Do biopics romanticise the lives of real people?

Over the last few years biopics have dominated the cinema scene, with high budgets and eager audiences, the genre has seen continued box office success. Biopics of musicians have seen a particular rise in popularity, spurred by the success of Bohemian Rhapsody about the eccentric Queen frontman Freddie Mercury, which became the highest-grossing biographical film of all time.

By focusing on a real-life subject, the film has a guaranteed audience and established plotline. Alongside this, a musical biopic has the marketability of a successful soundtrack. However, despite their commercial success biopics have been criticised for being motivated by profit and lacking substance. Quentin Tarantino has stated that biopics were ‘just big excuses for actors to win Oscars’ in response to their increasing prevalence. Even beyond a directorial perspective, the genre is often criticised by the devoted fans who have followed the lives and careers of these celebrities. When condensing the lives of such well-known figures, there is a tendency to underplay or overemphasise certain elements to produce the most engaging storyline.

The allure of stars like Freddie Mercury and John Lennon is not always enough to guarantee a captivating sequence of events, therefore drama often needs to be cultivated for the sake of viewership. Nowhere Boy, a biopic detailing the teenage years of John Lennon, suggests a complicated and uncomfortably intimate relationship between Lennon and his mother Julia. Similarly, Bohemian Rhapsody has been criticised for its flexible chronology and convoluted depictions of Mercury’s relationship with Jim Hutton, Paul Prenter and Mary Austin.

A recent source of controversy is the upcoming film Stardust, which details the life of David Bowie. The film was not approved by Bowie’s estate and does not contain any of his music, which resulted in many fans not supporting the film’s production. Although David Bowie is a celebrity, his life is not guaranteed personal property, which raises questions surrounding the integrity of these films. In comparison, Queen band members Brian May and Roger Taylor served as consultants on Bohemian Rhapsody and for Rocketman Elton John and his husband David Furnish were producers. It could be argued that such direct involvement encourages a level of self-indulgence or bias in the way events are depicted, but it ensures that any significant changes were approved. 

Consultation seems necessary when dealing with recent celebrities, however, when exploring the lives of historical figures, it becomes more complicated. The audience is less likely to recognise historical inconsistencies, meaning the film could perpetuate false ideas or assumptions. With historical biopics, there is a desire to romanticise a forgotten era of history and humanize previously elusive figures. Sofia Coppola’s 2006 film Marie Antoinette combines these factors, by merging modern features with a historical landscape. The lavish colours and set design deviates from historical accuracy. Depictions of historical figures such as Marie Antoinette can be more flexible to a higher extent than modern musicians due to the lack of personal claim over their stories. However, the people in biopics can easily become caricatures, which should be considered when evaluating their role and actions within these films

Ultimately, biopics should not be constrained to follow a specific timeline unless claiming to be historically accurate. Most biopics use a level of creative licencing to meet time constraints, without detriment to the person or the story that is being conveyed. However, when using unsubstantiated or fabricated events, it is the duty of the filmmaker to ensure a divide between the authentic and genuine.

‘Bridgerton’ Review: Why is it so popular and is it worth the hype?

Despite only being released on 25th December 2020, Bridgerton became Netflix’s fifth most-watched original launch, with over 63 million households tuning in to watch the regency drama unfold. Based on the novels by American author Julia Quinn, the series follows the influential Bridgerton family during the eventful social season as they navigate the competitive world of love, status and expectation.

Broadcast amidst tighter lockdown restrictions in the UK, the series benefits from a nationwide desire for escapism. At the centre of the story, is the relationship between favoured debutanté Daphne Bridgerton (Phoebe Dyvenor) and bachelor Simon Bassett (Regé-Jean Page), whose connection is formed on the basis of a relationship ruse. The relationship between the two leads is convincing but also flawed, which adds a level of depth and relatability to the characters which is not always present in period dramas.

 However, it is the strength of the ensemble cast that secures the series’ longevity. The characters are likeable and engaging, with unique story arcs which are already being set up for the second series. Daphne and Simon’s story is largely concluded by the finale, but the audience is left with a desire to see the stories of the secondary characters develop.  The Lady Whistledown subplot, narrated by the revered Julie Andrews, ties the whole Bridgerton universe together and ensures that the drama is not only limited to the two lead characters.

Although largely lighthearted in tone, under the guise of bright costuming and elaborate balls the series also highlights some serious topics. The precarious position of women is explored through the competitive nature of the marriage market and it exposes many women’s lack of autonomy in their destiny. Similarly, although the younger women in Bridgerton are often strong-willed and passionate, they are also extremely vulnerable and largely ignorant of the society which awaits them.

Despite its clear popularity, the series has not been without criticism. There has been some questioning over the historical accuracy and diversity of the series, to which Julia Quinn responded ‘’I’ve been dinged by the accuracy police – but it’s fantasy!’ The beauty of the series is its ability to include and immerse a wide audience. It combines all the elements of successful period dramas; the ball sequences, the country houses and central love arc, without feeling restricted or stagnant. When adapting a Jane Austen novel, you are limited by the notoriety of the characters, the language and the story. An example being the 2020 version of Sanditon, Austen’s unfinished novel, which was met with backlash over its uncharacteristic ending. Therefore, unlike Austen, Quinn’s novels are more flexible, they maintain the regency appeal whilst successfully incorporating modern inspirations from other eras. Bridgerton isn’t afraid to push the boundaries of what is expected of a period drama with its polarising sex scenes quickly revealing to the audience that the series would be multifaceted and unimpeded by convention.

Bridgerton pays homage to the beloved elements of period dramas, whilst still feeling fresh and engaging. Its diverse and charming cast is complemented by the immersive and romantic setting, which appeals to both serial period drama lovers and new fans of the genre. Ultimately, the series temporarily distracts us from the bleak state of the world and reiterates the utter joy and importance of the arts in providing entertainment even in the darkest of times.