In 1996, 7.7% of American movies released were based on real-life events. Twenty years later, that percentage rose to 27.2%: an increase of almost three times. These statistics make it clear that there is an upwards trend of the number of biographical films produced – but behind the glitz and glamour of the silver screen lurks an ethical dilemma. Biographical films, or “biopics,” can be defined as a depiction of “the life of a historical person, past or present” (Custen, 1992 as cited in Letort & Tuhkunen, 2016). When viewers’ understanding of something they have not experienced personally are greatly reliant on media (Happer & Philo, 2013), there exists a very real danger in the merging of these constructed representations of the world with real events or people (Sakota-Kokot, 2011, as cited in Sheldon, 2021). Although it can be argued that biopics are important historical resources, there are more reasons why they should not be produced as they cause more harm than good to society.
As entangled presentations of fact and fiction, biopics produce biased and therefore unreliable narratives. The main appeal of the biopic lies in its transformation of someone who has done something relatively interesting into a marketable character (Bingham, 2010, as cited in Piper, 2022). It is in their very nature for biopics to be a strategy deployed for the outcomes of audience enjoyment, information distribution, or historical commentary (Piper, 2022). By creating media that is based partially in truth about a real person or event to appeal to mass audiences, biopics create a deceptive façade of the truth. Moreover, biopics are made at the whim of the prejudices and personal viewpoints of film producers (Hollywood.com, 2014), who are simply reinterpreting and reproducing information from media sources in their work (Spirou, 2011). This complication is exacerbated when biopics are made about people who are still alive, especially when the titular persons are involved in the making of the film. Take, for example, Rocketman (2019), a biopic on singer-songwriter Elton John: because of John’s heavy involvement in the filmmaking process, he can arguably be seen as an unreliable narrator (Newstead, 2021). The problem arises when viewers simply accept this to be the reality of the situation portrayed, without critically questioning the motives of the producers – namely Elton John himself. Due to their nature of being comprised of both fact and fiction, biopics sway viewers to believe certain biased narratives that can sometimes be heavily unreliable.
Furthermore, biopics alter the public’s perceptions of historical cultural moments through films that, as we have discussed, are not entirely accurate. According to Løfaldli (2018), cultural memories are ideas and concepts that are shared by societies, whereas ‘prosthetic memories’ are memories that emerge as people interact with the past by reading its stories or watching media about it (Landsberg, 2004, as cited in Løfaldli, 2018). Through their very existence, biopics alter these ‘prosthetic memories’ on a mass scale, causing a shift in cultural memory. This is detrimental because, as people continue to interact with the ‘prosthetic memories’ created by biopics, true accounts of people or events will eventually be lost to history. Custen (1992, as cited in Løfaldli, 2018) also brings forth a significant issue with biopics in that viewers’ expectations and filmic conventions can lead to the assumption that what is being presented are “the true versions of a life.” Viewers may presume in good faith that the media they are consuming is steeped in truth, when it is actually the biased view of the film’s producer. As biopics can sometimes be an audience’s only introduction to a particular person or event, this narrowing of opportunities for exposure to actual historical facts means it is important that a particular interpretation of history is true to its source (Sheldon, 2021). Suppose the biopic is highly factual and stays true to its historical roots – there would then be no issue. However, author and historian Robert A. Rosenstone’s (1995) strong opinion on historical films is that they distort the past by fictionalising, trivialising, and romanticising important people, events, and movements. Being out of the control of historians (Rosenstone, 1995), these films sacrifice information for entertainment, and accuracy for sensation (Turner, 2013, as cited in Wing-Chi Ki, 2018). At the end of the day, a biopic is a framed narrative that holds the power to shape and influence collective cultural memory through its depiction of real-life people and events.
