I usually hate Biopics. I think they're boring and unconvincing. I listen to every word of dialogue thinking, 'how do they know that's what he actually said?' Ahh, when it comes to biopics, I'm that guy. That guy who watches Bad Boys and thinks the car chases and explosions are unrealistic. That guy who thinks science fiction films are rubbish because they don't reflect real life (well, they do, but we're not dealing with someone sane here). I'm that guy who sits there and scoffs, uttering those dreaded words that make all film lovers cringe: as if that would happen in real life.
I usually want to kick that person in the eye. So why do I treat biopics in such a shabby fashion? I think it's because format shifting is a tricky business, unless you're a computer geek (hello, friends!) or a music pirate (hello friends!). Source material that hasn't been made especially for a film is tough to produce in a satisfying way. It can be achieved, but by people who know what they're doing. Or people who have absolutely no idea at all what they're doing.
Now, if you read my debut post, which is a review of a well-made biopic, you'll remember what I said about biopics: balancing act. Because really, it all comes down to one thing: Narrative. Simply put, narrative is how you tell the story. It's how you let the story unfold. It's how you turn the plot into a fully realised cinematic experience. Which basically means that everything comes down to narrative. Well, that's my theory, and trust me, it's not very original. David Bordwell, Kristin Thompson and Janet Staiger wrote the book on Classical Hollywood Cinema (literally. It's called Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960), and I think that not only can you extend their analysis of classical Hollywood cinema to mainstream cinema, i.e. contemporary Hollywood cinema, I think you can still apply it to cinema in general. This theory remains largely untested, I'm fully prepared to find that I'm mayor of Wrongtown on this, but the fact is: Much like classical Hollywood cinema, every element of film is subordinate to narrative, which is what Bordwell found when he watched a veritable shiteload of classical Hollywood films. And I reckon that's still true. How you tell the story is the key. It seems completely effing obvious, but those are usually the things that are left unexplored.
So film narrative, obviously, is different to say, narrative in literature. And it certainly isn't the same as real life. Film narrative borrows from the three-act structure and turns it up to 11: exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, denoument. Now, this is universal dramatic structure, but film has to do it visually and aurally, and it only has a certain amount of time do it all in. Which brings me back to the biopic.
How do you take a real person and turn them into a constructed story that conforms to the dramatic structure of narrative film? Inevitably, you're going to start with them on the brink of notoriety if they're famous, maybe end on their downfall, basically focus on their life from start to finish. Which is why I think I can't connect with them. You have to turn their life into an exciting adventure, in a nutshell (hmmm, there's an idea, make a film about a celebrity inside a nutshell...), and what if their life just doesn't fit that mould? On the other hand, if it doesn't, why are they making a film about them in the first place?
There's a tendency in many biopics to be completely faithful to the subject, mostly for the sake of the family. However, there's a difference between accurately portraying an historical figure and playing it safe in the narrative. There are so many things you can do with film, so my theory is why not use all your available resources? You can still make an exciting film that stays true to the essence of a historical figure. By narrowing your focus, you can create an exciting film that's still historically accurate. And why does it have to be a period piece? If an historical figure reminds you of something modern and new, why not incorporate it? No matter how hard a film maker tries, their film will only ever be an interpretation of someone's life, so why make something dull? No matter how accurate it is, the people who know the subject best will not be entirely happy with the finished product. For Natalie Curtis, Control is distracting, because it's not quite like the stories she was told, and she thought her mother should have been a more dominant presence in the film, a not-invalid point, because after all, Deborah Curtis' book is the source material for the film. Roseanne Cash said she didn't want to watch Walk The Line because she didn't want to see the Hollywood version of her father's drug addiction. If I saw a film about one of my family members, I don't think I'd be entirely happy with the finished product, either. I think a film maker has to be respectful, but also have the courage to tell the story they want to tell. Which is why I haven't watched a lot of biopics, and the ones I have are mostly boring. Except for three. And those are Walk the Line (James Mangold, 2005), Marie Antoinette (Sofia Coppola, 2006), and Control (Anton Corbijn, 2007).
