Random thoughts on biopics

I’m watching episodes of an old TV anthology series from 1988. Called Michael Willessee’s Australians, it was a series of 13 one-hour eps about famous old Aussies like Les Darcy, Betty Cuthbert, etc

None of the eps are really good, though the production values are amazing (hello, 10BA).

They keep making the same mistakes. I thought I’d summarise them just to get straight in my own head because even if you haven’t seen the episodes, and I’m guessing you haven’t, it plays into the issues of how to do biopics.

a) Bald expeditionary dialogue.

The curse of all biopics. “I say Errol Flynn, I haven’t seen you since you got expelled.” It is damn hard to avoid, clearly. “Bohemian Rhapsody” was fully it.

Random thought... is it just easier to use damn title cards?

Mind you, I’m with William Goldman’s dictum that dialogue isn’t as important as sometimes people think it is - eg dialogue in James Cameron’s “Titanic” is awful.

But bad dialogue does leap off the page/screen.

b) Trying to do too much

Another risk. “Oh we have to put that in”. I get it, I do. The greatest hits approach. But it can be overdone.

c) Not dramatising an interesting period in someone’s life

Weirdly common. Not just in this series. I enjoyed Aaron Sorkin’s “Jobs” but not sure his device of storytelling (i.e. three product launches) worked for film. It was a more theatrical device where references to events off stage is more effective. The most interesting stuff in that story happened in flashback IMHO - his parentage, being fired, etc. (except for the ending scene with the daughter which was nice).

It happened in the Mike Willessee series too. (You’ll have to take my word for it.)

For instance they did one on Lotte Lyell, Aussie film star who hooked up with director Raymond Longford, made some classics with him (which she helped write and direct at a time when that was not common), they couldn’t get married because he was Catholic, she died young of TB.

In the OZ TV version she and Longford make their classic, The Sentimental Bloke. And... that’s it. Oh she wants to get married but can’t. Finds out she’s terminally ill. But we don’t see her die. Don't see her in conflict. Just see her make the film, which was a classic, but making it wasn't that hard. They got the money and... did it. The end.

They skip over her final years, when she and Longford were in lawsuits with Americans, when she was dying, or her early years when she fell in love with him and became a film star... the interesting stuff.

For Betty Cuthbert story they have her race... win races... be shy about public speaking... learn how to speak in public... win more races. But later on she got MS, learned to live with that and walk again... isn’t that more interesting?

I get sometimes there may be legal reasons not to show the most dramatic times in someone’s life.

But often the most famous event in someone’s life is not always the most dramatic.

d) Not focusing on a key relationship

This for me is number one. So I’ve put it last!

Any decent biopic needs a key central relationship whose facet they can explore. This is the crux of the drama. Because you can usually get three acts out of it.

In “Shine” it was Geoffrey Rush and his dad, then his new love interest.

In “Bohemian Rhapsody” it was Freddie Mercury and his girlfriend, boyfriend and dad (hugging his AIDS-infect son at the end... sniff. Box office gold)

In “Never Tear Us Apart” it was Michael Hutchence and his various girlfriends.

Biopics face a lot of hurdles. Often the people are alive and want to be portrayed as saints, there are copyright issues with the music/film/books, etc etc.

I get all that.

But I think you need a really solid relationship story at the core.

For instance “Phar Lap” was a love story between Tom Woodcock and the horse.

If you don’t have that, even if you have an interesting character, it’ll fall over because things aren’t dramatised.

Anyway rant over...