billyblues
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 203
- Points
- 18
Some good opinions here.
About a biopic I'll just say this and hopefully someone will agree: I never understood why so many fans enjoy and praise biopics about their favorite artists. How many biopics actually offered a truthful insight of the artists' lives and careers? Not much - would I be correct here? I think so. There's the fact that for one to make a movie, it needs to be adapted for the taste of the masses... Even with the known scandals, controversies and so on there'll always be the need for more. So not only they'll surely point out the known bad aspects of the artist's life and career (possibly in exaggerated ways), but they'll also portray what was good or just 'normal' in darker light. Because the audience "needs" it (and they do - people love to know about others' problems or just plain tabloids).
Then we have other things that always get hurt by the fiction and need for more controversy: dates, facts, names, etc. For example: the Johnny Cash movie portrayed a 1955 or so Elvis offering him pills... But how could this be when it's a known fact for scholars and those with interest enough to learn that Elvis actually started this sad, sad habit while in the army? That wouldn't be until 3 or so years after the events in the movie. By '55 he was still a small artist on the rise and there's no known record of any kind of drug use from him back on those days. The Doors' movie also had many flaws and fiction for the sake of Hollywood (like the famous closet on fire scene).
These are just examples, but surely you all already noticed other facts, dates and so on getting bent just for the sake of the fiction on different movies/biopics/documentaries. The point of view, intention and interpretation of the artist, as you already mentioned, is also distorted in many degrees...
And finally, the actor(s). I left this for last because it's simple: when you have someone as huge and recognisable as MJ or any other artist like him, it's really, really hard to make fans and those who appreciate their lives and careers relate to the picture. In the end, you're left with a mess, a huge pile of distorted reality, fiction for the sake of controversy and someone who has the difficult task of portraying an influent artist merely based on public image and random facts - that has huge impact on the finished product, of course, as the actor will never exactly know what such artist had in mind and heart and his mental state on the time of a certain happening, which may lead to a massive wreck of interpretation. Plus the "recognisable" thing.
About a biopic I'll just say this and hopefully someone will agree: I never understood why so many fans enjoy and praise biopics about their favorite artists. How many biopics actually offered a truthful insight of the artists' lives and careers? Not much - would I be correct here? I think so. There's the fact that for one to make a movie, it needs to be adapted for the taste of the masses... Even with the known scandals, controversies and so on there'll always be the need for more. So not only they'll surely point out the known bad aspects of the artist's life and career (possibly in exaggerated ways), but they'll also portray what was good or just 'normal' in darker light. Because the audience "needs" it (and they do - people love to know about others' problems or just plain tabloids).
Then we have other things that always get hurt by the fiction and need for more controversy: dates, facts, names, etc. For example: the Johnny Cash movie portrayed a 1955 or so Elvis offering him pills... But how could this be when it's a known fact for scholars and those with interest enough to learn that Elvis actually started this sad, sad habit while in the army? That wouldn't be until 3 or so years after the events in the movie. By '55 he was still a small artist on the rise and there's no known record of any kind of drug use from him back on those days. The Doors' movie also had many flaws and fiction for the sake of Hollywood (like the famous closet on fire scene).
These are just examples, but surely you all already noticed other facts, dates and so on getting bent just for the sake of the fiction on different movies/biopics/documentaries. The point of view, intention and interpretation of the artist, as you already mentioned, is also distorted in many degrees...
And finally, the actor(s). I left this for last because it's simple: when you have someone as huge and recognisable as MJ or any other artist like him, it's really, really hard to make fans and those who appreciate their lives and careers relate to the picture. In the end, you're left with a mess, a huge pile of distorted reality, fiction for the sake of controversy and someone who has the difficult task of portraying an influent artist merely based on public image and random facts - that has huge impact on the finished product, of course, as the actor will never exactly know what such artist had in mind and heart and his mental state on the time of a certain happening, which may lead to a massive wreck of interpretation. Plus the "recognisable" thing.
Last edited:
