BIOGRAPHICAL PICTURES—also known as biopics—have long been present in Hollywood, showing audiences the lives of well-known figures. Many biopics, such as Malcolm X and Lincoln, have received critical acclaim for their portrayal and storytelling. And it seems as if the popularity of biopics has recently skyrocketed as studios are releasing one after the other. Yet, with this increase in popularity, biopics have been gaining numerous backlashes as people question how ethical this type of media is.

The trend of biopics in Hollywood

   Within this year alone, there has been an outflow of new biopics in the film industry, such as Elvis, Blonde, Emily, Father Stu, and the upcoming I Wanna Dance with Somebody. Additionally, there have been series like Pam & Tommy, DAHMER-Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, as well as The Dropout, a series centered on the rise and fall of Elizabeth Holmes, founder of Theranos.

   Some of these biopics already have movies featuring the same iconic and beloved subjects or films that are in development to be released in the near future. For example, a movie centered around Marilyn Monroe called Blonde was released in 2001, based on the same-titled novel by Joyce Carol Oates that the 2022 version of Blonde draws on. Elvis, another biopic that was only released this year, has yet another movie coming out that stars Elvis Presley—this time focusing on his former wife Priscilla Presley. And a movie about Elizabeth Holmes also finds itself in the early stages of development.

   When so many biographical pictures are released in such a short amount of time, one would expect them to run into the problem of appearing repetitive and tedious. However, the box office numbers tell otherwise as these biopics are still able to draw ticket sales and attract streams online. Elvis grossed $286 million worldwide and has been well-received by critics, especially for the actors’ performances and their costume design[1]. Similarly, DAHMER—Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story became Netflix’s second-most-watched English-language show upon its initial release[2]. With the fanbase for the featured characters and their stories already having been established, biopics have pre-guaranteed sales and viewership. As these sales produce a profit, film studios are incentivized to continuously produce them.

The historical accuracy of biopics

   Despite their popularity, biographical pictures cannot escape criticism due to the nature of the genre itself—using the name, image, and stories of historical figures. Some directors of such movies are accused of taking too much artistic liberty as they blur the lines between fact and fiction. One movie that has gained significant controversy for its inaccuracy is the 2022 adaptation of Blonde. While Blonde is described by the director Andrew Dominik as a “work of fiction[3],” it still uses real events that happened in Monroe’s life as well as her name and image. The movie has received mixed reviews, being divided between praise for its acting performance and disapproval over its apparent exploitation of Monroe[4]. Viewers of the movie especially criticized how the largely fictionalized portrayal of Monroe oversexualizes her, putting a stain on her reputation through its creation of fictional relationships, sexual assaults, and abortions that Monroe never had[4]. 

   This calls into question how much creative freedom directors should be granted when concerning real-life people, deceased or not. Excessive distortions could damage the subject’s reputation, especially if the audience is unable to clearly draw a line between what is real and what is not. However, it is necessary to keep in mind that it is unavoidable to have certain aspects of the figure’s life be made-up by the producers of the films, as they need to ensure the entertainment value of the biopics and create an organized, “digestible” story arc out of real-life events, which tend to be messy and, at times, mundane. More obviously, producers may need to fill in blanks on their own because—in many cases—it is simply not possible to know exactly what happened. There is also the factor of running time: movies are unable to be more than a couple of hours long, and many events may have to be removed or changed for the sake of time. This demonstrates the difficulty of using real-life people as characters as it is extremely challenging to retain the characteristic of Hollywood biopics as a mainstream film without sacrificing complete accuracy.

Consent from subjects

   Another ethical issue that has emerged is whether or not these biopics were made with the subject’s permission. Pam & Tommy, a series about the tumultuous marriage of Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee, drew criticism when it was reported that the production was made without Anderson’s consent and that she refused to be involved with the series[5]. Pam & Tommy tries to deliver a “message” of how Anderson was reduced to being a sexual object and denied agency of her own body, yet ironically exploits her in the same way by creating a series about a traumatic moment in her life without her permission. Moreover, biopics that tell the stories of criminals have also faced backlash for not receiving permission from subjects’ victims. For example, some of the families of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims condemned the show DAHMER—Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, saying that it caused them to undergo secondary trauma from reliving the events[5].

   On the other hand, there are films that have received both permission and praise from the subjects themselves. I, Tonya—based on the life of figure skater Tonya Harding—is one such example. The screenwriter interviewed both Harding and her former husband. Jeff Gillooly, during the initial development of the film. The actress portraying Harding, Margot Robbie, also met with Harding while preparing for her role. However, even I, Tonya could not escape criticism as some considered the film to be too sympathetic towards Harding and not enough towards the “real” victim, Nancy Kerrigan[6]. Since Harding assumes the role of the protagonist, her perspective is inevitably given the complete spotlight. Similarly, other biopics are bound to be subjective as they concentrate on one subject and focus on extracting a refined narrative which centers around the main character, largely ignoring, in the process, the motives of the other figures present in the story and failing to draw a complete picture of the actual events.

*                 *                 *

   Biopics are not going to disappear any time soon despite the concerns about their ethicality. From an audience interested in the stories of famous figures, biopics will continue to generate profit whether or not they are reasonably accurate in their portrayals. Thus, it is up to the producers of such films to act responsibly with their creative decisions and approach subjects with necessary integrity, as the realities portrayed on visual media—especially when advertised with the title, “biopic”—are often taken at face value by many audiences.

[1] Deadline

[2] Variety

[3] A.frame

[4] The New York Times

[5] The Guardian

[6] The Hollywood Reporter