall felt at the time of the trial. I mean the Judge himself even said he would've made a great lawyer during his trial. It's sick.
Agreed. I thought Zac Efron was perfect for the role because what made Bundy so dangerous was his looks and charisma. That's also a big reason why his case blew up compared to a Jeffrey Dahmer or a John Wayne Gacy: Bundy as attractive, charming, outgoing. Before him people were under the illusion that you could tell if someone was dangerous. Serial killers were these ugly guys who couldn't get girls, or they were homosexuals or just weirdos. The idea was that you had to be an outsider in order to do these things and that you had to take sex because nobody would give it to you willingly. Ted Bundy shattered this idea, which is why many people just couldn't believe he had done it, despite the evidence (including the judge, as you said).
@@acmulhern also, the fact he was attractive also lead to him having tonnes of fans that would write him letters jn prison... which is disturbing.
Having Bundy played by a former teen heartthrob was kind of perfect. Really helps you feel the charming side to him -- which is to say, monstrous people aren't all twirling mustaches. It can be someone who seems nice. Someone who smiles. Someone handsome. Someone you know.
I've seen a picture of Ted Bundy even though I have this fear of looking at serial killers or rapists, I forced myself to look at his pic to see what he looks like. And honestly people exaggerated and still do his handsomeness. He's average and maybe very slightly above. Idk I don't get the hype about his appearance really...
@@PlasticDoll. he fit the ideal of the time. And if you watch videos of him he's more attractive than on photos; especially the photo that is always used (he looks a bit crazy on that one).
He was a charming guy hanging at the beach and chatting up girls, all during the sexual revolution, before people spoke about AIDS and other venereal diseases. This is the era of hitchhikers, cults promoting free love, women being more emancipated and going to university. People were naive, optimistic, sleeping with anyone and everyone. And he used all of this to his full advantage.
The thing about Zac Efron playing Ted Bundy is that Zac’s public image is seen as this wholesome heartthrob, loved by everyone-much like the way the public viewed Ted Bundy before his murders came to light. Society casted doubt on Ted’s maliciousness specifically because of that reason-that there was just “no way” someone like him could do such heinous crimes. That’s why I think casting Zac was a brilliant move.
I agree. We as a society have been raised to think that beautiful people don't do harm and ugliness is part of evilness. Part of why Ted Bundy was able to victimize so many women was because he was considered handsome, charming and just a normal dude.
There are also a lot of other examples where heinous crimes are overlooked by people because the perpetrator is considered objectively good looking.
yes! finally someone gets it.
@@Venya9 yes exactly!! people thought the killer was always ugly and not a normal member of our society and then ted bundy comes to court and he’s handsome, clean, wih a good family, he was helping politicians, he was very charismatic. it’s called the “halo effect”.. it’s really common even in this day.. we can’t trust anyone 😂
@ There's a German "Girl Murderer" as he's been called. "Girl" referring to "female child", not "woman under the age of whateverI feel like". While he wasn't good-looking, hedid mow his lawn when he knew the police was about to come to his house. Notin order to appear innocent. But "because it should look properly around the house".
@@camelopardalis84 whaaat that’s interesting! what was his name??
the fact that they made pam & tommy w/o pamela's consent made me realize that producers can make a movie about anyone's life w as much creative liberty as they choose without consent...so creepy.
Pam is releasing a documentary on Netflix about her side of the story funnily enough nobody was interested in having rights to the documentary until Pam and Tommy came out
@@carlyalakija4703 wait is she rlly???? omg that makes me so happy to hear
I this is this is peak irony. Making a film about a woman without her consent, who had a film of her published without her consent. They couldn't make it more absurd if they tried.
When you said that they are filming a project on Gabby Petito’s murder my jaw DROPPED to the floor. People are so disgusting and vile, to profit off of something like that is heinous. Thank you for talking about biopics. Amazing analysis and video as always Mina!!
noooooo. it hasn't even been five, no, ten years?? i'm SORELY hoping it's like a "vaguely inspired by" kind of thing where everything is fiction, technically (e.g. all fictional characters with their own character traits and stories) but the events are similar to the murder case. i don't know if it makes it more respectful (YMMV, like all things) but at least they wouldn't be trying to profit off the victim's name.
i didn’t get to that part in the video yet so your comment shocked me. i can’t believe that’s even legal to do!
@@Bluey306 if people are saying it’s based off the case, advertisers will profit from that regardless :/ idky but the only thing i can compare it to is Amber Heard writing the op ed without naming the subject of the person, but everyone assuming that its about Johnny.
they can do all the legal loopholes they want but it will always be associated with the case if it’s already obvious who it’s about. (i hope that made sense.)
i’m honestly disgusted, though. Gabby wasn’t a public figure like Elton John or Marilyn Monroe and it’s not like there’s a shortage of other _public_ stories that need to be told. unfortunately, the producers know people will watch it and they’ll make a profit from the outrage, too. the sooner they release it, the fresher it’ll be in the minds of potential viewers. the whole thing is sad.
@@positivevibesveda that's true, they'd still profit, but if they use purely fictional characters there may still be a level of discretion allowed for the poor surviving family. though admittedly, no matter how you look at it and try to turn it, it'd still be tasteful, just on varying degrees. especially since as, you rightfully pointed out, Gabby Petito wasn't even a public figure in the way most subjects of these other biopics are about. and, while there are (sadly, horrifyingly) plenty of cases and stories of people being murdered by their abusive partners, a story that is in any way similar to the Gabby Petito case would be _too_ similar. people would know instantly once the key details are mentioned, and even those who don't could probably find out with a few key Google searches. people are just better off telling their own original stories rather than adapting (ugh) a real life thing that 1) had a MURDER and 2) isn't even given a decade or two to rest. the ramifications of the case is still happening!
Reminds me of when they did a film based on the Manson murders based on Sharon Tate's perspective with Hilary Duff. Super gross in my opinion.
Yeah and them casting Zoë Saldana was especially heinous because Nina Simone was a dark-skinned, unambiguously black woman. A lot of her struggles and pain were linked to her being dark-skinned. Casting a light-skinned actress was not only effed up because it spat on Nina Simone’s legacy, it also robbed a dark-skinned actress of the opportunity to play her. Them darkening her face and giving her a prosthetic nose was shameful.
I’m so mad because the girl
From Chewing Gum or maybe even Viola Davis would have been perfect casting
So, shaming a dark-skinned woman for not being dark enough.
Hmm where have I heard this kind of racism before 🤔. Oh wait, the very character Zoe is portraying.
Zoe is dark-skinned not white, so the character shes playing is not white washed. Thats a plus. The message of being dark-skinned and being discriminated against gets across, because you yourself is discriminating Zoe for not being dark enough. Same principle.
Would you like to speak to the singer Rhianna and how she was bullied because she wasn't dark enough?
Or any black person who was told they weren't "black" enough because they didn't do stereotypical black things?
Do you not understand how problematic what you are saying is? And how racist it is in of itself?
And somehow you justify your racism with more racism! 🙄
I am from Nina Simone's home town. There is a statue of her playing a piano at the center of our main street. When I read that they cast Zoe as her I was stunned. No shade to Zoe but there are many MANY MANY more than qualified black actresses that could have played that role with out the use of skin darkening make up and prosthesis. It was just so....ugh.
@@TheOriginal_Unaleska hey.. dawg.. wait a minute lmao. the original commenter just stated that it could've been given to an actress who didn't need prosthetics or darkening her face. nothing about hate to zoe as an actress. portraying a historical (big fucking emphasis here on the word "historical") figure is supposed to be accurate to life. casting someone who resembles said historical figure can be quite easy, as seen in many cases already, and considering how many people in the theatre industry want chances to act. but giving the role to someone who isn't as on the mark can be disappointing to other actresses who might have fit the spot more. don't put words in people's mouths.
@@v_bunny yeah they do the same for jewish people, they won't cast jews for Jewish roles/characters but will cast white people and give them prosthetics, like bradley cooper in his upcoming film (makes me wanna spit on everyone who thought it was a good idea to give a white man prosthetics to play a Jewish person, racist af and in 2022?) It's definitely a humongous problem in the movie industry
I am scared for the upcoming Michael Jackson biopic, his life is one of the, if not the most complicated in music history. His early life as a part of J5, his solo rise, his personal life, the allegations, and all that. It's a lot to put into a 2 hours time frame. Choosing the right actor itself is complicated in the first place, Vitiligo and pre-Vitiligo MJ. The biopic will either do justice to him or add more questions to his life, there's no between.
And, there are already Micheal Jackson biopics. The TV movie The Jackson's An. all American Dream and that movie where Flex Alexander played MJ. Like wtf
@@catherineb. . Every MJ life story on screen has been bs (except for the Jacksons: an American dream).
