Tom Jolliffe on when real life stories are sugar coated in film…
A good biopic can be fascinating. There are characters, through TV and print media, biographies, documentaries and more, that we learn the most fascinating things about. Documentaries of course have the goal of showing us (when done right) both sides of a personality, or both sides of conflicts. That said, like a political party manifesto that dissects their opposition, some can be a bit one sided.
I recall the late WWE legend The Ultimate Warrior being the subject of a documentary that was overseen by Vince McMahon and the company. Now given the distinct animosity between the pair (they ‘reconciled’ a year or so before Warrior’s untimely death) and the manner of their creative split(s), it’s no surprise that McMahon’s doc was largely pre-occupied with taking potshots at Warrior. In response, Warrior (his legal name having changed it from Jim Hellwig) made his own, which was the other side of the coin. The point is, both were heavily biased, lacking objectivity.
In terms of creating narrative film to portray cultural or historical figures, there have been plenty. There is a tendency to paint the revered in rose tint, and the reviled as almost inhumanely evil. Something like Downfall as an example, did a great job of portraying Hitler in his last days (exceptionally performed by Bruno Ganz). Now we’re not going to wash away the immense evil and damage he did, but in the end he was still a complexly layered human being. In showing moments of near humility and vulnerability, as a world he tried to create (which in his mind was right) comes crumbling down, makes the film more engaging, even as being reminded of that time and place, sickens you as a viewer. The point is, by adding a layer, as a central character, to a film, he is then more interesting than a one dimensional, relentlessly evil depiction.
In the last year there have been two fictional movies based on entertainment icons. PT Barnum in The Greatest Showman, and as we speak, Freddie Mercury’s time as front man of Queen in Bohemian Rhapsody. Reviews for both have been similar. The films are uplifting, entertaining and the music engages probably more than the actual drama. Now Bo Rhap isn’t going to have the pop cultural impact that The Greatest Showman has. Until A Star Is Born came and took over the radio play with its soundtrack, The Greatest Showman’s hit songs were seemingly playing on a relentless loop, but both Rhapsody and Showman had the same inherent flaws. Sugar-coating. Now maybe the end goal for Showman was to provide a feelgood film of glitz, fantasy and fun. Maybe their requisite wasn’t to delve too much into Barnum’s darker side and likewise, had they, the film probably wouldn’t have captured young audiences like it did.
More so in Bohemian Rhapsody though, this is a problem, because the film is more focused on being a peek through the looking glass, to see a slice of life and times of Queen’s rise, and particularly at Mercury. He was undoubtedly a man of immense character, work ethic, good nature and supreme talent, but like all of us, was not perfect. For many, who want to see a more rounded, more realistic depiction of Freddie, the film left them feeling short changed. They sugar coat the truth in favour of spectacle and a desire to attain more family audiences with the lower rating. Okay, so you could dive into one of many documentaries for a more considered, rounded and real depiction, but understandably, the consensus for Bohemian Rhapsody, is that the film is ultimately disposable, despite Rami Malek attaining universal praise in his depiction of Freddie (albeit hampered by the rose tinted script).
By the same token though, do the modern audiences want the image built in mind of their heroes to be tarnished? The audience scores for Bohemian Rhapsody mark a sharp contrast to the mediocre critical reception. It has gone down very well with the cinema audience. Maybe the spectacle, the music and lavish Mercury love-in is enough.
Should there be some distinct separation between true life documentary, and film adaptation? You do your thing, we’ll do ours and never the twain shall meet. Should our films about Churchill paint him almost glowingly heroic without flaw? Or Gandhi? To an extent it’s repainting history in the image you want, in order to provide escapist thrills, over rounded honesty. How many films about renowned UK gangsters have been made which glamorise their life and almost seem to paint them heroically? Virtually all of them. Killed a few people? Robbed a few million? Quite the character! The trouble is, the way many people may prefer to learn about the life of specific characters is through narrative film, particularly those who may have an aversion to documentary film. As long as you don’t expect the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Let us know your thoughts on Bohemian Rhapsody and other biopics in the comments below.
Tom Jolliffe is an award winning screenwriter and passionate cinephile. He has three features due out on DVD/VOD in 2019 and a number of shorts hitting festivals. Find more info at the best personal site you’ll ever see here.
Originally published October 30, 2018. Updated November 29, 2022.
