Do Biopics Have a Duty To Tell The Truth?
What is a biopic? In the film world a biopic is a biographical picture, a film that portrays the life of a real person and translates their real life story onto the big screen. Throughout the history of film there have been countless amounts of film that have been “based on a true story” or “inspired by real events” or portraying the life of a real figure, however how reliable are these films? And do they necessarily have a duty to tell the truth? When taking somebody’s life or real event onto the screen…how much artistic license should be granted?
First of all, what does “Based on a true story” or “inspired by real events” really mean? How much of the story is actually based on the true story? And how much of the film is actually inspired by real events? These are questions that are at the heart of biopics. Ultimately the only film that should be viewed as truly factual is a documentary, however what of docu-fiction films? Films that are based on true events but also sugar coated with made up ones? How factual should they actually be? What films have dealt with real situations and covered them in fictional ways?
One recent film based on real events to make the news is David Fincher’s The Social Network. The film is an account of the creation of Facebook and the court cases and broken friendships that plagued it’s credibility. The film offers a dark and uncompromising view of the world of social politics and in particular the personalities of real life figures Mark Zuckerberg and Seam Parker. Mark Zuckerberg and his company Facebook have blasted the film as 100% fiction with him stating that all of the film is made up with the most accurate elements of the film, according to Zuckerberg being the clothes the characters wear. Jesse Eisenberg gives the performance of the year in my opinion as Mark Zuckerberg however is that who he is actually playing? Or his actually playing a character orchestrated by Aaron Sorkin who just happens to share Zuckerbergs name? this opens up the murky question of, if Eisenberg and co. say that Zuckerberg in the film is not the real Zuckerberg but merely a character or an interpretation, then should they be given the right to use his name and story in a way that he doesn’t approve of? Is the film violating its right to tell a “true” story and misleading the public of its accuracy?
Another portrayal in the film is of Sean Parker, founder of Napster. Justin Timberlake gives a superb performance as Parker but yet again the portrayal has been met with much disdain from the real Sean Parker. There Is no doubting that the people portrayed in the film are different from those in real life, however to fully understand this topic we have to put ourselves in their shoes. How would you feel, if some actor you didn’t know, was pretending to be you, but not you a different version of you, a version of you that doesn’t flatter you, which you don’t agree with and you think is false. Then that portrayal of you is seen all around the world and now when people think of you or meet you, they are thinking of a false portrayal of you that is starting to define you, taken from a film that doesn’t paint you in a positive light and you believe is a false retelling of a story you experienced. Its not the most appealing idea, however surely Fincher and co. have the right to make whatever film they want and surely as they haven’t been met with any lawsuits that must mean that the real people involved are ok with it. Whether the real life people agree or not it raises the question of whether films based on true events or real people have a duty to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The tiebreaker in this argument for me is a simple thing. Nowhere during The Social Network or nowhere in it’s trailer or poster can you find the phrase “Based on true events” or “Based on a true story” the film is never claiming that it is a true representation, it never explicitly states that its record of events are the right one. However if a film does claim to be based on a true story and does claim to be inspired by real events then does that mean it has to tell the truth?
For me personally, when a film declares itself as a true story then they do have a duty to truly tell that story in its true sense, however artistic license is necessary and unavoidable. For these types of films it raises a whole new question of how far can you stretch artistic license when dealing with a real story?
For example lets take the film Frost/Nixon, an Oscar nominated film that is based around the true event that was the David Frost and Richard Nixon interview. For me that film did have an obligation to portray the actual interviews, the actual event it is based on as it was, however the events surrounding the interview is where the artistic license comes in. Lets use another example in the form of James Cameron’s Titanic.
That film had an obligation to portray the terrible tragedy as it actually happened. Could you imagine the uproar if the film had replaced an iceberg with an alien ship? However the story it decided to place alongside of the event was purely their own.
Ultimately my conclusion is that when a film is claiming to be based on a true story or is based around a particular event then it has a certain obligation to tell the truth, however the full license to base whatever story they want around it. However in the case of The Social Network, a film that did not brag about being based on a true story then it must merely be seen as a film.
What do you think about this issue? Do you think that even if a film isn’t claiming to be based on true events that it still has an obligation to those it portrays?
Be sure to leave your comments in the your say section and we can discuss if filmmakers should have any obligations when making a film based around real events.
