With J. Edgar and The Iron Lady likely to play big roles in the upcoming awards season and Oscars, I though a look at the great biographical films might be kind of cool. Let me know which ones you like.

Far too often film biographies play like a “greatest hits” album, focusing only on the best known events in the subject’s life. Other times the character’s life is glossed over, overly sentimentalized so that we barely recognize the subject or life being explored. For me, the hope is that I will emerge from the film knowing more about the subject than when I entered the theater, but far too often that has not been the case. Only in recent years have film biographies (biopics) really come into their own, as there has been more pressure on the storytellers to tell the real story, to get to the meat of the character and try and find out what made them tick. Show them warts and all, because it is the flaws that we human, those flaws connect each of us to the human race. Most film biopics tell the story of a lie or events surrounding a real happening, and for many years they were romanticized by Hollywood to be a pale shadow of what had really happened. As previously mentioned, in recent years, there has been a great deal more honesty on screen when dealing when a biographical subject or true events. Certainly the person(s) being portrayed deserve that respect, and the historical events deserve to be shown as they were rather than as moviemakers imagine them to be.
Years ago, while growing up a film addict I had the chance to catch a showing of Man of a Thousand Faces (1957) as the movie of the week one Sunday afternoon. Looking forward all week to the film, having read Michael Blake’s excellent book Faces, Forms and Films about silent screen star Lon Chaney Sr., I could not wait to see the film and watch James Cagney portray Chaney. The casting was strong, as Cagney was always a much better actor than he was given credit for being. For the most part the film was fairly accurate, though Cagney could never capture Chaney’s mastery of his body, contorting himself into twisted and painful positions for his art. I was OK with the film until the end, which left me howling with anger. The one thing Chaney did not want his son Creighton to do was follow him into the business, but we all know that the son did just that, changing his name to Lon Chaney Jr. in the thirties, and earning considerable acclaim onstage and film as Lenny in Of Mice and Men (1939) and later as The Wolfman (1941). Yet in the film, on his deathbed, the dying Chaney Sr. beckons his son to him and gestures for the boy to hand him his beaten up make-up kit. Scrawling a “Jr.” beside his name with a stick of greasepaint on the kit he hands it back to his boy with a smile and dies, allowing for a happy ending except for us Chaney purists who wanted the truth. Chaney had an interesting and often tragic life, born to deaf-mute parents (which no doubt fuelled his gift for mime), his first wife a demanding harpy who tried to kill herself, a struggling character actor with a gift for make-up which allowed him to be in several films in a day before he became a great star, his story was almost Shakespearean!! That he died of throat cancer just as movies had made the transition to sound was a cruel joke on the man who would have made that transition to sound easier than most of the silent stars. There was little truth in the film, yet truth I found, was an elusive quality in biopics.

The greatest challenge is encompassing a life in a matter of hours, something Richard Attenborough stated at the beginning of his massive epic Gandhi (1982), though I suspect that was more to allow the director to get off the hook for what he actually left out. More on that later, but true enough, to capture an entire life on film is impossible. What one hopes for is that the subject’s essence may be captured, that we gain some insight into what made them who they were, what drove them, their wants and desires, everything that made them who they were. Yes that will be a challenge, but the greater challenge seems to be to humanize the character, making them flesh and blood that we, the audience, can connect with. It is the hope of the actor that we may see a glimpse of the character’s soul.

Allow me to use Gandhi (1982) as a prime example of what NOT to do with a screen biography.

For twenty years Attenborough and many others tried to bring the life of Mahatma Gandhi to the screen including Oscar winner David Lean. At one point the film was set with Alec Guinness to be cast in the title role, but it fell apart, leaving Lean to move onto other projects. Attenborough has stated, often, that he worked for twenty years personally, on getting the film together, and indeed he may have, but along the way was a conscious decision made to eliminate any controversy from the man’s life, to take away anything that was negative, or that made Gandhi less saintly? It would seem so.  Within the film there are times I fully expect Gandhi to walk on water, as he is portrayed as other worldly, Christ like, utterly flawless, when in fact he was well known for his flaws of his character. Why did Attenborough choose to leave out the fact that Gandhi slept between two teenage girls late in his life to test his celibacy? Or to discount the treatment of his wife for much of their relationship, even denying her life saving medication in prison from an infection that would eventually kill her? Even his decision to become celibate (if in fact he was), leaving his wife in a sexless marriage? These are things that make the character interesting, human, because we are all flawed in some way, and how we deal with our flaws is part of what will define us in society. Attenborough made his job easier I am sure, perhaps even made Ben Kingsley’s easier, but cheated his audience with a false portrait of Gandhi. That this man would be flawed and yet still accomplish the great things he did in history, to me, makes him a great man.

Sadly he would do the same exactly ten years later with Chaplin (1992) which could have been, should have been a great film in the hands of another director. Once again Attenborough skirted over anything negative, anything remotely controversial to recreate the life of a man he so obviously considered a genius. Thus the director ran into the same issues that plagued him on Gandhi, that being a hero worship of his subject, which is a bad way to start a film because you then cannot see them in any clear light. With Chaplin (1992), once again Attenborough had an actor more than up to portraying the part, with Robert Downey Jr. superb as Chaplin. Yet the story lacks any real kick, and though we move through Chaplin’s life, the film seems to be a re-written Wikipedia article, lacking the controversy in Chaplin’s life, and there was a great deal of it. His appetite for very young women was legendary, leaving the studios red faced on more than one occasion, and his sexual dalliances were frequent and rumored to be…eccentric. A perfectionist, he was brutal with his actors and technicians while creating a film, terrorizing them into submission rather than allowing anyone artistic freedom to create. It was, his way or not way, which I suppose worked for the finished film, but did not endear him to his fellow artists. While working with Chaplin in 1966 Marlon Brando watched horrified as Chaplin, directing the film, tore into his son for something rather trivial, and seemed to be happening to satisfy Chaplin’s inflated ego. Brando approached the older man demanding an apology for the son and to the technicians who witnessed the event, and Chaplin refused, so Brando went to his trailer and made clear that without said apology he was off the film and back to America the next day.

Chaplin apologized.

None of the negative aspects of his personality are really in the film, or are glossed over and eluded too. We see him driven, we see him obsessed, but we do not see the dark side of his nature, which existed and did not make him many friends. They never tackle them head on. Why was the studio so deathly terrified of Chaplin making The Great Dictator (1940), and why was Chaplin deported? Was he a communist as many believed him to be? Why did Hollywood not come to his aid? Why was he so beloved onscreen, yet so despised off screen? Many in Hollywood at the time felt that Chaplin considered himself the conscience of the film industry, the lone man who really knew what was happening g in the world and explored such things in his films, and enjoyed the immense wealth that came his way for doing so. Born into terrible poverty he was frightened of being returned to that life, and equally afraid of the mental illness that ran in his family. How did all these things impact him in his life? We are never shown; it is never really explored, despite Downey Jr. more than up to the task of portraying this character.

When a biography works, again it does so with the understanding that the entire life is not being explored but merely a portion of it, the essence of the subject. Look at Patton (1970), the Oscar winning bio of the great American general who loved war, lived for it, and quietly feared the end of the war when he would have little to do, or Downfall (2004) the astounding German film about the last days of Hitler in the bunker, each bold in their authenticity and portrayal of the historical character. Honesty and truth permeates each film, and the characters are real, flaws and all.  We see Patton slap a shell shocked young man, and we see Hitler go to pieces in the bunker as the end draws near. The same can be said of Coal Miner’s Daughter (1980) with Sissy Spacek as country singer Loretta Lynn, born into poverty in the deep American south, her family miners and mountain people, light years away from the bright lights of Nashville and the world her music would take her. Spacek was superb in the part, but what made the film exciting was the near documentary feel it had to it, reality. That same year, an even greater reality was on display in Raging Bull (1980) in which Martin Scorsese explored the depths of hell that lived within the persona of Jake LaMotta, the onetime middle weight champion of the world. Tortured, always fighting with himself, shadow boxing as it were (see that great opening title sequence to sum up the film) and pushing away anyone that ever mattered to him throughout his life. Robert de Niro was mesmerizing in the film as Jake, giving himself over to the character, flaws and all, anger and all, and each despicable trait that lived within this man.