@@zyoteesunuwar4825 & the only reason why that one was good was because Jermaine was the one behind it!
Just cast two actors for the before and after.
@@ladydiamond6611 yeah i think that would be the best way to go. michael jackson looks very different pre vitiligo and after. his cheek bones are much more exposed after. also the movie doesn’t have to be only 2 hours a lot of movies now are 3 hrs or more.
Please do keep talking about the desensitized nature of true crime. I can't stand the genre for the way it treats victims and I would love to hear more of your take on it.
I was looking for this comment I listen to true crime & its incredibly hard to listen to someone actually be respectful of the incidents like they use it as a form of getting people riled up increasing blood pressure while forgetting that these are actual victims that went through extremely traumatizing things, the gaby petite documentary or whatever sucks ass because bet the family didnt even want it to begin with & also the case wasn't that long ago like leave her family alone at this point its too much also 10000% bet they wont due her justice
I've definitely been someone who felt kinda desensitized from true crime (used to watch a youtuber who'd talk about it too). Then I saw that new Dahmer show and one scene for whatever reason just really hit me, I felt so disturbed I had to just stop watching the show and haven't seen it since.
Now I've felt way different about true crime and kind of want to avoid it all together.
they are always so disrespectful
the whole side of youtubers of women doing their makeup while talking about crime makes me sick
@@helllllloworld this!!!
The fact that Zac Efron's Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile reduces Ted Bundy's final victim Kimberly Leach, who was only 12 when she was abducted from her school and murdered by him in 1978, to a passing reference really got under my skin. I had to rewatch to catch the reference because I had incorrectly thought they omitted it all together. The downplaying or skimming over that element of Bundy's monstrousness because of it being inconvenient to the glamour surrounding the myth is sickening beyond words to me. People were outside the penitentiary CELEBRATING his execution for a reason - and they said as much in interviews at the time that it was because his final victim had been an innocent child. Its not like it was a big secret. I can't imagine what her family still goes through
What?? I’ve never heard Of this regarding anything Ted Bundy!!
@@indiefairy09 Worst part is some firefighter was driving home after a long shift and SAW him dragging her off the school grounds but mistakenly thought it was just a father taking his daughter out of school because she had been suspended or something - only to later learn it was actually Ted Bundy abducting a victim. THAT'S guilt
The movie with Zac is kind of meant to be from a biased, unreliable narrator perspective (from the first girlfriend). In my opinion it borders between fact and fiction. The same guy made the netflix documentary which is much more realistic and breaks down notable cases if you care to watch it!
We all forget that he was a necro philisc and would keep the girls heads and …. Do stuff to it. We forget that A LOT
YOU ARE DAMN RIGHT. AND ALSO THE FROZEN HEAD THING, ARE PEOPLE STILL SANE TO GLORIFY SMTH LIKE THIS?!
I actually work in film! It's editing, but I still hear things from producers and directors. The issue is not lack of new ideas, the issue is the executives that sign off on these projects don't think you guys will show up to theaters if the project is:
1) not based on already existing material-- ideally well known and can create nostalgia. It is not exclusive to movies or tv shows. This could be about anything, including games, toys, old famous figures we love (biopics). The list goes on and on.
2) not a superhero film or franchise series
It sounds ridiculous because everyone is complaining about the lack of new ideas, but the issue is you guys will complain and still show up and watch the films anyways. Executives only care about their bottom line, the best thing you can do is stop showing up to watch these films if you want more original material to come out.
Hollywood is very copycat culture. If executives see more original films consistently starting to perform well then they will greenlight more. You have to be willing to put your money where your mouth is and let the cheap biopics and nostalgia bait tank. Especially post pandemic with all the money lost from that time, they will only go with something guaranteed to bring returns. We need more Everything Everywhere All At Once or like the first Knives Out film kind of support from y'all.
Thank you for sharing!!
Thank you!!!!!
Thank you.
thank you for the insight! im more of an animated film fan (turning red is my current fave) but i loved everything everywhere all at once
“Every dollar you spend is a vote you cast for a world you want”
Being a celebrity today is different than it used to be. Celebrities used to be a lot more untouchable and mysterious and there was a lot less of them. Now the line between celebrity and normal person is constantly blurred because of influencers and social media so people want to romanticize the classic old hollywood/20th century celebrities of the past
Very true. If like 20 years from now they decide to do a biopic on the Kardashians I wonder how many people will show up since their fans know so much about them in the sense that they are in the news everyday even if it’s dumb stuff like Kim wore this and it’s like what is left to know?
cough cough jasmin chiswell who used marilyn’s image for views
@@r8yle there’s nothing wrong with celebrity impersonators lol
That’s something i’ve noticed too. I think it’s so interesting how nowadays “superstars” don’t really seem to exist, or at least they are not even close to being as big and impactful as superstars pre 2000s were. Literally look up “Beatles Mob”, “Michael Jackson mob”, “Elvis Mob” or “Madonna mob” and you’ll see what i’m talking about. These people used to get freaking SWARMED. Mj would have entire blocks worth of people outside his hotel, the Beatles had their stadiums smelling like urine because of how many people would literally piss themselves with excitement over seeing them and Elvis caused such a commotion with his moves that people wanted him jailed and had people openly thirsting for him. These artists made people go feral, broke countless records and were thought of as almost mystical figures. No one has an effect even close to that nowadays, probably due to social media. In a way that’s a good thing but it’s just interesting to see how inhumanely famous artists used to be able to get.
The idea of a Gabby Petito film makes my stomach turn. Since Mina mentioned early movies, it reminds me of "Saved from the Titanic," which premiered literally ONE MONTH after the sinking in 1912. It starred Dorothy Gibson, an actress who survived the actual event. And to make it seem even more realistic, she was asked to wear the exact same outfit she was wearing the night of the disaster.
(From Wiki) One review described her performance as "a unique piece of acting in the sensational new film-play of the Éclair Company ... [which is] creating a great activity in the market, for the universal interest in the catastrophe has made a national demand." Other reviews called it "revolting" that she was made to commercialize her experience, which everyone was still obviously reeling from.
Gibson suffered a mental breakdown after making the film and never made another. It's heartbreaking how the public wanted to be closer to the tragedy by experiencing it vicariously through her, and even more disgusting that the studio saw the profit involved and pushed it forward.
There has always been a vulture-y side to Hollywood. In the 40s and 50s they also made a lot of films about "war heroes" from World War II starring the actual veterans playing themselves (and I remember at least one instance of a battle scene triggering a PTSD breakdown in the lead actor. It probably happened a lot more)
Also lifetime making a movie about her about a year ago like damn
I think Hidden Figures is an underrated biopic, at least in terms of commercial popularity! It's one of the few dramedy movies that aren't all doom and gloom despite the trials the 3 protags face. Like it has a lot of wit and emotional moments so it's well balanced imo.
i agree!!
I'll second this. I LOVE this movie.
Hollywood is really doing a disservice to Marilyn. As an admirer of Marilyn, seeing Kim being allowed to wear her gown and thus ruining it and Netflix making Blonde as a dramatized and untrue biopic about her life, knowing the mass audience will take it as a true story is really upsetting. I’d rather see a real documentary any day over a fictional story.
Also The Crown...
How do you know about Blonde if it's not out yet?
@@ilariaatzei it's based on a book that was a fictionalized dramatization of her life. It was not written as a biography, thus the movie adaptation is not going to be a true story.
a new documentary is up btw
I agree with you and @Meghan Phillips I just recommend you two actually read the novel by Joyce Carol Oates. As a way to like prepare yourself for the move lmao. it’s not awful, and there is a lot of “imagination” as too, what “could have” been going on inside Marilyn’s head and for the most part it is quite respectful and semi believeable. Like always though there are certain aspects that are gonna be fictional or super dramatized. based off the directors comments about certain scenes and how they relate to #MeToo has said about the film, and reading the book as well as the headlines that it’s going to be n17 rated. There’s no official “proof” Marilyn was ever sexually assaulted by these filmmakers and producers but it’s highly likely, plus a couple of people in the industry form that time confirmed it. Marilyn was unfortunately “infamous” for her many affairs…. but again we don’t know how many were true and weren’t (and I’m specifically talking about romantic affairs not the r*p* stuff) so idk it’s all a weird mess and I just really really hope the film is good and portrays Marilyn as the three dimensional woman that she was. I hope they don’t overdo the victim thing again and just show her life like equally, through victimhood and victories, and also show how she not only was good and making the “Marilyn Monroe” persona, but also how she really wanted to be a serious actress. I really hope they portray that
I don't mind biopics it's when people (usually fans of the person being portrayed) decide to treat them as documentaries, that's when an issue rises
Coco Avant Chanel 😬😬😬 just remove the racism, homophobia, antisemitism and naziism and call it a movie
Finally its here. YES
ruclips.net/video/GTHlCk7fEOY/видео.html
I would hesitate to put Tick Tick Boom in the same category as other biopics. Jonathan Larson wrote it and based it on his own life. It's like the musical equivalent of a semiautobiographical novel. Biopics tend to speak to what a specific historical figure means to usamd the filmmakers who made the film. Larson wrote Tick Tick Boom before he was well-known or famous. There is very little intervention in the film version about his subsequent fame.
