Joni Mitchell nixed biopic - Taylor Swift was cast as the singer

Point duly noted. If it's a great movie, on the level of a Scorsese, Tarentino, or Coppola directed film, with brilliant dialogue and expert acting I would see it I guess.

However, it would be difficult to cast David Crosby. I'm thinking he could play himself.

Now, a film on the life of David Crosby, I'm in, all the way in.

Jack Black as David Crosby.

 

Biopics aren't for everyone and really aren't for diehard fans most times. They almost always end up hating them anyway, so why bother trying to please them?

It's not supposed to be about doing a spot-on impersonation that makes you believe the actress is exactly how Joni Mitchell would have looked, sounded and acted had you been in a room with her in 1969, but about capturing a particular vibe that sends the audience a message that is conveyed through the depiction of certain events in her life.

If there's a message to be told in the story of Joni's life, then hire an actress capable of doing that. But it's no more important to "be" Joni Mitchell in such a movie than it would be for Daniel Day Lewis to "be" Lincoln. Yes, you want the actress to be able to imitate a certain look and characteristics to a degree. But it's not intended to be a documentary.

If Taylor Swift can pull it off---great. If some other actress can do it better---great too. If that actress is also someone who can help sell Joni's music to a new generation of fans--so much the better.

 

I'm sorry, but it's much more important that the ACTRESS cast as Mitchell be able to BE Mitchell than just to "pull it off." The people running things in Hollywood always seem to make the mistake of casting for ratings or sales instead of for quality of performance- and that would be the case for using Taylor Swift- her name alone would bring in viewers, and every single person watching would be thinking "look, that's Taylor Swift" instead of "look, that's Joni Mitchell." Inhabiting the character is massively underrated, IMO, and upon the rare occasion when an actor can do it, magic happens. Daniel Day-Lewis comes to mind- that guy becomes the character and you don't see him(Lewis), you see only the portrayal. If looking like, sounding like, acting like the character is not important as you say, and capturing a vibe is more important, then you've just defined the problem with 90% of the biopics ever made, IMO, where people watching see the actor instead of the character. Using your criteria, then you could have someone like Sandra Bullock play Mitchell because she could "capture the vibe". But frankly, noone would buy it, because she doesn't inhabit a character as an actress like say, Chloe Sevigny does.

 

Reminds me of when Stevie Nicks was told that Lindsay Lohan wanted to buy the rights to her life story and star in a movie about her, Stevie said "Over my dead body."

 

You make a good point about it probably being a bad idea to cast a big star like Swift into the role. We'd always be watching Taylor Swift.

But I don't agree with this need to "inhabit" Joni Mitchell. For one, the fact that it's Joni Mitchell gives the filmmakers much more leeway with artistic license as few people have much idea who she is beyond the music. I've got most of her albums and really couldn't begin to tell you much about what sort of person she is. It's not like casting for, say, a Hillary Clinton biopic.

But my point is that many people---especially big fans---don't seem to understand what biopics are really all about. (Usually) They aren't documentaries. I haven't read the book, but the fact that it's about 3 people tells me that this is less about the life story of any of them than it would be about certain events that tell us something about a particular place and time. You're capturing a few events in a persons life and telling them in a few minutes each. You exaggerate some reality and downplay other. You want to do a documentary about the story? Then just sit Joni and Carole and Carly down and interview them and release that.

And yes, the producers are put in the tough spot often of having to cast people who can draw attention to the film to some degree as well. What's the point of making a movie you want a lot of people to see if nobody goes to see it? So yes, casting 3 complete unknowns would likely doom the film to underground indie-film status. Which is fine, of course, unless that's not the type and size of audience you wish to attract.

 

They should try to get Eddie Murphy.

 

Joni has integrity.

 

As interesting as a Joni bioflick may be,a Baez story would far surpass a Hendrix story,if only for the longevity and things she was involved in over the decades.Even an indie Baez/Dylan:Early Days would hold interest for many.Add to that the sit-ins,the marriage to David Harris,sister Mimi & Richard Farina,hell,throw in Steve Jobs,too.Bland?Baez?In the same sentence? And as for change,Baez was rsponsible for more involvement in change in America a decade before Bowie hit an international stage.

 

The problem with artistic license is that you begin to deviate from being a biopic into, well, a fictional account of someones life. And if the actress doesn't need to inhabit Mitchell, why do the movie? The point of a biopic is to expose the non or casual fan to points of interest that they would never know, like origins, influences, etc. To tell a story of a life lived. If you don't need to know any of that stuff, then you don't need a biopic- just play the records. Making a movie just to hear the songs you already know doesn't make sense. If I'm paying good money to see a biopic of Mitchell, then I'd better learn something about what type of person she is and why. In other words, why do a movie if all you're going to show is some pseudo-actress lip synching a few songs of Mitchell's that you already know and tell you nothing of her life beyond Big Yellow Taxi and dating Neil Young? Your premise brings to mind all those homemade Youtube videos that show a snapshot of the artist while a song plays in the background. You learn nothing of the artist, have nothing visually to entice you yet get to hear the song you already know, for free. There's no acting, there's no production, and very little substance and yet it will satisfy some people, who only wanted to "hear" the song anyways. No need to construct a multi-million dollar film for that..frankly, paying $9 to see Taylor Swift lip-synch a Joni Mitchell song in a film where a "directors leeway" has allowed the truth to be stretched to gigantic proportions doesn't sound that great to me..

 

IMO, neither a Mitchell or Baez biopic would draw much interest beyond the Sundance crowd. They are artists who are invisible to a large portion of the world now, and with limited attention spans, most people don't care to bother with films about people they don't know, unless there is a juicy, gossipy side to it, then they are all over it. I think back a few years to the Dylan picture (I'm Not There), a film about a pretty famous guy that cost $20 million to make, and grossed $4 million.

 

Where did I say it should just be about lipsyncing the music? I've said nothing that should lead you consider this "premise". Where did I say it should just be songs and snapshots? I've said exactly the opposite.

Yes, the point of a bio-pic is to expose people to points of interest they would never know. To tell the story of a life lived. But none of that requires doing an impersonation. Artist license is about being able to more fully expound upon those points of interest. To maybe even give them richer and fuller meaning.

You're the one who sounds like all you want is a blow-by-blow account of what Joni did on each day of her life and find an actress who can look and sound just like her (as long as she, herself, lives up to your consideration of Mitchell as an artist, of course!) and repeat everything she ever said verbatim.

 

Even though this entire thread seems based on the pull quote of "all you've got is a girl with high cheekbones"; I don't think that's the most important reason Joni gave for voting thumbs down on the movie. It seemed she didn't think much of the story it was telling. The wrong story, to me, seems more damning than doubts on casting. Joni's quote regarding Taylor Swift seems flippant and is only important if it's true. One would expect an audition process to determine if all Taylor brought to the table were the right cheekbones. I don't think this was a film project that would rise and fall entirely on Taylor Swift being involved. Maybe it would in 2014, but not in 2012 when the idea was being floated. I find it odd though that so much of this thread is wrapped around the idea that she couldn't play Joni Mitchell because their music is too dissimilar. To me that seems a bit like saying Daniel Day-Lewis couldn't play Lincoln because he's not an American politician.

 

Jessie Mueller

 

Those biopics of musicians are just awful. Let them live on through their music, not some tabloid depiction of their everyday lives. They always feel like a bad "LifeTime" movie. On a side note, I rewatched The Buddy Holly Story with Gary Busey the other day. For some reason I remembered it as a good movie. What a terribly amateurish movie upon revisiting it. Oh well.

 

This very forum has its share of male fans of Swift, though I am inclined to agree that teenage girls are her target market. While I also agree that Mitchell's music is not "bound by gender," she is one of those artists where women are often surprised to meet straight men who are fans. I guess that's not really apropos of anything in particular, but it's worth noting.

Yes and no. It's about how they all overcame the barriers facing women in the music business in their own ways. Mitchell's story is probably the most compelling of the three, actually: Carly Simon had unlimited family resources to draw from and Carole King, though immensely talented, was also lucky enough to be born in exactly the right time and place where it was relatively easy to get a foothold in the music business even as a teenage girl. Mitchell had neither advantage, to put it mildly. You actually do learn a lot about all three of them, in any event. The book's real weakness, at least insofar as turning it into a biopic is concerned, is that it's not a serious biographical study of any of them. It's more gossipy than that, and it's also filtered through Weller's view that everything that ever went wrong for any of her three subjects can be blamed entirely on sexism.

I wouldn't either if I were her. She does not come across as a very nice person in the book. But then, I think it's fairly well-established that she really isn't a very nice person.

 

Nearly everything about it is historically wrong, too, right down to implying that "Holly" was the way he and his family had always spelled their name. That final scene with the Vegas-style medley of his hits at the last concert is almost offensively inaccurate!

 

Ah yes, you must be right. Wouldn't want to add a Joni biopic that that shelf of excellent Jagger/Bowie/Hendrix films.

 

In actuality,film isn't the best medium for storytelling in 2014.It's the tube or online subscription services.The audience is there.The small screen is undergoing a Golden Age II(Goldener Age?),able to take the time and small $$$ risks to tell the story.

 

And Joni has not stop complaining about the lousy reviews it got.

I think Joni Mitchell is a Goddess. Taylor Swift isn't her but she has talent. I like the "Storytellers" she did on Palladia. If a movie was made about Joni, I'd be concerned about the quality and whether Swift can act. But I wouldn't complain about it being Swift.

 

Actually, of all the women of that time period, the one who would make the most interesting and enjoyable movie is Janis Ian. Read her autobiography Society's Child to see.

A huge hit with Society's Child at age 13 due to being featured on a TV show hosted by Leonard Bernstein, and getting hate mail and death threats because the song was about interracial love. Being tossed aside as a "one hit wonder" while still a teenager, but having another, even bigger hit a 24 with At Seventeen.

There is plenty of emotional ups and downs - an abusive marriage, coming out as gay - and a cast of characters that make her the Zelig of music - Odetta, Jimi Hendrix.

 

An argument for another thread, not this one.

Didn't say you said that, please read again. That's my perception of your premise of a biopic without an actress that can inhabit the character she is playing and how it would be. What you describe as viable is a directors and/or writers version of a person biography (biopic) given the leeway you cite. IMO, that is where many biopics go terribly wrong, when filmmakers enhance or envision things that are not even remotely true to the subject matter. To be clear, what I'm saying is that if a subject matter, whether it be Mitchell, Baez, or Justin Bieber, does not hold enough enticing story line in itself to warrant an entertaining and factual film, it shouldn't be made, period. I'm envisioning your version of a Mitchell biopic with a directors leeway as seeing her as some incredibly sexy femme fatale, with millions upon millions of preening fans, who has lived a rock star life of sex,drugs and rock n'roll in excess. That's not Mitchell in any sane persons view. And imagine Taylor Swift "acting" out snorting a line of coke before the Last Waltz with Young, played by Luke Bryan. Is that really attractive to you? You'd pay to see that? I'm not asking for a "blow by blow" biopic- I'm asking for one that gets deeper into the character, one that shows the truth of that life, a film with the highs and lows of the star fast lane, not one with glossed-over highlights, punctuated by repeated blarings of Big Yellow Taxi with an actress with no musical skills strumming an acoustic guitar while absent-mindedly trying to "be" Joni Mitchell. Now I'll grant you that the formula of casting the big star of the moment (regardless of talent level or appropriateness for the subject) will sell a lot more tickets. But ticket sales should never be the driving force for a picture such as this- you probably agree that even with the best script, the best cast, the highest budget, a biopic of Joni Mitchell is not going to blow out box office records.

 

Well, again, I said nothing about sex and drugs. But the problem with biopics is being able to get "deeper into the character." Biopics beg for a character study, but the best character studies are generally fictional because we can't get inside Joni Mitchell's head. And the minute you do that you start making things up. I think the best of these types of pics are often those that loosely base the character on a real life person and events but then change the names because they are just using that life story as a stepping off point for finding a message to convey.

The problem is that most people--even those with big, eventful lives---are pretty dull and unfold in uncinematic fashion. What's the Joni Mitchell story you envision? One that shows her struggling to be successful in a male-dominated business who doesn't see women as true artists and culminates with "Help Me" reaching the Top 10? And what is it about her life story that demands an actress who can "inhabit her character" anyway? Is it important to her story that she was a skinny blonde girl with high cheekbones? That she spoke with a particular accent (or not) or had a funny walk (or not) or smoked a lot of cigarettes? Again, it's sounds you just want a collection of old photographs and video footage.

I'm sure there are many aspects and details of her life that would make for the basis for a good movie and it would require a good actress to portray that character. Just not sure you can do it without a certain degree of artistic license to pull that story together in a compelling manner.

 

Well, whoever has the movie rights doesn't necessarily need to focus on the gossipy stuff if they don't want to. Heck, they could probably make the movie about Carole's cat if they wanted to. Although it does seem that at least Joni Mitchell has SOME say in what is done with the story.

Which isn't necessarily the best thing either. I don't think the best biopics have been those that are Subject Approved. The most interesting and poignant things to tell about Joni Mitchell may not be things she sees in herself or even wants people to know.

As far doing the three of them together in one 2 hour movie? That could be a trick without some events/characters to tie them all together. Even with the over-arching theme of women struggling for success in a male-dominated industry. So maybe that's where the gossipy stuff comes in?

I dunno. I don't like biopics generally, but not for the same reasons that most here seem to dislike them. But the story of a female in the 60s/70s struggling for success in the music business and then achieving it sounds like a pretty good to tell. If it were me, I'd create a fictional character and base the details and events on one of their stories, or even use bits of all three of them.

And find some girl that looks like Linda Ronstadt.

 

You really don't get what I'm trying to say, so I'll stop there.

 

Well obviously you need a good actress to play a complex role or it will be portrayed shallowly. That goes without saying.

But it's wrong to conclude that Swift wouldn't be capable of the role simply because you don't believe she's as talented a musician or songwriter as Mitchell.