Walk the Line is probably the most conventional of the three, but that's not a bad thing. I think it's the narrowed focus and opening that makes this biopic really great. For those who have no idea, it's the story of Johnny Cash, and in particular, his drug battle and relationship with June Carter Cash (I'll give you a hint: they get together at the end). It opens with Cash in a prison, about to perform for the inmates. Some machinery reminds him of his childhood and takes him back to an event that will haunt his adult life. I don't want to spoil it, because I think everyone should watch it, but it's a film that takes Johnny Cash's well-documented drug abuse, long, illustrious career and high profile relationship with June Carter Cash and turns it into a beautiful story about the power of love.
tip: watch the video for Johnny Cash's cover of Hurt. It's the last video he made, and it's heartbreaking. It's like watching a sunset.
Now, I don't know if every single French person hates Sofia Coppola's treatment of their teenage queen, but the response to the film when it was shown at Cannes was a sign that maybe the French don't have a sense of humour when it comes to historical figures they murdered during the Revolution. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but I count Marie Antoinette as my favourite Sofia Coppola film, and one of my favourite films of all time. Sure, it's partly my girl crush on Kirsten Dunst, and well, Sofia Coppola, but it's mostly the bold treatment of the subject. Coppola based the film on the book Marie Antoinette: The Journey by Antonia Frazer, but I think it was very losely based. In an interview with Coppola, she said that the French court during Marie Antoinette's reign reminded her of the New Romantics, a music movement in the 1980s (post-punk, slightly post-joy division). Coppola incorporated this idea into the film by using a soundtrack made up of new romantic music, including Adam and the Ants, New Order, Bow Wow Wow, The Cure, and Siouxsie and the Banshees, as well as contemporary artists such as the Strokes and Aphex Twin, which I thought was brilliant. Add to that awesome soundtrack a trailer set to New Order's Age of Consent, a shot of powder-blue chuck taylors amongst 18th Century heels, and the Blondie-esque movie poster and you've got a fairly vivid imagining of 1770s France. But don't confuse rock and roll treatment for historical inaccuracy. The stunning attention to detail makes the film absolutely delightful to look at. The colourful food, the cakes and pastries and ornate clothes, ah! It makes you wish you were there. Coppola's wish to make something about Marie Antoinette that felt like it was from Marie Antoinette's perspective, and that association with the music Coppola probably listened to as a teenager has lead her to create, for me anyway, not so much a biopic so much as a 1980s teen film with Marie Antoinette as the protagonist. It is this treatment of the material that makes me admire the film so much: Coppola didn't feel the need to make a conventional biopic, which is why I love it.
tip: Listen to all the records from the 80s that your older sister threw away (or, for you younglings, your parents).
Anton Corbijn loves his black and white. Ain't nothing wrong with that, because i love black and white too. I've produced two music videos, and we used the same technique as Corbijn for both of them: shot in colour and printed to black and white. Why? Because black and white just makes those little flares of light so much more interesting. And don't shoot in black and white when you can use a filter in Final Cut, just in case it looks a bit rubbish (how could it? But I'm sure it's possible). As someone whose photos were largely responsible for Joy Division's legendary status (one of the few times NME were right), who better to chronicle the life of lead singer Ian Curtis than someone who not only helped create his image but loved his music? Control is a studied, personal, visually stunning insight into five years in the life of Ian Curtis and Joy Division. Joy Division and Tony Wilson's involvement in their career had already been touched on in Michael Winterbottom's 24 Hour Party People, but Corbijn chose to include it in his film, at times more as a comic subplot than as a central plot point. His source material is intimate: Touching From a Distance: Ian Curtis and Joy Division by Deborah Curtis, Ian Curtis' wife, and I guess the film is much more sympathetic to Curtis than even its source material, and yet it feels like Curtis' personality has been accurately portrayed, even if there is a certain amount of dramatic license (there has to be, it's a narrative film, not a documentary or a rock profile). It's Corbijn's dominant photographic style and execution of live performances (much like Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon in Walk The Line, the actors performed the songs themselves) that set this film apart.
tip: become as obssessed with Joy Division as I am. Then I'll have someone to talk to about them. Oh, and watch 24 Hour Party People. Then lend it to me.
I guess the tip I have for anyone making a biopic that I'll actually want to watch is not to try to throw away film narrative for the sake of accuracy. Because film can bring your subject to life in such a wonderful way. Use your subject as the inspiration for the kind of vision you have for the film. Make the film you want to make, and don't lose your style in the process.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment