“Based on a True Story”: The Problem with Biopics

A biopic, short for “biographical motion picture,” is a movie that dramatizes the life of a real, non-fictional individual. They can cover a person’s entire life, or a specific moment in their life. The subjects of biopics are nearly endless, from famous historical figures to popular celebrities. There have been more biopic films in recent decades, but they’re nothing new. Biopics have been a cinema staple from its earliest days. Generally, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with biopics. There have been some really great and award-winning biopics. Some of them are truly great works of art. Biographical movies and shows can show us stories of some of our favorite celebrities and some lesser-known tales, from the Academy Award winning Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) to Remember the Titans (2000). These films allow us to infiltrate the private lives of some of the most interesting and influential people from various different time periods. However, there are also many problems that can arise when creating media based on real people and their lives. The problem with biopics is that they will always be biased; it is impossible to create a film based on a person’s life without some form of unreliability. Whatever is changed or omitted from the story is just as relevant to the message the storytellers are trying to tell as what is included. It is the story that these writers, directors, and producers chose to tell.

The other issue is that not everyone should have a biographical movie or show about them. I have noticed an unfortunate trend in biopics these past few years; there has been a rise in biopics about serial killers. While people’s fascination with true crime is nothing new, the amount of serial killer biopics out there is too much. You’ve got the Netflix show Dhamer (2022), which by the way isn’t even the first biographical media about him. Then you’ve got movies about Ted Bundy: Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019) and Ted Bundy: American Boogeyman (2021). These are only a few of the most recent ones, the list goes on and on, unfortunately. So, at what point does morbid curiosity become exploitative? I can’t even imagine how difficult and traumatizing it must be for the survivors, their family and friends, and the family and friends of victims who were killed. It is also unfortunately pretty rare that the people involved in these kinds of shows and movies will reach out to victims’ families. This is common for these types of docuseries, as the information is all in the public domain, so there’s no need to ask permission. So, the creators can take whatever creative liberties they want, dramatizing these horrific events. But honestly, how many times do we need to see the same stories? How many times do we need to see serial killers violently murder people? More importantly, how many times do survivors and family members need to be retraumatized? These stories are impossible to tell ethically while dramatizing it all. Even if these adaptations were ethically airtight and approved by the families of victims, nothing would have stopped online posters from finding new ways to use the story to draw attention to their own content. There are far too many people across social media who might empathize with or glamorize killers, all because an attractive actor was chosen for the role. At the end of the day, regardless of what the creators of these shows and movies set out to do, they are responsible for the disturbing way these biopics have been received on social media. And they are responsible for retraumatizing any survivors and the families of victims.

Another problem that can arise with creating biopics is that sometimes people don’t want their story told, or they don’t like the way they were depicted. Or there are things in the movie or show that are inaccurate and can blur the line between fact and fiction. What happens when filmmakers reach out for consent, but are denied? Studios will weigh the risk of potentially being sued later for defamation if the subject objects to the way that they were portrayed. Oftentimes, however, these cases get thrown out because it can be difficult to prove defamation, especially if the story is already well-known. The other option that studios have is to buy the life rights to a story. “Movies like The Hurt Locker (2008) or Hustlers (2019) led to defamation lawsuits from people who claimed they were portrayed in a negative light. Both of those cases were dropped because the stories were already known, the films didn’t use real names or likenesses in their adaptations and, especially for public figures, defamation is difficult to prove.” ^[1] Then there was the show Pam & Tommy (2022), which was based on the lives of Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee, specifically focusing on when they had their sex tape stolen and leaked to the public. The creator, Robert Siegel, made the series without either Anderson or Lee’s consent, and Anderson has spoken out about the trauma she endured. Anderson never gave her permission to tell her story, telling Variety, “I was kind of struggling with the idea of bringing this all up again… I just know that I refuse to watch it.” The release of that tape over two decades ago forever scarred her life as she faced all manner of slut-shaming, misogyny, and invasions of privacy. The showrunners were able to go on without Anderson’s permission or cooperation because they obtained the rights to the 2014 Rolling Stone article written by Amanda Chicago Lewis about the story behind the theft of the tape.

These productions raise serious concerns over the lack of agency that one can have over how their story is told. What are the ethical boundaries of memorializing someone’s darkest moment for the world to see? Even when productions have the best intentions, it is ultimately overshadowed by the fact that the person who is the subject of their production didn’t want this story told. While showrunners may claim to be defending the subjects of their movies or shows, their productions still do harm simply by revisiting all of their past traumas, that they didn’t want shared in the first place, and bringing it to the forefront of headlines and social media. In the case of Pam & Tommy, it’s a bit ironic considering how the show makes it so clear just how traumatic and violating the leak of their tape was. But without Anderson’s consent, the show just seems to be doing the exact same thing, continuing that cycle of trauma and violation.

There is no shortage of biopic movies and shows out there, and there likely never will be. There are plenty biopics that proclaim to be created to celebrate the lives of people or educate audiences on their infamous acts, however they fail to do so, and the resulting media ends up further glorifying those who shouldn’t be glorified and stripping away important parts or events of the story. However, when biopics are done right, they can be beautiful and emotional works of art. There are many biopics written by brilliant filmmakers and showrunners who truly had a love for the subject matter or passion for the story they had witnessed and wanted to retell. Movies like Tick, Tick…Boom! (2021), Hidden Figures (2016), Malcolm X (1992), Selma (2014), and The Imitation Game (2014) are a few of the biopics that I personally enjoyed and thought were well-made. These movies offer praise where it is deserved and expose where it is needed. At the end of the day, a good biopic should explore each famous figure’s life in a way that adds to their life and our viewing experience.

References: