How do you prefer you biopics? Poll

I too would rather watch a documentary if I want accuracy. Looking for accuracy in a biopic is laughable to me. The fact that you have actors in a biopic who often don't look like the subjects is enough to throw me off - don't even get me started on the fake looking wigs they're wearing in rock biopics.

 

I can see if you have to compress events, created one fictional character multiple todo the actions of multiple ones but distorting timelines or doing s9mething that never happened for dramatic effect, well, that’s not my thing.

 

I started watching this last night but could net get past the first 15 minutes or so. The parody is too heavy handed. At least for the bit I saw.

 

Historical accuracy, which is why I just prefer documentaries over biopics (for the most part).

 

I'll let you know after I see the new Elton John movie......

 

I think that I should prefer an historically accurate biopic if I ever were to see one.

 

I think that any story worth telling is worth telling accurately. Wigs and physical resemblance are minor problems but when actual facts and events are distorted, that's a real problem. I really don't see the point of telling a story about an actual person's life if you're going to bollix it up with a bunch of fiction, especially in the story of people who are still alive or who were in living memory. Now if you're as good a writer as Shakespeare or Robert Bolt, I can see a point, but I've never seen a cinematic biopic that was anywhere near that quality. Most writers wield the fictional narratives like the snack world wields HFCS.

 

That is a good way to sum it up.

I would only add that most people need to understand that and not to quote movies as scripture.

 

Finding accuracy in History is a challenge in itself. History is an assortment of interpretations of alleged 'facts' and events that themselves are generally debated.
Historically accurate? According to who?

 

Ideally I want it to be as accurate as possible but I do except some embellishments are necessary for a good story.

 

Well my preference would be.

Backbeat seems to get somewhat close.

Tough to say.

 

I can’t vote in the poll because all I really want is a good film. Sometimes a good film is historically accurate, and sometimes it is completely off the wall.

 

It's a biopic, not a documentary. Total historic accuracy is not paramount.

 

Honestly, this is not the right place to ask this question, as the average Hoffman Forum member is obsessive. We all vary in what, exactly, we are obsessing about, but obsess we do. For instance, I know a lot about the history of sound gear, and I was quite pleased to see that they had the right microphones, speakers and mixing boards in Rocketman. I don't know as much about instruments, and couldn't say of they got those all right. But a guitar player might be deeply annoyed that the guitar used in a scene had the wrong type of pickups. That would ruin the movie for him.

But the truth is it doesn't fricken matter! Not to 99% of the people who go see the movie!

It's like the time David Letterman had a welder review Flashdance, and he's complaining about he terrible welding "She's just tapping and making sparks! Not drawing a bead at all!"

 

I’ve been thinking about words and phrases like “truth” and “historical accuracy”. There are philosophic discourses on this subject that are very interesting but I would rather bring up another unstable factor that biographies are based on: memories.

We do know from scientists that it is hard to even trust one’s own memories let alone those of others. There are a lot of variables that make memories unreliable. Unless we write everything down immediately memories are kept somewhere in our brain and stored until we reach for them. Each time we are trying to remember something our brain is trying to reconstruct events following traces, having to deal with the suppression of painful events and things we’d rather forget, filling in the blanks etc.

Little by little memories are written anew and unless the memory was a very strong one that has been treasured there is the possibility that things didn’t happen like we thought they did. That does not mean we are liars, we may just not have been attentive enough. Unless someone was with you that moment your testimony of an event is rarely challenged. Think about how often friends who were with you at an event have told you that you are exaggerating when you talk about it or just tell their version which might be quite different. Nowadays I think the danger is even greater with so much information and impulses flooding our brain that mistakes are bound to happen.

Coming back to the subject I’d like the filmmakers of a biopic trying to stay close to the truth, trying to be authentic and like someone wrote before trying to “capture the essence“ of whatever the subject is (whatever that means).
The devil is in the details. A movie often has to recreate an atmosphere, style and everything else that is connected to a specific period of time (e.g. the 50ies).
So “historical accuracy” does not only involve facts and persons but also the look, feel, style, atmosphere and things of an era that aren’t palpable. It is an art being able to create the illusion of going back in time and bringing back to life times long ago. Costumes, objects, sounds, manner of speaking, locations...in short an obsession with details will be necessary to convince us.

I agree with @Chris DeVoe that most people won’t recognize all the details (and mistakes) but I do think that the big picture will suffer from being superficial and not trying hard enough. And that will be noticed somehow.
I’ve just started the TV series “Chernobyl” and while I can’t say how accurate all the details are you just notice that they put a lot of effort in the details. That alone is rewarding because the subject is taken seriously and being able to spark debates on many levels.

(Another thought: when we read a novel we visualize what is described with words and we are experiencing it. But everyone's imagination is different so people are often disappointed when a movie deviates from it. It's hard to please everyone.)

 

People that want strict historical accuracy should just watch a documentary instead.

If you are making a three act feature film then you have to construct a story that works which does involve a little poetic licence.

The very best ones I think are a combination of both.

What I don't like is trash like Braveheart which is just nonsense. If you are making a film about a specific historical person then you need to get the basics right at the very least.

 

I just crave for a solid, entertaining story, so... style over substance, I guess.

Again, it's entertainment, not gospel.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you have said in this thread and I have already said where I come out on the subject.

Given that, the poll is a Hoffman Forum poll, not a general public poll. Just to see where it (we) comes out.

I have to say that while I did expect it to lean the way it does, I wasn't expecting it to be so one sided. Perhaps the way I worded it.

 

It wasn't the way you worded it, it's reality. If you go to these types of films there is a good chance you are a fan of the artist/music (not always), possibly may have read a biography or autobiography, collect their records, etc. Most people would expect a certain level of accuracy. The looser the filmmaker is with the facts the more of a chance a percentage of the viewers will be disappointed.

The sad thing is you can easily have both, accuracy and "style". Laziness or trying to portray something far beyond the artist life (something larger than life) gets in the way of making an all around pleasing experience for the mass audience (which includes diehard fans) in many cases. There is a huge gulf between a documentary and a "fantasy" betrayal, find that sweet spot in the middle and you have a winner imo.

 

Does the marketing label “Based on True Events” or just being obviously based on someone or something that actually happened make a movie more attractive to you?

I was thinking about doing another poll about this. Probably a waste of time. It must be generally a good marketing strategy because it is used all the time. (Quite the opposite for me though.)

 

I went with "Historical Accuracy" but realize sometimes you have to play with the facts for storytelling purposes.

 

I think a lot of people voted that way, and that the wording of the poll poisoned the well. "Style over substance" is pretty negative, and I would have preferred "accurate" vs. "entertaining".

 

I was annoyed in the Elton John movie about how he created his name. He came up with the first name Elton and when pressed for the last name by his producer, he stares at a picture Of the Beatles on the wall and John Lennon’s face glows with an aura and Elton John says: “john!” Well I thought that’s cool I didn’t know that. Turns out that was a total fabrication. In this case I think that was an absolutely dumb thing to fabricate. It was simply misleading Was the director of Beatles fan or something? Why suggest he chose his name
To honor John Lennon when he didn’t? Maybe for the Isaac Newton musical he can watch a clown roll down a hill and think about gravity.

 

Historically accurate as much as possible.

 

I won't vote, but have to say "Rocketman" would have benefited from easing up on the fantasy a bit. Some of it worked, most didn't.

Agree that Style Over Substance is negative from the get-go, and "Accurate" isn't necessarily the opposite of "Entertaining."