By Michael Dalton
What is a biopic? In the film world a biopic is a biographical picture, a film that portrays the life of a real person and translates their real life story onto the big screen. Throughout the history of film there have been countless amounts of film that have been “based on a true story” or “inspired by real events” or portraying the life of a real figure, however how reliable are these films? And do they necessarily have a duty to tell the truth? When taking somebody’s life or real event onto the screen…how much artistic license should be granted?
First of all, what does “Based on a true story” or “inspired by real events” really mean? How much of the story is actually based on the true story? And how much of the film is actually inspired by real events? These are questions that are at the heart of biopics. Ultimately the only film that should be viewed as truly factual is a documentary, however what of docu-fiction films? Films that are based on true events but also sugar coated with made up ones? How factual should they actually be? What films have dealt with real situations and covered them in fictional ways?
One recent film based on real events to make the news is David Fincher’s The Social Network. The film is an account of the creation of Facebook and the court cases and broken friendships that plagued it’s credibility. The film offers a dark and uncompromising view of the world of social politics and in particular the personalities of real life figures Mark Zuckerberg and Seam Parker. Mark Zuckerberg and his company Facebook have blasted the film as 100% fiction with him stating that all of the film is made up with the most accurate elements of the film, according to Zuckerberg being the clothes the characters wear. Jesse Eisenberg gives the performance of the year in my opinion as Mark Zuckerberg however is that who he is actually playing? Or his actually playing a character orchestrated by Aaron Sorkin who just happens to share Zuckerbergs name? this opens up the murky question of, if Eisenberg and co. say that Zuckerberg in the film is not the real Zuckerberg but merely a character or an interpretation, then should they be given the right to use his name and story in a way that he doesn’t approve of? Is the film violating its right to tell a “true” story and misleading the public of its accuracy?
Another portrayal in the film is of Sean Parker, founder of Napster. Justin Timberlake gives a superb performance as Parker but yet again the portrayal has been met with much disdain from the real Sean Parker. There Is no doubting that the people portrayed in the film are different from those in real life, however to fully understand this topic we have to put ourselves in their shoes. How would you feel, if some actor you didn’t know, was pretending to be you, but not you a different version of you, a version of you that doesn’t flatter you, which you don’t agree with and you think is false. Then that portrayal of you is seen all around the world and now when people think of you or meet you, they are thinking of a false portrayal of you that is starting to define you, taken from a film that doesn’t paint you in a positive light and you believe is a false retelling of a story you experienced. Its not the most appealing idea, however surely Fincher and co. have the right to make whatever film they want and surely as they haven’t been met with any lawsuits that must mean that the real people involved are ok with it. Whether the real life people agree or not it raises the question of whether films based on true events or real people have a duty to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The tiebreaker in this argument for me is a simple thing. Nowhere during The Social Network or nowhere in it’s trailer or poster can you find the phrase “Based on true events” or “Based on a true story” the film is never claiming that it is a true representation, it never explicitly states that its record of events are the right one. However if a film does claim to be based on a true story and does claim to be inspired by real events then does that mean it has to tell the truth?
For me personally, when a film declares itself as a true story then they do have a duty to truly tell that story in its true sense, however artistic license is necessary and unavoidable. For these types of films it raises a whole new question of how far can you stretch artistic license when dealing with a real story?
For example lets take the film Frost/Nixon, an Oscar nominated film that is based around the true event that was the David Frost and Richard Nixon interview. For me that film did have an obligation to portray the actual interviews, the actual event it is based on as it was, however the events surrounding the interview is where the artistic license comes in. Lets use another example in the form of James Cameron’s Titanic.
That film had an obligation to portray the terrible tragedy as it actually happened. Could you imagine the uproar if the film had replaced an iceberg with an alien ship? However the story it decided to place alongside of the event was purely their own.
Ultimately my conclusion is that when a film is claiming to be based on a true story or is based around a particular event then it has a certain obligation to tell the truth, however the full license to base whatever story they want around it. However in the case of The Social Network, a film that did not brag about being based on a true story then it must merely be seen as a film.
What do you think about this issue? Do you think that even if a film isn’t claiming to be based on true events that it still has an obligation to those it portrays?
Be sure to leave your comments in the your say section and we can discuss if filmmakers should have any obligations when making a film based around real events.
By Michael Dalton