Yea. It was on off Broadway show when he was alive and early 2000s and Lin Manuel basically directed a love letter to the theater community. The Easter eggs are ridiculous. It’s insanely accurate from his apartment to various extras and places they filmed. The Broadway cameos are out of the roof! You can watch videos of Johnathan Larson doing tick tick boom when he was alive. It’s a musical more than a biopic. He just happened to write it about his life bc of his frustration over his career etc.
@@indiefairy09 he died in 1996 but you are correct in almost everything else about it
@@indiefairy09 yep yep it was done with actual respect to the person, their work, and they tried to depict it as properly as they could so I'd hate to include it on a list with Elvis or Marilyn's endlessly inappropriate biopics
Even the film itself made it very clear that the whole film is in Larson’s PoV.
Tick, Tick… Boom was just Larson processing his failure with Superbia
not to mention Larson didn't have the time to experience his own success, to express himself to the world besides his early musicals, it is a beautiful way to get people to know who he was through both his own words and of his friends and family. it didn't get enough attention imo it's a great movie.
Spoiler ahead for those who haven't watched "Elvis" but The Elvis biopic is a great example of a good biopic in that it showed a fuller picture of how Elvis' art was inspired and appropriated by Black culture and music. As much as the movie shows Elvis' appreciation for the Black music and artists that inspired him, the movie also shows how a major reason behind his success in singing Black songs and dancing similarly to Black people was because his fans would rather support a white artist than a Black artist. Also, Austin Butler and his costars were in touch with the Presleys which I believe helped humanize the characters in the movie more and in some way tell their story.
Elvis once said “The only thing a n*gger can do for me is shine my shoes.” He was not “appreciative” of black culture, he was a thief and a useless person who was incredibly racist. The movie itself was also racist.
100% agree..I had NO clue his manager was a king of all SNAKES...I dont think i could ever make another Elvis joke in my life..if a biopic reminds you of the human behind the "Star" than its a story worth telling
Yep, true. What bugged me, though, is that his relationship with Priscilla was very romanticised while irl he was grooming a 14yo girl. In the movie Priscilla says he's the love of her life and all but in interviews she said how the biggest Elvis's love was his mother, how he changed Priscilla and manipulated her. Overall it was a great movie apart from this idealisation
What I dont like is the glamorisation of Elvis.
He was not this „heroic person“.
He was a literal gr00mer and p3dophile.
And its so disgusting to glamorise such a person, even if they showed some of his flaws.
Excellent film!
I personally think Rocket Man is a great example of a well-written biopic. The movie never claimed to be a factual "traditional" biopic, but rather made it a fascinating fantasy musical sort of biopic to tell Elton's story in a new way. It felt fresh from the MANY biopics I have seen in my lifetime. Although it was dramatized for obvious entertainment purposes, I think it still had a great message at the end of the day that was also clearly co-signed by Elton himself. Elton seemed to be a big part of the creation of the movie, which seems can't be said about many of the biopics that have come out recently where the subject of the film never consented to have their life/situations be exploited. Also not to mention, I think it was a cool choice to take Elton's hit songs and write the story around them to make the plot coherently move along and express the important moments playing out. AND I think it was great to be able to hear Taron Egerton sing rather than lip-syncing like many musical artist biopics tend to do. I can go on and on about how great that movie is!
I agree. I think that many people dismissed it when it came out because it seemed like a money-grabbing project that was intended to mimic Bohemian Rhapsody's success. I felt that same way, but I gave it a shot and I liked it waaay more that BR. Now I wish that it actually had the same success, if not even more, because it definitely deserves it.
Actually I'm pretty sure lots of people working on the movie (screenwriters, the director, the actors) refuse to call it a biopic? I read in an interview they kept calling it a fantasy musical, and that they took the overall emotions of Elton John's life and translated those rather than retelling factual events
Couldn’t agree more! Also, I don’t consider for example, Tik tik boom to be 100% a biopic, in any case would be an Auto-biopic, because it was written by Larson himself, and the movie is an adaptation of the musical.
I was just coming here to comment this! Rocket man really was unique and it made me so happy to hear that Taron and Elton went on tour together it was really something that felt unique for a biopic and genuine
Rocketman needs to be the new gold standard for how to do music biopics
I actually really like biopics if they're made with the consent of the person they're "documenting". Rocketman, for example, is not historically accurate but the dramatization of Elton John's life story was meant to drive a point that Elton John himself wanted to promote, thus making it a good biopic that really represented Elton John (not to mention, the musical format was revolutionary). Pam & Tommy and Bohemian Rhapsody did not feel like that; Bohemian Rhapsody because Freddie Mercury was a notoriously private person who would not only never sign up for a telling his life story, but also the way the movie interpreted him (specifically his queerness as being the dark part of him and AIDs as being some sort of punishment) would have most probably made him sick to his stomach and Pamela Anderson very much does NOT want to relive that very traumatic part of her life (according to her friends).
Biopics should honor the person they're "documenting". Not by putting them on a pedestal or exposing them traumatically to the worst parts of their pasts; they should honor their message and what they want the world to remember and learn from.
(Unless ofc it's a biopic about a terrible person, which I feel like you talked about much more eloquently than I could.)
Yep. I feel like Rocketman and BohRhap are not really comparable.
This! There's a biopic about possibly the most famous songwriter in my country that was released recently, it literally reduces a talented musician to just a dumb idiot that happened to write songs effortlessly as Mozart (?!). Well he's dead but there some characters in the story that are still alive, like the singer that was just like a sister to him was changed into some sort of weird fling that's super inappropriate cause she was married already, and everyone just praises it as romantic (??!). The movie actually asked for this woman's consent and she understandably refused but went on and did it anyway and played out like she agreed with it until she bashed them on newspaper. Still, the movie makes extreme profit and somehow the majority of audience think it's a well-made film!
@@katelynne7211 what’s the movie called, if you don’t mind?
Finally its here. YES
ruclips.net/video/GTHlCk7fEOY/видео.html
yes!! rocketman actually brought something to the table musical wise and story wise and it really did do him justice! its one of my favorite movies because its entertaining and doesnt follow the regular biopic formula. it really feels like elton (probably because he was a director (?) / writer for it) i feel like his trials were presented well and in a respectful way. i wish this movie was talked about more (and it deserved awards) and got more attention than bohemian rhapsody or other exploitative biopics.
The thing that I liked about I, Tonya was the tone. The “present day” interviews really set it apart from other biopics, especially when “present day” Tonya calls out the audience.
I was just about to say this. The interview scenes were really sobering and offered a very realistic voice to the overall biopic. I like how certain scenes broke the 4th wall as well to let the audience know that it may not have been completely accurate. In the end, I didn't walk away from the film thinking, "Tonya Harding = good, Nancy Kerrigan = bad". I did walk away feeling that circumstances can make or break a person, and that everyone has a different version of their truth, and THE truth is somewhere in between. It's true that she was complicit in the attack, but it's also true that details may have been kept from her. It's true that she may have been punished too harshly, and it's true that people kept kicking her while she was down. It's true that she had a rough upbringing, but it's also true that she had a difficult personality and a major chip on her shoulder...to the point that it was difficult to work with her. It's true that she was abused, but it's probably also true that she was an abuser. I really liked that movie, and I usually don't like biopics.
Agreed… it was a very unique take.
I, Tonya was a masterpiece in my opinion.
@@aquilaaltaire3007 I have to diaagree with this take a little bit, as a figure skating fan. Both Tonya and Nancy turned out years later to be not so great people but in that given circumstance, Nancy was a 100% the victim. Whether it was the intention of the movie or not, and I'm giving them the grace and say it wasn't, mostly based on the fact they said several times in the movie that it's Tonya's version and she doesn't always tell the truth... the disclaimer was still put in a somewhat comedic way and people did take Nancy as the stuck up spoiled rich brat when she was the opposite of it. And the press tour and Margot Robbie specifically put a nail in that coffin, never really putting any doub on Tonya's version.
@@rvsone1629 100% agree
Hidden Figures is a great one, shining light on the stories of women who weren't appreciated enough.
Yeah but a lot of it was inaccurate like the dude who hit the “colored” sign off the womens restroom, that never happened, even in black stories we need a white savior
I love that movie
Yea!!!!! 💜💜💜 such an important story. And the actresses were magnificent, of course!
in love that one!!
I love hidden figures the film but there really is a white man saviour vibe in some scenes, that the writers twisted to make true. Those woman are brilliant and that reflects more in the book than in the film, in my opinion.
People keep saying that Patrizia Reggiani was framed as a victim in "The House of Gucci" - but I honestly didn't see that. The entire movie I thought she was a greedy manipulative terrible person and that she felt entitled to be part of the company even though she was clearly not a part of it. Also: If I watch a Hollywood production that sells itself as a biopic it's clear from the beginning that it is made to entertain and not to inform. I checked the historical accuracy right afterwards and was kind of shocked to find that Paolo Gucci wasn't this ridiculous clown the movie made him. He was a fairly elegant and successful man.
I totally agree! I’m always surprised when I hear that people found Gaga’s depiction as sympathetic. Even when Aldo was cut off for being with her early on, I saw her support as her playing the long game. She was never going to let him stay outside the company for long.
Same! I watched it with a friend and both of us agreed just how much we hated that woman. But they did do some characters wrong. I forgot the name of the guy they ended up manipulating (the designer, I think he was a cousin of Gucci), they got those wrong. That guy was actually not a bad designer and he worked for Gucci for all I know as someone talented in design. They put all that solemnly for the drama
I'm scared of biopics because it makes people THINK they know the person's life and what really happen when they actually only know the hollywood dramatic version of it and not the truth - which tends to erase the more problematic aspects of a person's life to protray only one view of the events... :/ In the end, facts and legend become one and the same in people's head and they don't remember what really happen V/s what the film told them.
It also just comes with the territory. Some aspects of a public figure's life will always be romanticized or misconfigured for the sake of entertainment. It is not impossible to tell the story of a person's life honestly, but it is much easier to pursue fiction over fact.
when biopics are done well, they are GOOD. they somehow are able to capture the cultural zeitgeist of the time of release while still being mostly true to the protagonist. they do well at the box office and they have staying power. HOWEVER, this level of success isn't attainable for EVERY memorable icon. not only do bad biopics taint the sub-genre, but they have the potential to taint the real person's actual legacy
Can you recommend some good biopics?
@@chaubui4323 Malcolm X
It is a minor series, but Fosse/Verdon was pretty good
Are the films “Bohemian Rhapsody” and “Rocketman” considered good biopics? They hold such a special place in my heart, but I would like to hear your opinion on them :)
it just feels very weird that for an actor to win an Oscar they must play in a biopic. like what happened to writhing original characters?!
People don't watch them.
And then the issue becomes that Hollywood is rewarding itself for niche movies that nobody cares for, essentially making it a circlejerk.
Playing a real person gives people something to compare them to, and I think as acting becomes a much more complex landscape with less and less defined guidelines for what makes "good" acting, the ability to quantify a performance makes it easier to judge than something that has no baseline.
Movies are all biopics and comic books now. It's boring.
I know right! Awards season has become so boring to me, it seems like all that an actor or actress have to do to win is to play someone who was famous in the past!
In my opinion it's nepotism and laziness. A bunch of people in the creative space Hollywood who are only there because their parents (who were talented) were established there and the legacy gave them the job. Bunch of writers who were hired by their friends and not because they deserve it. Bunch of clueless studios who give any project to anybody, even when the person has no interest on the thing, but they have to accept in order to get their own ideas on-screen later.
And, the worst in my opinion, producers who don't know how to pick up good projects, so they play it save with only financing franchises, reboots, sequels, prequels, remakes, book adaptations and biopics.
I can't help but feel that if a celebrity is in charge of their own biopic, then that gives them a prime opportunity to reframe and restructure any narrative they want about themselves. They can paint themselves in any light they like.
This happened in the Queen biopic: things were changed to be Freddie's idea, like splitting the band for side projects, when they actually were other people's ideas. That's because the living band members had creative input.
So, I wouldn't be surprised if Madonna comes of sparkling in her biopic, if she's the one directing it.
i’ve been saying this! i mean if it were my life being painted on screen, i’d also like to have control over the way i’m being played. however, that just glosses over true fact. i feel like if madonna really wants to be part of the making of her biopic, she should at least find a co-director to help balance out the tone and structure of the film.
@@tiffanywardrop i feel like the fact that it’s a biopic leaves a lot of freeway to avoiding criticism. she can say “this is my movie- not a documentary” and move on. not saying that she’ll do that, but she could.
Yes!! It is wild how Brian and Roger made Freddie out to be a shit person, it was hardly ever a mutual disagreement, it was straight up Freddie’s fault everytime?? And him «splitting up the band» to go solo for a while, when Roger and Brian(?) literally had solo albums before that and none of them had any issues with that irl. I didn’t know a lot of Queen’s history before watching the movie, so when I walked out of the movie theatre, I genuinely thought Freddie was a shitty person until I did my research. Also sad how they HARDLY included Jim Hutton, and making Mary out to be Freddie’s savior from Freddies «wild-gay-party-life». They made Freddie seem like an annoying, boring burden to the band who did not know how to laugh, arrive on time or take his career and the other band members’ time seriously, when he was, although flawed, an entertainer in all areas of life, loved his art, happy and free, genuine and larger than life. Sad how they reduced him to what he did. I think Rami did his best with what was given to him, but it wasn’t much, and it was disrespectful to Freddie’s legacy. I think Rocketman should be remembered and Bohemian Rhapsody forgotten. There’s a clear difference when the subject is alive to tell their own story.
Oh, and yes, the subject being alive can definitely make them change the narrative to be in their favor, but that’s why I loved Rocketman, EJ was honest about his addictions, struggles, and how he hurt other people. It is definitely not perfect, but we can’t expect much from celebs, so it’s probably some of the best we’re gonna get.
I stopped watching the Queen movie cause I wasn't able to enjoy any of it but wasn't it criticized for some of its portrayal of Freddie (apparently to do with the involvement of the band)? You make it sounds a lot more positive than I remember people talking about this. I gotta say Rocketman vs Bohemian Rhapsody is a good comparison of how to do a biopic of a musician. Rocketman had Elton John's input but rather than just painting a glamorous side of him it touched on some of his personal life and issues, was quite insightful into his character. I guess it depends on the celebrity and their ego; and also the problems they faced during their career and how much they want revealed.
Another issue with all the award shows loving biopics is that now being able to imitate a famous person well is considered “good acting” and favored over other types of acting. Those side by side comparisons that say “look at how close this portrayal is to the real person!” are valued over other, more interesting, types of acting and stories. It dissuades actors from pursuing other types of roles.
****************amen******************
People were mad about the Nina Simone biopic because they didn’t seek a phenotypically black woman with similar features as Nina. Instead they put prosthetics and essentially blackface on Zaldana who was too socially unaware to turn down the role.
Genuine question. Why is it blackface when the actress was black?
Like, what's the difference between that and putting prosthetics on a white person to match the real person's face?
I understand if she was white and they tried to match with nina. That's just plain wrong when there are so many amazing black actors.
@@meh_im_a_sheep6018 colorism allowed people like zoey to have access to opportunities that other people of color with a darker complexion could only dream of in the very recent past. The fact that she chose to do this role and “apologized” for her actions with an “I’m not black enough” undertone, very much demonstrates her light-skinned fragility (It’s like white fragility, just with colorism in place of racism). She was never in the position to understand the struggles of a darker skinned black woman. She’s even said she doesn’t understand colorism. So it’s wrong for her to masquerade as darker black woman when she doesn’t understand anything about that demographic. There’s so many layers to this, and people look at the surface level of things and think “well she’s black, what’s wrong??” And honestly this might be one of those things that you have to live to understand. The problem with representation in media these days is allowing the oppressors and other privileged people the opportunity to tell the stories of people that they can’t relate to in a deeper way
@@niaya9801 oh, ok! Its honestly the first time I'm hearing about this and im thankful to you for opening my eyes. I never knew there was a lot of difference between different "levels" for people of color. Also, thank you for answering in an informative tone instead of attacking me right away. I know im ignorant, but im trying to learn.
Zoe would be a better fit for a Beyonce biopic.
@@meh_im_a_sheep6018 also Zoe does not identify as Black she has said that she is “mixed” so why would a mixed person play a Black person. Non mixed Black people don’t have that privilege.
Zoe was chasing that Oscar so hard, she was blinded to the obvious colorism in the casting and the Blackface they slathered on her.
Biopics can definitely be misleading and damaging to the protagonist image if presented poorly- especially in events where facts can’t be confirmed.
Bohemian Rhapsody presents so many lies as true facts it breaks my heart 💔
I remember saying how the Pam & Tommy series was fucked up for not getting Pamela's consent and the director acting ike he was doing the poor woman a favour when she herself said she was against it. The responses I got were literally soooo apathetic and cruel and I didn't understand how the same people insulting and belittling Pamela's distress also want to watch the biopic????