Biopics also unfortunately have the potential to cause serious harm to society, as seen in the case of the true crime series Dahmer. Released on streaming giant Netflixin September 2022, Dahmer quickly climbed the charts despite its mixed reception. Recently, Dahmer became the 2nd most-watched English language series as well as the 4th highest amongst all languages (Tassi, 2022). The series follows the life of serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who committed horrible, gruesome, and inhumane acts towards his victims between 1978 to 1991. An issue with biopics – especially those from the perspective of a notorious murderer – is that they align audiences with the character, which could potentially cause them to sympathize with the killer (Evershed, 2019). Though it can be argued that serial killers are also human beings, it must be emphasised that biographical films should not be made featuring such individuals, as it only serves to promote sympathy and understanding towards the perpetrators instead of their victims. Just like with celebrities, serial killers end up being commodified as popular narratives demonise mental illness and create consumable characters out of them. As Milde (2021) states, such fictional representations become pop-cultural antiheroes, resulting in a sort of ‘serial killer celebrity culture.’ Furthermore, when biopics feature the stories of serial killers, in this case, Jeffrey Dahmer, it encourages sympathisers for negative figures in history and allows for the monetisation of crime. Rita Isbell, whose brother was murdered by Dahmer, says she was never contacted by Netflix about the show, and that the streaming service “just wanted money” (Vlamis, 2022). While it may be easy to dismiss her statement as the platitudes of a grieving sister, it still rings true that biopics depicting serial killers are often tactless and made with little regard for the victims’ or survivors’ families. With the turbulent example of Dahmer, it is clear that biopics, especially of the true crime genre, commodify and romanticize real life tragedies.
Despite the many pitfalls and downsides of biopics, there are some who support the making of such films. A common argument is that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it (Santayana, 1905, as cited in Rieff, 2016). While this may have some truth to it, the media’s attempted retelling of history is unhelpful when it is not done in an accurate and unbiased manner. The reality is that collective history does not always reflect the past, as governments and political parties make many – often successful – attempts to manipulate and fabricate collective memory (Rieff, 2016). For example, when the film Braveheart (1995) was released as a loose biopic based on Scottish rebel William Wallace, it was mobilised by the Scottish National Party to push their voting drive agenda. There are also some who believe that biopics are an exercise in empathy. According to this argument, through biopics, audiences can view life from the eyes of history’s greatest; to see the difficulties they experienced, and to share their emotions (Franco, 2023). However, this is a precarious stance as viewers may watch a biopic and resonate deeply with a negative figure, creating unhealthy empathy. Depending on the producer of the film, certain individuals may be portrayed in a dramatically positive or negative light that is not entirely accurate to reality. When producing biopics, creative license is often taken to manufacture certain narratives that don’t necessarily represent the historical truth – with the vast majority of audiences completely oblivious to this fact (Pope, 2021). For example, the biopic Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in which historical facts were disregarded to highlight unceasingly negative traits about late rockstar Freddie Mercury of the band Queen. Contrasting with the biopic’s harsh portrayal of Mercury, two of the surviving band members, Brian May and Roger Taylor – who were involved in the making of the film – were painted in a positive light. A further defense of biopics argues that they promote an image of a society that highlights the achievements of exemplary individuals. The issue with this overly optimistic view is that since the early 20th century, more than 80% of biopic subjects have been white, and 77% have been men (Fingerhut, 2015). Can we truly say that society is honouring individuals if the outstanding but marginalised are not equally as appreciated? Though there are a few reasons why biopics can be seen as positive resources, it is undeniable to note that they are methods of manipulating the collective memory of individuals or entire ethnic/gender groups.
To conclude, it is clear that biopics should not be produced as they cause more harm than good to society. The blend of fact and fiction results in a biased and unreliable narrative as the truth is twisted to appear more appealing to audiences. Not only that, but biopics are narratives that distort our perceptions of history – to some, a biopic may be their first or only exposure to the figure portrayed, thus further increasing the chances of their perspective on history being tarnished. Finally, biopics, especially of the true crime genre, romanticise real life tragedies and re-traumatise victims and their families. Although some may agree with the making of biopics, believing that they emphasise the good in society, it cannot be denied that biopics are often sold to audiences as accessible versions of history (Spirou, 2011) and are therefore highly inaccurate and unethical. With their biased narratives and inaccuracies, biopics are often misappropriated to manipulate society’s collective memory of historical events or individuals, and therefore should not be made.
References
Evershed, M. (2019). Sympathy for the devil: why so many TV series want us to empathise with killers. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/culture/42157/sympathy-for-the-devil-why-so-many-tv-series-want-us-to-empathise-with-killers
Fingerhut, H. (2015). ‘Straight Outta Compton’ is the rare biopic not about white dudes. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/straight-outta-compton-is-the-rare-biopic-not-about-white-dudes/
Follows, S. (2016). How many movies are based on real life events? https://stephenfollows.com/many-movies-based-real-life-events/
Franco, A. (2023). From ordinary to extraordinary lives, biopics continue to captivate film fans. https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/23927-ordinary-extraordinary-lives-biopics-continue-captivate-film-fans
Happer, C. & Philo, G. (2013). The role of the media in the construction of public belief and social change. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 2013, 1(1), 321–336, https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v1i1.96
Hollywood.com. (2014). Biopics are the new books: The pros and cons of learning history from movies. https://www.hollywood.com/movies/biopics-are-the-new-books-the-pros-and-cons-of-learning-history-from-movies-59096205
Letort, D. & Tuhkunen, T. (2016). ’Based upon a Life’: The biopic genre in question. Revue LISA / LISA e-journal, 34(2)
Løfaldli, E. (2018). From Biographical Text to Biopic: Adapting the Cultural Memory of the Eighteenth Century. Sjuttonhundratal,15. https://doi.org/10.7557/4.4481
Milde, E. (2021). The changing portrayals of serial killers in popular culture. [Master’s Thesis in Media Studies]. https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/92231/The-Changing-Portrayals-of-Serial-Killers-in-Popular-Culture.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Newstead, O. (2021). The problem with biographical films. https://impactnottingham.com/2021/12/the-problem-with-biographical-films/
Piper, M. (2022). The biopic and beyond: Celebrities as characters in screen media. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
Pope, J. (2021). Fact or fiction: How to take artistic liberties in biopics. [Thesis for the Master of Fine Arts In Cinema-Television]. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2618940483?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
Rieff, D. (2016). The cult of memory: when history does more harm than good. The Guardian.
Rosenstone, R. A. (2018). The Historical Film As Real History. sinecine: Sinema Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(1), 159-181.
Schmidt, C. (2020). Society’s view of mental illness as a result of fictionalized portrayals of serial killer narratives. [Thesis for the NEIU Honors Program for Graduation with Honors]. https://neiudc.neiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=uhp-projects
Sheldon, Z. (2021). Public memory and popular culture: Biopics, #MeToo, and David Foster Wallace. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 29(2), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2020.1712603
Spirou, P. (2011). The musical biopic: Representing the lives of music artists in 21st century cinema. [Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy]. https://www.academia.edu/1547608/The_Musical_Biopic_Representing_the_Lives_of_Music_Artists_in_21st_Century_Cinema
Tassi, P. (2022). ‘Dahmer’ Is Netflix’s second highest viewed English language show ever. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/10/12/dahmer-is-netflixs-second-highest-viewed-english-language-show-ever/?sh=73b6350940e0
Vlamis, K. (2022). My brother was murdered by Jeffrey Dahmer. Here’s what it was like watching the Netflix show that recreated the emotional statement I gave in court. https://www.insider.com/rita-isbell-sister-jeffrey-dahmer-victim-talks-about-netflix-show-2022-9
Wing-Chi Ki, M. (2018). The biopic bias and Becoming Jane. At the Interface / Probing the Boundaries, 99, 203–222.