Most of them seem to have one thing in common: they sacrifice a decent storyline for the sake of cramming in as much of the significant events of the person's life into the film as possible.
The writers of these films seem to forget what actually makes a film compelling in lieu of what they think the audience wants to see, inevitably failing to sustain anything beyond a parody of real life.
Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll (2010) was damp, despite Matt Whitecross's interesting choice to frame the narrative within some sort of ghostly dream diary concert. Andy Serkis did a decent impression of Ian Dury, but the story just jumped from event to event in Dury's life with little regard for original or realistic character development.
"Ian Dury does heroin." Oh, he must be an addict now. I felt no sympathy for the character. If you're going to depict an arsehole you have to find a way to give him enough warmth- fictional or not- for the audience to side at least a little bit with the guy.
W. (2008) was one of the few films I've turned off before the end. Stanley Weiser clearly compiled a list of the main things that happened to George Bush then typed out the screenplay in sequential order. There is no tension or character development whatsoever. People change suddenly from scene to scene to suit the storyline, which itself repeatedly takes huge jumps forward through time. Bush, ironically, was a cartoon character.
Control (2008) was probably the first decent biopic I've seen (unless you count Goodfellas as a biopic of Henry Hill, of course). Though highly depressing, it had character development and story that- while covering the main events pre-Joy Division and during the band's career- felt like it could have been an original screenplay borne from the desire to evoke the gloom and melancholy of late 70s Manchester and the endurance of an epileptic condition.
In its favour, the depictions of Ian Curtis and the rest of the band were frighteningly true-to-life, particularly (and most importantly) in the recreation of their music and stage performances. It wasn't an incredible film, but certainly a good one.
Of course, the events were on Control's side. Ian Curtis' story was short, so the film had to be. There were not decades of plot points to cram in, but only three years. And this is where I make a suggestion for biopic writers with a subject grander than two hours allow: choose a short period within the life or career of this person/band/whatever- preferably the most interesting part- and dramatise it cinematically.
Alternatively, do something conceptual like cast six different actors of alternating gender to represent different stages in the artist's life, a la Todd Haynes' I'm Not There (2007).
Fuck it- do whatever the hell you like.
Just don't forget that cinema is about storytelling- NOT cashing in on somebody's fame by making people pay good money for a glorified video timeline.
No comments:
Post a Comment