Like it's literally about how she's a victim, if you can't feel bad for her now, would you understand anything by watching it??? I just find the genre so heartless and exploitative when it's done with zero concern for the people it focuses on.
You absolutely have a point, and at the same time, I watched the series (without having any knowledge of the events portrayed) and... I empathize with her, I feel like I've judged her too harshly, like the society pidgeon holed her for no good reason and I feel that as a society we did her dirty.
And thats where I'm torn - because I honestly think the show is great and does her justice, the enemy is definitely the fucked up law and societal norms and judgments - but the fact that she didn't consent absolutely taints it. Nah, actually makes it fucked up.
@@ankyfire yeah i agree, these Biopics are helpful to women and men, to understand how the media portrayed women back in the day, and even men, but mostly women. It was a wild time to be alive, and we need to show people over and over again how the media will go with whatever narrative suits them, and that we should question everything we hear. on any topic not just celebrities. Because I dont know if we have forgotten but the media is everywhere, talking about all the things, not just hollywood.
Pam and Tommy is an interesting case and I would argue sits in a grey area, even though Pamela did not give her consent. The series actively questions “When does a story no longer belong to you? When does it belong to the world?”
Yes, the series does re-tell the story of the sex tap leak, but it’s about more than that. It’s also a broader critique of celebrity worship.
Importantly, it’s about re-contextualising events that are easily trivialised as “just another celebrity sex tape” as a violation of these people’s human rights, simply because as a society we feel entitled to access personal information about celebrities.
Yes, the show is hypocritical to some extent then, but I don’t think that it is exploitative. I think it is an important story to tell, so that we can continue to deconstruct celebrity culture and understand how we have victimised the celebrities at the centre of it.
@@ankyfire Unfortunately, our empathy now may actually be harmful if she's still recovering from this trauma. Is the potential of regressing her recovery worth changing opinions of people she'll never interact with?
@@TheMariekeJackson I don’t have an answer to that. I don’t think our empathy now is harmful to her - I think it teaches us something about how society treats celebrities, especially women. And it’s an important lesson.
Whether the cost is worth it.. I just don’t know.
I HIGHLY recommend watching Spencer! Kristen Stewart gives possibly her best performance of her career. Has beautiful cinematography by Claire Mathon, who worked on Portrait of a Lady on Fire. The movies really breaks the mold and subverts what a biopic is. Also takes an interesting approach by having allusions to A Christmas Carol.
As someone from Mississippi, when I heard about the Emmett Till biopic I was angry. Especially since this story is still very alive and active with Emmett Till's family still fighting for his case. I expressed my anger about this on another video talking about it and had people saying there was nothing wrong when I can tell you this biopic will not be an accurate or a well-representative film.
I’m tired of black pain
I can’t for marsai Martin to break this cycle
the idea that they’d even consider making a movie like that feels exploitative and gross imo
As someone who works on Broadway, the same can be said for musical theatre. The biopic-jukebox subgenre has absolutely EXPLODED in the last decade. We've had:
- "On Your Feet" (Gloria Estefan)
- "Tina-The Tina Turner Musical"
- "The Cher Show"
- "MJ" (Michael Jackson)
- "Summer- The Donna Summer Musical"
- "Ain't Too Proud" (The Temptations)
- "Beautiful: The Carol King Musical"
- "A Night With Janis Joplin"
Later this year, we'll be getting a Broadway transfer of "A Beautiful Noise" (Neil Diamond). It may not seem like a lot in the grand scheme of an entire Broadway season, but in the last four-five years, we've basically been getting one or two biopic musical each year. It''s exhausting.
Let me tell you. The ushers, bartenders, other front of house theatre workers, and almost all my other actor and writer friends, we are all SICK OF IT. But we all know why producers keep funding these shows: They're easy to make, and draw in big crowds. Biopics are the perfect musicals for people who don't like musicals. Obviously, not all of them are successes, though a lot of them are. Good for everyone who got a job out of these shows. But the NYC theatre community is tired.
Alanis’s “Jagged Little Pill” is another one.
@@GreenEyedGumby That's not a biopic. It's just a jukebox musical.
@@lizzyraine5511 would you consider hamilton a biopic?
@@maria_pinto_05 I was thinking about this over the last couple of days as I worked it for the week. In a way, yes and no.
Yes, as it adheres to the definition of a biopic--it dramatizes the life of Alexander Hamilton.
But no, in how "Hamilton" interprets the material it was inspired from: "Hamilton" actively chooses to cast people who do not reflect the original ethnicities of the people they are portraying. (The exception is King George, who is always the only white named role.) The costumes, hair and makeup also reflect this.(Example: King George is the only one to wear a powdered wig, while everyone else dons their natural hair.)
"Hamilton" is able to take this stylistic approach since the people from that time period are easier to mythologize. There are no photographic or audio records of them, thus it's easier to play with. The same reason why "Six" works in the same way. It's why you can make Elizabeth Schuyler Asian, but not someone like Audrey Hepburn or Carole King.
Hope this makes sense.
I'm always hesitant with biopics made about celebrities who've died as we never really know if they actually want to be portrayed in this way. David Bowie stated publicly that he didn't want a biopic made of him, and some studio executives decided they needed to make the film, and when no one went to see it they blamed cancel culture of all things, despite most bowie fans wanting to respect his memory and wishes.
What is it called?
@@ailsa7471 I think its called stardust
I didn't see it but the reviews said it wasn't good in the first place.
I'm with Lady Gaga on this one. This woman wanted attention from killing her husband and this movie unfortunately gave her that. Asking to meet the actress was her showing her hand.
Then why do the movie at all if you feel so strongly about glorifying and putting attention on a woman who killed her husband.
@@marianne5055 I was thinking the same thing. If you’re going to give her the attention you claim she wants, may as well do a good job at it. Meeting her doesn’t mean you agree with murder lol
@@alexandria_aesthetic I think she might as well have met her. If lady gaga cared about not giving the woman attention she shouldn't have starred in a movie about her and made up stories about her sending bees to her while on set. There's no point in not meeting her to withhold the attention you're already giving her.
@@marianne5055 I agree. But not meeting her was the least she could do. More of a bandaid on a bullet wound but it's something.
@@marianne5055 Exactly omg, why do the movie at all if that is a real concern of yours? Her job was to be as accurate as possible in her portrayal of this woman, meeting her would have helped a great deal with that.
Actually I liked Elvis a lot. I liked the fact that the direction tells the story of Elvis by the bias of Colonel Parker. It's not just Elvis. It's a confrontation between the image, the storytelling of the legend who was Elvis, made by the Colonel, and the true events with the drugs abuses, the manipulation, the life dramas, ... It was a biopic on Elvis and on the Colonel at the same time.
Yesss
If u thought Pam and Tommy was exploitative enough, they literally changed the timeline with the miscarriage. Pam lost the baby quite some time before the sex tape was leaked, yet the directors changed things around and made out like the leaked tape was the reason it happened. That sat really wrong with me.
Selena is my all-time favorite biopic. Everyone involved did a phenomenal job! Like I have to give JLO her tens because her portrayal of Selena was extremely compelling IMO, especially since she spent so much time with the Quintanilla family (and they were directly involved in the film) to get the performance right.
I mean the movie was filmed like a year after her death which is very odd and came out in 1997 two years after he death
@@audramcdonaldapologist3676 Yes, I know. The family said they did that because they didn’t want any other production companies to do it and not involve them. So they had no choice but to do it so soon. Mr. Quintanilla mentioned that in interviews.
@@audramcdonaldapologist3676 I think that's kinda sweet that the family was involved because it allows it to be like a tribute piece rather than a fictional cash grab like quite a lot of biopics
I agree. JLO’s performance was outstanding in that movie! Def still one of my faves. But didn’t she receive hella backlash at the time because Selena is Mexican and JLO’s Puerto Rican?
@@CaitAlexandria She did! Which is understandable, but I watched a lot of interviews and the Quintanilla family said JLO was truly the best actress that auditioned since she could act, sing, (despite them using Selena’s actual music in the movie) and dance.
yes. 100% yes. even in the drugstore yesterday - waiting line - all the mags - JFK, Marilyn ... I had a moment of " WTH? - what date is it" - I blame all the remakes and retread on the film studios fear of loosing a dollar on new ideas and never taking a risk - LACK of VISION - it is just about making money not about art - auto tune and CGI - we are STAGNANT.
My favorite biopic is Frida,I though Salma Hayek did an amazing job, and her being of Mexican heritage really gave authenticity to the role. I also love the fantasy elements within the film. The scene after she has a miscarriage and Diego is seeing the painting she made after the experience was so powerful. That painting in general is so powerful. Truly conveys the agony of losing a child. But Frida Kahlo Is hands down my favorite artists. So this is a biased opinion lol.
Yo same here! Frida and the artist are amazing!!!
I agree especially with what you said about the fantasy elements of the movie!!
I LOVED that film omg
She was literally born in Veracruz lol
Mine too. Frida was such a tragic figure.
Salma doesn’t only have Mexican heritage she’s Mexican, she even used to act in telenovelas before she make it to Hollywood
One of my journalism professors broke down to us that documentaries, as much as they are more based in the concept of truth, are still highly stylistic and edited. You have to have a perspective on a topic and you still need to have a storyline to make a documentary work. I think documentaries might be considered a bit gauche to spell out so obviously a message to the audience, while biopics are seen as a bit more between the lines and “artistic”. Imo biopics and documentaries both need to be taken with a grain of salt and both should have the same amount of googling after.
Hi Mina! Thank you so much for your discussion of true crime. I work in the mental health field and have major issues with the true crime industry. As you mentioned, I feel like the way true crime is now, with whole TV channels, podcasts, and RUclips channels being dedicated to it , twists it into a form of casual entertainment, desensitizing us to these heinous crimes as if these true stories are just another fictitious horror movie. People turn liking true crime into a personality trait, bragging about how "nothing phases me anymore," like wtf? These are real people who experienced real abuse and trauma whose families and friends are still grieving. Along with this, the glamorization and glorification (even if that's not the intention) of these events further stigmatizes mental health issues, which the U.S. definitely does not need any more of. Sorry for the long comment but this really bothers me and I'm so glad you touched on it! I'd love to hear more of your thoughts about society's obsession with true crime!
One of my favorite movies is Amadeus, which is the story of Mozart and his “rival” in the film, Salieri. The whole story is so completely not what happened but it’s a really entertaining movie nonetheless
I've wanted to watch that one for sooooo long!!
Love Amadeus! I agree there are A LOT of creative liberties taken in that film but it's a really entertaining movie with good music and acting.
There's a German cartoon series about Mozart as a child from 2006 (for the celebration of his 250th birthday). Not the most accurate obviously, but I loved it and I think it was a great way to make kids more familiar with his music
@@sosos4306 I loved that show!
I think that they should stop with the Marilyn’s biopics, they should just let the woman rest in piece and she’s literally went through so much when she was alive.
Please. They are so obsessed with her for some reason 😭. Like I get that she was one of the major femmes fatales but this is too much.
@@anyaaa2801 For real!
I legit don’t see the hype that Monroe has.
@@SSMH6446 ?
I’m surprised that What’s Love Got to Do With It, which is centered around the life of Tina Turner played Angela Bassett, wasn’t mentioned! That was a very well done biopic that shed life on her past in ways that had not been as openly discussed outside of one magazine article. Though I will add here that while Tina Turner supported the film, she said in her recent documentary “Tina” that she’s never watched it because she doesn’t want to relive her own trauma and ab*se she went through at the hands of Ike Turner.
Personally, I think biopics work best when it's not actually about the person but rather the idea of the person. Both The Social Network and Marie Antoinette are perfect examples of this because they aren't really about either of their subjects; instead using their subjects to invoke an archetype. We feel a type of way about these people EXISTING in society so these movies lean into it. I do think that any historical fiction needs to ask itself why it's using that moment, that person, or that story and if the piece is only interesting because of the historical element rather than it enhancing the story than it's just lazy writing. If I wanted facts I wouldn't watch a drama.
Good points one movie critic from my country said something similar, he said a biopic should be focused on one period time of a person and have a point to have that story.
For example Spielberg’s Lincoln
He only showed his road to achieve the abolition of slavery and how he managed to accomplish that. We didn’t see his whole life just his most important achievement.
There is also Quills about the Marquis de Sade, the film wasn’t totally about his life but it was a critique against censorship
"As someone currently in an acting conservatory" OMG MINA!!!! CONGRATULATIONS!!!
Also, what you said about nostalgia as a unifying factor kinda sparked a thought for me from a sociocultural American perspective. The past few years have been culturally very divisive for the USA, and I feel like younger people especially are very disillusioned (in my opinion, rightfully so) by the mythology of the USA. I cant help but wonder if Hollywood's current fixation on the biopic is an attempt to create new mythology to re-enchant the disillusioned? Regardless, im tired of it all lmao. House of Gucci would have been fantastic as a fictional thriller, for example, and didnt need to leech off of existing people. I think, though, the need to remythologize "americana" and "american cinema" also shuts out opportunities for new film writers and filmmakers -- there is a reason why titles such as Everything Everywhere All At Once, Moonlight, The Last Black Man in San Francisco, etc. get released independently and dont get backing from most major studios/showings in most major cinema chains, and its because these newer independent films don't glorify mythos in the ways that biopics (and superhero movies! Let's be real here) do.
the video hasn’t even started but I hope you talk about music biopics and Walk Hard (2007)!!! It parodies them (especially Walk the Line and Ray) so perfectly that I haven’t been able to watch a biopic since without simultaneously thinking about that movie. The writing is perfection and SO detailed, with a real grasp of 20th century music history and niche references . Every second is stuffed. They pack every single tiny trope in it, down to a child actor playing a piano prodigy but cutting to a grown man’s hands on the keys. It makes them all look so cheesy and silly. Unironically top 5 favorite movies, along with Sunset Boulevard and Midnight Cowboy.
i love you
Finally its here. YES
ruclips.net/video/GTHlCk7fEOY/видео.html
“I’m cut in half pretty bad”
I’m glad I didn’t watch Bohemian Rhapsody in the cinema because I swear my husband paused it every five minutes to crack a Dewey Cox joke. Rocketman at the drive in theatre didn’t get so lucky.
“You don’t want no part of this, Dewey!”
“I dunno, I think I do.”
As a Baz Luhrmann fan, I really did like his over the top Elvis biopic but I can't help feeling like I would've liked it more if it hadn't tried to fit most of his life into the almost 3 hour runtime. It still felt very rushed and only really slowed down when we got to the latter half of the 60's. I don't think the biopic industry will stop anytime soon but I do hope that audiences are interested enough by these films to go and discover who the true person/story was.
It should have been a TV mini series the man lived 42 years which doesn’t sound like much but that is a lot for a film
He had originally made a 4 hour version, but it had to be cut for obvious reasons. It went into a lot more detail of Elvis’ earlier life, and he is thinking of releasing it in a few years.
I AM LIVING for Miss Mina’s Lewk today! It’s giving Betty Boop meets Anna May Wong. So pretty 👏🏽
I hear ‘Love & Mercy’ is pretty good. The biopic of Brian Wilson from The Beach Boys.
I personally love a “Mythic” telling of a person’s life, much like Marie Antoinette. It takes this historical person and turns them into a character that director is trying to use to tell a certain story. The main character is an agent of the director’s vision. One of my favorite mythic biopics is The Music Lovers from 1971 about the life of Tchaikovsky. It’s less about Tchaikovsky and more about how a repressive and snobbish society can break us and make us break others with our residual trauma and how our hunt for physical and emotional intimacy is ultimately foiled by such a society.
“Father son and the house of Gucci” that made me giggle.
I feel like your last example sums it up perfectly. So much of the time you hear about new biopics and feel like there is just no reason for them to exist. They feel lazy and exploitative. They seem to to reduce peoples lives to only the most dramatic parts. Not to say that all are bad, if those involved genuinely have something to say then it is ok. Love the video.
I can't say I agree about Gaga not wanting to meet her for acting cred. Academia would ask us to push our boundaries to have a "true" acting performance, but more important then accuracy is creativity. Gaga didn't wanna meet her, she doesn't want to talk to a murderer, and no art is worth her boundaries.
True but just feels weird when someone says they don’t want to glorify this person but then play them in a movie? Like why take the part then?
@@squattycoati931 She probably justified it as this is a fictionalized version, but it does paint her in a nicer light and therefore create sympathy, definitely a good point Mina brings up. I still think she's allowed to take a job for the sake of creative output, pay, and fun. The whole recreation of real (especially living) people, much like idolizing them, is bound to end up terribly because people are at best, never perfect, and at worst, are absolutely horrible.
Lady Gaga, who makes an anti-rape song while giving Roman Polanski a standing ovation.
@@camelopardalis84 WHAT i havent heard of that 😭 why does every celebrity have to support him omfg
@@benzosiara Because most people are horrible, that's why.
one of my favorite biopics is "Lion" (2016)! It is based on the memoir of Saroo Brierley but I did my research rn and he was excited that it was going to be made into a film and was "Pleasantly surprised by the finished film! so its a beautiful story and theres no guilt in enjoying it
Dev Patel is so good.
Mina's look here is perfection. The hair/makeup suit her so well and it's all very Old Hollywood.
I definitely agree!
the only biopic ive loved recently is spencer. it displayed so many things that previous biopics hadn’t, in an artful and impactful way. the love she has for her sons, her eating disorder as a way to cope with the ongoing suffocation of being a royal. the entire movie felt like uncomfortable suffocation that you wanted to escape from. i love it sm
I completely agree! It let us see Diana in a new way, and openly informed us that it wasn’t depicting anything that really happened. It was giving us the essence of her life in a three-day fable.
Also I wouldn’t really lump it in with this recent ‘trend,’ because Pablo Larraín isn’t too connected with Hollywood and made Jackie in 2016.
Same! I also love his film Jackie. It’s very clear they’re all loose interpretations based on the facts but they’re not trying to be accurate depictions. They’re all mediations on complicated women and events. Though Jackie is p accurate with the sequence of events
@@lc3920 I love how they showed how Diana was also a difficult person to deal with. She was not perfect. She was a troubled women in a terrible situation trying her best and often failing but I loved that they emphasized she cared most about being a mother more than anything else. The ending was surprising but so fitting
It also had much more of an indie vibe. A lot of biopics are just blockbusters with nothing special to offer, but spencer had so many layers to it, and was so symbolic and metaphorical. I loved it a lot.
One I didn't realize was so poorly timed was the Selena biopic. It came out only two or so years after her murder which means it was filmed not too long after her passing which is just weird and insensitive.
It was made with the family’s permission tho the people that matter and it was actually good I like that it celebrated her life and made people aware of who she was
Her family made this choice. They were heavily involved & they wanted to get her story out there before any random person who didn’t actually know her just made some things up.
@This Nigerian Loves Drinking Garri it wasn’t exploiting her image tho it was made in good taste unlike the Britney Spears bio was most people wouldn’t even wouldn’t know who Selena is without that movie Some people find it weird that ex husband wrote a book about her and that was years after she died so you can’t win
@@Outlawgirl0763 why is fame more important than respecting somebodies life/death and peace in that.
I honestly can love a good biopic, especially if it has some kinda unique thing. The most recent example for me is “Tick, Tick… Boom”. It’s an adaptation of the musical written by Jonathan Larson about him, the creator of Rent, and is directed by Lin Manuel Miranda. This is so unknown to me because of the kinda grittier tone for a relatively tragic story, and is mostly not glorifying the person presented, and it is so heartwarming and heartbreaking, especially for musical theatre people.
It’s also not really a biopic. Jon Larson wasn’t famous when he wrote it, so it’s really just a story about a normal guy (partly true, partly fictional) and his frustrations with his lack of success in his chosen field.
I watched I Tony with Tonya's cousins wife. She told us that it was a really good depiction of her and her mothers relationship. She also told us all the tea, it was such a bizarre situation. Her mom lives about 40 min out from me
When I studied Spanish my professor loved to use biopics to help teach us history in the language we were studying that showed us the culture rather than just tell. Frieda, Selena, in the time of the butterflies…
Omg if you still like Spanish biopics you should watch the one about Luis Miguel, he was (and I guess still is since he hasn’t died and is still doing concerts lol) a HUGE Mexican singer in the 80s-90s and his story is very interesting.
Freida was my absolute fave omg & Selena too also I second the comment above I watched it & it was good
The biopics now feel very caricaturish. I understand wanting to portray these people as larger than life, but some just feel cartoony and non-human.
A biopic not mentioned that was a really great movie and an amazing performance is Ray (2004) with Jamie Foxx playing Ray Charles. I don’t remember seeing a real-life person being portrayed as well as Jamie Foxx does, sometimes it hard to tell if a clip is Foxx or Charles.
If a biopic is made about someone who's still alive, do they have any input or make money off of it?
Like I bet any money Pamela Anderson is seeing nothing on her own life story being dramatized
I think the Marilyn ones are overdone. The Elvis movie might be my favorite movie of all time, it was so well done and Austin Butler really paid tribute to the amazing talent of Elvis. Walk the line and Bohemian Rhapsody were brilliant as well. I think if its done right it is a well paid tribute to an artist. I would love to see one on Kurt Cobain.
Good biopics definitely exist. I love Hidden Figures and Catch Me If You Can because they’re real stories about exception people I wouldn’t learn about otherwise. I also adore Rocketman and Tick, Tick Boom because they’re not exactly aiming for realism but rather want to tell a life story the way that makes the most sense for that person (Elton turning his life into a musical and Jon actually wrote Tick Tick Boom out of writers block frustration). I’m also incredibly sick of people lumping Rocketman and Bohemian Rhapsody together because they have nothing in common, and I do mean it.
i am so glad you decided to do a vid about this! i just saw elvis opening weekend and i feel like now hollywood is over saturated w biopics i'm exhausted of it all 😭
I always lean more towards biopics that are so stylized that can barely even be considered biopics: I'm not there (2007), Caravaggio (1986), The Music Lovers (1971) even Lisztomania (1975) technically fits the criteria. Also a more recent one that I really don't see anyone talking about but it's brilliant (no pun intended) is Tesla (2020).
The Ray Charles biopic “Ray” staring is Jamie Foxx is literally so good I didn’t know it wasn’t just a movie until i was older
lol I'm a sucker for biopics 😵💫 I love seeing how close the actors look from the real people, the setting, the makeup, wardrobe, I just love it.
Biopics are 50/50 for me. Some are well done and give you an amazing peek into someone's life and moments in history, while others are sloppy (miscast?) and boring. They sometimes try to cover too much time or change real events too much. I never thought too much about the ethical issues of making them. Thanks for covering that angle.
Love hearing your analysis on different topics. I can tell how much work you put into your research.
I was interviewed about biopics for an article at my university's paper, and this was during the Oscar cycle with Green Book, so I talked about the idea of the involvement of those still living. With Green Book, the screenwriter was the son of the main character, and it was so clear that the film was from that point of view and attempting to paint him in the best possible light, whereas Donald Shirley's family was never consulted, so the whole film was just an opportunity to make this guy's dad look good. I think that veneer of fantasy versus reality and who's part of the project are really the dividing lines for the reception of the audience. With something like RocketMan or Tick Tick Boom, there's a fantasy and performance there, a demonstration of the art that made these men famous that makes the film more about appreciating how their life influenced their art then the factual story of their lives. I think that's the kind of thing that's going to be important going forward, is the removal of strict reality in favor of the use of the life to reflect on their legacy. Shifting the POV away from the person the film is about, breaking the fourth wall, and being honest about alterations seems like the best way to go forward with the genre.
The Hollywood industry really needs to stop this endless cycle of biopics and give newer/minority creators a chance to tell their own original stories.
Ok, you have a point there but honestly... They're not doing that any time soon.
I mean, why should we wait until Hollywood pays us attention? Why don't we start consuming movies and cultural products from other countries without the saying of Hollywood? We can't say that other countries don't have their own movie industries.
Yes, they're not as big and powerful. But if we start supporting them, then we wouldn't need Hollywood standards or the Oscars... Which we already don't need, we have the internet.
PS: I'm latina and if you want to watch movies entirely made by POC (don't like the term btw), you could watch "La casa del fin de los tiempos" for example. Mexican and Argentinian cinema are also widely praised.
@@sweetembrace6706 That's right, you should get to see people that represents you in a country that's so diverse as the US. I don't lie, I would love to see a Colombian or Venezuelan character being the protagonist (not depicted as a criminal as always) of a successful series or movie in Hollywood, it would be amazing.
Nonetheless, the industry has demonstrated (sadly) that they don't care about that. I'm saying that if the industry doesn't provide us with the representation we need, we have to consume that representation from other sources and then, maybe, they would considerate to adapt their industry to people's needs. Here I suggested to watch movies from other countries, but the same goes with indie movies.
If we support those creators we could get Hollywood to pay them attention (as it happened with Lin Manuel Miranda, for example).
On the POC question... I was born in Venezuela and I lived there until last year (I'm 18yo and had to migrate because the situation there is not the best), so as a person from outside of the USA I can tell you that I don't feel represented by that term.
That term was invented by people within a segregationist society in a really specific point in time and in a specific place.
That context cannot be translated to the rest of the world and it is confusing, because it is based on race and race doesn't really exist.
In other words, you can be brown or black or yellow or white and that unique feature of yours doesn't communicate your entire experiences as a human being.
I am white, my grandad was Italian and I look italian. I've always considered myself white (cause' my skin is white), but in the USA some people would called me POC because I'm latina and others won't because I'm white.
I'm both latina and white and that fact alone (sadly) cannot convey that I lived a really though time in my country and never had the privileges that in the USA are associated with white people.