This year we have two major biographies coming at us, each likely going to be major players for the Academy Awards. The first is J. Edgar, with Leonardo di Caprio as J. Edgar Hoover, former Head of the FBI and among the most controversial people of the 20th century. Clint Eastwood directs, which alone places this one among potential award winners. It will be exciting to see Di Caprio as Hoover after seeing him not too long ago as a young Howard Hughes. Will this be the one that lands the young actor his Oscar? In December Meryl Streep will portray Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady, which The Weinstein Company looks to be positioning as a major Best Actress contender. And why not? The Academy loves biopics and has often nominated actors and actresses portraying biographical subjects and awarded them the Oscar many times.

Here are the ones I think are best. Yours??

RAGING BULL (1980)…is Scorsese’s dark masterpiece about middle weight champion Jake LaMotta, a brute in and out of the ring who never realized until he had driven everyone out of his life that he was truly fighting himself. De Niro is magnificent in the title role, never better in fact, and brings to the screen the tortured fighter who did not understand when to stop fighting.

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)…How to bring to the screen a film about a hero who was also a known homosexual and sado-masochist? How to do that in the early sixties? David Lean found a way, through gentle moments, a glance, a look, a movement or a statement. The result is one of the greatest films ever made, and a stunning Peter O’Toole performance.

ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN (1976)…Just two years after President Richard Nixon resigned the presidency, Alan J. Pakula directed this superb exploration of how the two Washington Post reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein broke the case. Best film of 1976, though Rocky (1976) won the Oscar.

DOWNFALL (2004)…A startling work because somehow the actor portraying Hitler manages to make him human. Bruno Ganz is stunning as the broken man at the end of the war, trying to remain positive when he knows deep in his heart all is lost and he has only days left. Alarming and powerful.

COAL MINER’S DAUGHTER (1980)…Sissy Spacek won an Oscar for her rich and beautiful performance as country star Loretta Lynn, born into terrible poverty to rise to the top of the country charts. That she did her own singing is miraculous, that she created a living; breathing Loretta Lynn won her that Oscar.

MALCOLM X (1992)…Not the inflammatory film everyone expected, but an honest study of the slain civil rights leader who spoke different words than Martin Luther King. Denzel Washington gives the performance of his life as Malcolm in Spike Lee’s powerful epic film that the Academy rather shamefully snubbed.

BOYS DON’T CRY (1999)…KImberly Pearce directed this low budget indie about a young woman desperate to become a man, to be accepted as the male she knows is within. Hilary Swank is perfect in the film, earning that Oscar.

NIXON (1995)…Oliver Stone’s bio of Richard Nixon is surprisingly kind to the disgraced President capturing his wounded soul. Anthony Hopkins is brilliant as Nixon, finding his intellect, and showing why he became a great elder statesman in his later years, his advice sought by every President that followed him until his death.

THE BUDDY HOLLY STORY (1978)…Gary Busey as Buddy Holly? Don’t laugh he was Oscar nominated for his superb incarnation of the legendary rocker in this picture, doing his own singing and hauntingly bringing the singer back to life.

MONSTER (2003)…Charlize Theron gives a seething performance as Aileen Wournos, who held an area in Florida in a grip of fear for several years as she ruthlessly murdered men along the interstate.
Leaving her beauty behind, Theron disappears under the skin of the character and finds evil incarnate.

MILK (2008)…Earned Sean Penn a second, richly deserved Oscar for his work as gay politician Harvey Milk, the first openly gay official elected to office in the United States, cut down by an assassin in the seventies. Penn is brilliant, smiling, his infectious spirit the heart and soul of the film. A stunning biopic and one of the great screen performances.

