I’m a sucker for biopics and always have been, but I understand why they’re often thought of as a second-rate form. In a sense, each one is trying to tell two stories at once: the chronicle of its subject’s artistic or political or whatever other worldly achievement (the thing that made us hungry to see a biopic about him or her in the first place), and, at the same time, the private, tumultuous “human drama” of it all. Given that these two dimensions can’t really be separated, and that you have to cram both of them into two hours, it’s amazing, when you think about it, that the best biopics, from Lenny (1974) to Kinsey (2004) to Malcolm X (1992) to Sweet Dreams (1985) to Milk (2008) to Ed Wood (1994) to Ray (2004), are as rich and full and authentic as they are. Nevertheless, I think that the hyper scrutiny of the “reality” era, when the lives of celebrities (including dead ones) are more subject to exposure than ever before, has made us all a little suspect of the tidiness, the compressions, the convenient fictionalizations, the cut corners that are an essential element of almost any biopic. The good ones are told with more explicitness and authenticity than they used to be, but as a basic form, the biopic now seems cornier than ever. We can see through it, even as we’re hooked on it. READ FULL STORY
Tag: John Ridley (1-1 of 1)
- '12 Years a Slave' leads SAG Award nominees
- 'Sons of Anarchy' recap: 'A Mother's Work'
- 'Sons of Anarchy' shocker: Maggie Siff says...
- EW TV Recap Video: 'Loser,' 'Goldbergs,' 'Voice'
- 'Sons of Anarchy': Burning Q's answered
- 'Victoria's Secret Fashion Show': Sizing it up
- 'The Voice' recap: Your Top 3 are...
- 'Voice': How about a Judges' Veto?