Not saying that the term POC is wrong, you can use it and can identify with it yourself (that's up to you). But I don't like it, because it is so general and subjective.
Most Latin Americans don't like the term POC or simply don't know it. It's an American thing.
Not all American things are universal and that's fine.
Americans should ask assumed POC if they want to be called that way. At least that's what I think.
This is such an interesting topic, I've always been confused about the appeal of biopics. I find biopics about people who are still alive (and especially without approval/involvement of the person) really weird... it must feel so creepy to see your life dramatised on the big screen. But when i think about it, the ones made about people after they die are arguably worse because the protagonist has no chance to approve or dispel any mistruths. They're just all a bit creepy to me given they're dramatised retellings of real lives. I dunno, maybe the appeal just goes over my head... I'd always rather watch a doc about someone I find interesting I guess 🤷♀️
As a Michael Jackson fan I'm not excited about the biopic. Other fans express worry as well mostly because media and other outlets were/is never truthful portraying him. Will they put enough effort to study him and not go along the tabloids is questionable so as you say if it's done correctly it can shed a new light onto the person but if not it will be plain mockery.
Also you are so right about documentaries. The 2015 A24 documentary about Amy Winehouse is soooo good it actually made me a huge fan of her music. It showed EVERYTHING, the good the bad and the ugly… it was extremely honoring to her memory.
Yes! youre always so on point with your takes. everytime i see a trailer for another biopic i immediately roll my eyes. im so glad im not the only one who noticed how many there are, especially recently.
I love how everyone thinks Hollywood or the film industry running out of ideas is a new phenomenon. You do realize that the film industry as a whole has been out of ideas since the dawn of time right? There’s so many common tropes out there that get re done or re-invented. And so many stories that get retold. Especially when new technology comes around ie. when movies went from silent to sound or when CGI came around. Do you know how many Robin Hood movies there are? How many takes on Cinderella or Beauty and the Beast in film form? Or how many times classic myths or fairy tales are gonna be retold again and again? Criticizing the film industry for using common tropes or stories again and again is like criticizing someone for using a word in the dictionary. There’s been countless remakes of so many movies or stories and there always will be because everything has been done. It’s why execution matters. Not what you do, how you do it
I don’t dislike the idea of biopics. I’m tired of hearing about Marilyn, Elvis, Princess Diana, etc
Some people in history have really rich stories that have been mostly forgotten. I’d like to see a movie about Clara Bow personally.
God yes. It’s not biopics that are the issue. I just don’t care what new way they have found in projecting something onto Monroe that probably has nothing to do with who she was.
I’d like to have a biopic of Jeannette McDonald and Nelson Eddy, Jeanette and Nelson were the soprano and baritone of the ‘30s if you needed a soprano or baritone they were your people and they were always paired up together, I would love a Julie Andrews biopic too
That would be amazing, would actually be excited to see a film about her. I'd like a Jean Harlow one that is actually accurate too.
I totally agree with your take on the true crime biopic-like when I saw Hulu was making “the girl from plainville” after those events only took place a few years ago, I was horrified. Truly so disrespectful and cruel. Same with “don’t F with cats” on Netflix, when those events took place less than 10 years ago.
my favorite biopic is based on brian wilson from the beach boys, called love & mercy. it cast two different actors to play two different parts of his life and it perfectly shows his struggles with mental illness while also creating one of the most revered albums of all time, pet sounds. highly recommend!
YESSSS LOVE AND MERCY! Paul Dano is absolutely incredible in that movie
The fact that Brian Wilson helped in the way the film was made really does help too! Despite me knowing next to nothing about the Beach Boys before watching the whole thing kept me engaged throughout. I hated the fact that when I said I didn't like the Elvis film people told me it's just because I wasn't around when he was popular - then explain why I thought this one was good then??
we love paul dano 🥺
I don’t see a lot of people talking about this a lot but SELENA, i think is one of the best biopic out there. It is how 2000’s babies got introduced to the power house that she was and i think that it is so well done, like true to facts and if i’m not mistaken the family was heavily involved in the production. It did a great job keeping her legacy alive.
35:47 actually, Princess Weekes made this really damning connection to how we acquit famous men of any wrongdoings they are accused of and there is hard evidence for, and how this is directly tied to how women will have infatuations with attractive serial killers etc. They just can’t believe someone who is so handsome etc could do anything wrong, because men are infallible etc.
On Lady Gaga not wanting to meet the woman: I agree with her not wanting to meet and being so disgusted with a murderer. I think it makes sense that she wanted to distance herself from her even if she was playing her in the film.
I agree with you
Yeah, I found it odd Mina took that stance. I personally wouldn't want to meet a killer if I was playing them because they could try to manipulate the narrative in their favor further.
Then why take on the role of acting like her? Acting as art requires you to embody and become that person, you can watch and read everything you want, but they are secondary sources, you only see what the medium and creator of that content seems important or necessary. I get Minas stance. It not weird to wonder how can you distance yourself from someone you supposedly encapsulate, embody and become for a prolonged periods of time (filming most of the day for months). I also kind of get gaga stance cause it’s like not meeting the murderer is boundary between who she plays and who she is/ her reality and beliefs which I’m not mad at.
@@mikaylasmith7600 EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY
@@karisno7798 mikayla said what i was trying to say
I really appreciate your nuanced discussion of true crime. My mother was brutally murdered just over a year ago and it’s really made me aware just how abundant and normalized true crime content is, with most of it being insensitive. I feel like I’m still triggered nearly every day. I do wish people would consider more the impact of their entertainment.
so sorry for your loss🫂💔wishing you strength
One biopic everyone should see is Behind the Candelabra. It’s about Liberace and his strange relationship with his partner Scott Thorson. It’s based on the book written by Scott of the same now. It is one of my all time favourites. The movie gets into the gritty details of their relationship without sanitising anything or worrying about portraying its characters in a positive light (which I find is a problem with lots of other biopics). The acting is fantastic and the sets are amazing. The writing isn’t awfully cheesy either
Scott Thorson is a huge liar. He lied about his relationshjp with Liberace.
la vie en rose (2007) is such a great biopic. marion cotillard did such an amazing job portraying edith piaf
This whole discussion reminded me of when Olivia de Havilland sued for defamation (at the ripe age of 102) regarding her portrayal in "Fued", FX's show about Bette Davis and Joan Crawford. Her case was specifically about how there aren't any protections for public figures being misrepresented in biopics and docudrama. Unfortunately, her suit was denied.
A good biopic to check out is What's Love Got to Do with It. It's based off the relationship between Ike and Tina Turner and stars Angela Bassett. Tough watch but definitely one of my personal favorites. Tina is an absolute icon and her story is super important for women's rights. Thanks for the new video Mina!
Even a lot of the things that was in that biopic wasn't true. Ike didn't rape Tina.
I remember having seen it as a kid and it made me love her so much
I think that the Brian Wilson biopic Love & Mercy was absolutely amazing, it’s my favorite biopic because it’s so different. They could’ve easily done a cradle to grave story from the Beach Boys’ first recording all the way to the 50th anniversary reunion but they broke the formula (much like Wilson himself) and told a nonlinear story focusing on his life in the mid 60s while recording Pet Sounds and the Smile sessions and the 80s while he was under the abusive conservatorship of former Dr. Eugene Landy. The decision to cast two different actors to portray two different Brian’s was pure genius, Paul Dano and John Cusack were brilliant and 100% robbed cause they should’ve at least been nominated for Best Actor in 2015. TL,DR; watch Love & Mercy, you’ll be doing yourself a favor lol
Yes. I liked how a significant part of the biopic was Brian IN THE STUDIO and the techniques he used to make his music. They focused more on what made him an iconic figure, his songwriting and not the typical "I did drugs and screwed up my life" story.
I would love if you did an in-depth analysis about the biopic Spencer. The life of Princess Diana, I feel, opens many avenues of discussion. Still, all these years later, she as a person remains incredibly relevant. I think portrayals and public opinion of her could even be a part 2. I, personally, would love your perspective. Anyway, keep up the fascinating content!
My main issue with biopics is there are telling stories that we already know about people we are very used to being talked about with some exceptions, I feel a good biopic should be a jumping off point about learning about people of their time who are not relevant today.
Drop biopics that you recommend to others
Little Ricky
I’m glad you touched on the Pamela Anderson one because I really dislike how Hulu did it and that they didn’t get her permission to make it. It was one of the main reasons I didn’t watch it
I’m really getting annoyed of these biopics especially when they don’t even get the story correct! & hollywood needs to let Marilyn Monroe REST! 😭 anyway… out of all of the biopics I loved Elvis. Austin Butler was great!
Walk the Line is one biopic i like and appreciate because i love johnny cash and the story is (seemingly) handled well imo
One of my top 3 movies period. It’s absolutely amazing