A CRY IN THE DARK (1988)…Because Lindy Chamberlain did not behave the way the press felt she should after accused of killing her infant daughter; they thought she must be guilty. She was not. Meryl Streep is outstanding as Lindy, bringing a stoicism to the character, a woman who will not be told how to act, and will grieve in her own manner.

JAMES DEAN (2002)…Is an HBO film with James Franco as the troubled young actor who became a symbol for rebellious youth in the fifties. Many films about Dean have been made, only this one really captures who and what he was. Franco is superb.

ED WOOD (1994)…Johnny Depp brings to life Ed Wood’s love for movie making and Bela Lagosi, but did it happen like this? Some of it did for sure. Depp captures the spirit of wood in every daffy smile and goofy grin, and Martin Landau is simply astounding as Bela Lagosi, one time great actor, hooked on morphine…doing lousy movies for a fix.

THE QUEEN (2006)…Who knows what went on behind closed doors after Princess Diana was killed, but one can be certain there is a lot of truth within this film. Helen Mirren’s peerless performance as Elizabeth, who terribly misjudged her peoples’ love for Diana is stunning, and Michael Sheen is every bit as good as Tony Blair, recently elected Prime Minister trying to save the Royals from themselves.

MY LEFT FOOT (1989)…Daniel Day-Lewis gives himself over to the role of Irish writer and painter Cristy Brown, who had the use of his left foot throughout his life, stricken with cerebral palsy. Day-Lewis is a revelation in the role, winning his first Oscar, with strong support from Brenda Fricker as his mother.

PATTON (1970)…is a magnificent biography with a staggeringly good performance from George C. Scott as the caustic general who took his orders only from Eisenhower, though was rumored to embarrass the commander. Scott captures the swagger and arrogance about the man, but also the odd belief that he had always been a warrior, all through history. Superb.

ZODIAC (2007)…Like All the President’s Men (1976) a huge influence on this film, Zodiac (2007) captures the intensity surrounding a murder case that will take years to break open, with a reporter finally breaking it at the expense of his marriage and connection to anyone in his life. Jake Gyllenhaal has never been better; Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo are equally good.

FROST/ NIXON (2008)…based on a play, the film took its cues from the real tapes of the classic interview of Richard Nixon, post resignation by up and coming David Frost. Still looked at as a lightweight interview, frost goes toe to toe with the formidable former President and actually got Nixon to admit to wrong doing. Frank Langella is superb as Nixon, Michael Sheen his equal in every scene as Frost.

REDS (1981)…Though there are moments that are fictionalized for the film, Warren Beatty did a great job capturing the spirit of who John Reed, Louise Bryant, and their friends were and what they were all about. The passion of chasing revolution was never more clear than watching Reed run into battle, following a war always there to observe history. Superbly acted and directed.

JOHN ADAMS (2006)…Again with HBO, this time the Tom Hooper directed mini-series with Paul Giamatti as the second President of the United States John Adams, one of the founding fathers of this country. With Laura Linney as his loyal wife, the pair sweeps us back in time to a land being built from the ground up and the honor the men hope to do it with.

AMADEUS (1984)…is less a bio than a “what if” sort of film, but captures the genius that was Mozart. we know from the letters he wrote that Mozart was obsessed with sex, bowel movements and vulgar language so Tom Hulce is likely a great deal closer to him than we expected. Where he shines is in the moments of creating his music…as though giving dictation. Could that braying laugh really come out of the man who could create such magnificent music? The differences between genius and mediocrity had never been so clear.

SCHINDLER’S LIST (1993)…is not quite a biopic, but does indeed explore a real event and a man’s life. What made Oskar Schindler tick? We come out of the film thinking we know, believing we know, but did anyone ever know why he did what he did? The mystery is so much a part of the film’s appeal.

Related posts:

10 Comments

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI