Biopics have merit if they create new discussion

Biopics+have+merit+if+they+create+new+discussion

Anna Banerjee, Opinions Columnist

Over the years, biopics have largely remained one of the steadiest film genres, with major 2018  releases such as Vice, Bohemian Rhapsody, and On the Basis of Sex. But whether they remain actually pertinent to any degree of discourse is questionable. Having a Dick Cheney biopic that fails to address any of the most important questions concerning his time in office seems pointless, as do many contemporary biopics that refrain from truly reaching any level of either artistic or social merit.

However, I would not say that the biopic is inherently flawed. Rather, we’re looking at the wrong subjects. The majority of popular biopics that came out last year failed in that they offered nothing new to the discussion on their subjects. But there were some standout biopics that brought interesting and dynamic angles to their subjects.

For example, Julian Schnabel’s more experimental At Eternity’s Gate, which screened briefly at FilmScene in December, brought a unique and interesting view to Vincent Van Gogh’s story by using an interesting subjective camera and narrative. In a more traditional scope, Damien Chazelle’s First Man took on the illustrious story of Neil Armstrong in a deeply emotional and surprisingly grounded manner. The issue is not with the biopic itself but rather how we approach it.

Biopics can serve as powerful insights into the human mind and allow us to better understand some of the most important people in our histories. But, they should not amount to stylized recounts of Wikipedia pages; I should be able to learn something fundamentally true about  me, or the person, or, ideally, both after watching a biopic. Thankfully, with talented directors, writers, and actors, that is entirely possible to create.