Best Biopics
I mentioned in the Amelia thread that biopics are pretty hard to pull off. In my opinion even a great biopic usually is a mediocre story. It’s just that our expectations are low enough that we put up with a lot.
So what are your best biopics?
In no order
Lawrence of Arabia – the biopic against which all others are measured. It just keeps getting better with time. They don’t make em like this anymore.
Ray – cliched plot (seriously how many times has this story been done?) but great acting and scenes.
The Last Emperor – a film that underneath seemed to be about more. Great film by Bertolucci.
Ed Wood – like no other biopic I’ve seen. Ultimately about the joy of filmmaking and still arguably Tim Burton’s best.
Schindler’s List – in hindsight not quite as great as I thought at the time. (Sometimes Spielberg is trying too hard) Still a great film with so many layers.
Goodfellas – a great film that shows vignettes spread over time needn’t add up to nothing. Of course in most biopic’s that exactly what does happen.
As always, it depends on definitions. I’m not sure I would classify Lawrence of Arabia, Goodfellas, Schindler’s List, or Ed Wood as biopics. I haven’t seen The Last Emperor, so I don’t know about that one. Ray is definitely a biopic and I think it sucks.
I would define a biopic as a film, the primary subject of which is the life of a real life person over some period of time, as opposed to merely events that the person witnessed or took part in. The films you mention have real life people as their main characters and real life events as the plot, but, with the exception of Ray, I don’t see them as being primarily about that person’s life. I would consider the primary subject of Goodfellas, for example, to be the mob and various mobsters and not so much the Liotta character’s life itself.
Another way to think about it is to imagine if the film were made into a book that had the same scope and focus and ask if that book would be classified as a biography.
Definitely the most interesting “biopic” I’ve seen is I’m Not There, the recent indie Bob Dylan biopic. It’s borderline not a biopic, because it’s partly fictionalized and highly stylized. On the other hand, the primary subject of the film is Bob Dylan’s life and art. It shows how little I like biopics that the best one I can think of might not be one at all.
I didn’t much like Walk the Line, but I thought it was better than Ray. Fox does a better Ray Charles than Phoenix’s Cash, but I couldn’t stand the way Ray was put together.
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind I think qualifies, and I found it interesting, even if I didn’t love it.
I think I liked Scorsese’s Kundun—the one about the Dalai Lama—the first time I saw it, but as I recall the second time I was pretty bored by it.
I don’t remember A Man For All Seasons very well, so I can’t be sure if it’s a true biopic, but I do remember liking it quite a bit.
Those are the only ones I can think of that I like right now. There are lots more that I dislike.
Comment by Tom — October 28, 2009 @ 8:41 am
I’ll take Amadeus as one of the best ‘biopics.’ As with Tom, I think that biopics are a fairly new phenomena; a new template for a film, which previous films that tend to be biographic in nature don’t do. Gandhi was an excellent biopic.
Here are my faves
1. Lawrence of Arabia, I agree with you Clark, is still by far the best ‘biopic’ and one of the best films ever made.
2. Amadeus. As with Lawrence of Arabia, Amadeus takes some liberties with the history, but in terms of getting someone interested in the life of Mozart, there is by far no better film than Amadeus. It’s a masterful, though fictional, tale. And the music is fantastically woven into the story.
3. Gandhi. Excellent, though slow moving, bio of the man.
4. Evita, fantastic musical turned into a very artistic film.
5. Seven Years in Tibet. I was really touched by the film.
6. Elizabeth, Cate Blanchett’s version.
7. Patton was a great biopic
by the way, if anyone needs help remembering biopics, this list should help.
Comment by Dan — October 28, 2009 @ 8:56 am
That list is way more inclusive than my definition and includes all of Clark’s movies. It seems they’re classifying as a “biographical film” anything that’s primarily based on real events.
Looking through it reminded me of Malcolm X and American Splendor, which I would consider biopics and both of which I like a lot. Also Ghandi.
Comment by Tom — October 28, 2009 @ 9:27 am
How can you not include Elephant Man?!?! Have you no soul? (Okay, so it’s been two decades since I saw it, but I still get teary-eyed just thinking about it.)
I already mentioned some on my list, and here are a few more:
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (kinda borderline on whether it’s really a biopic)
The Killing Fields (also borderline)
A Beautiful Mind
Searching for Bobby Fischer (I remember liking this, but can’t remember why)
A great film from Dan’s list that is not, I think, a biopic: All the President’s Men. I’m also not convinced that Schindler’s List is a biopic—it covers such a short period of Schindler’s life (granted, it’s an important period, but still too short to be a true biography). Then again, that list also included Fight Club, so someone is using the term “biography” loosely.
Comment by BrianJ — October 28, 2009 @ 9:33 am
I don’t generally like biopics, so I tend to avoid them.
My favorite is probably Cobb.
Comment by Brian V — October 28, 2009 @ 10:04 am
Going off the wiki list, I’d go with Mann’s The Insider. In my opinion, it’s one of the best-acted films in recent memory.
Comment by Tim J — October 28, 2009 @ 11:14 am
The Insider was great.
The list, however, is sketchy. The Incredible Hulk as a biopic of Bruce Banner? Really, Wiki?
Comment by Supergenius — October 28, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
Incredible Hulk.
Hahahaha! I had to check the list—I couldn’t believe SuperG was being serious. Yup, it’s on there.
In that case, my favorite biopics are 2001 Space Odyssey and Monster’s Inc.
Comment by BrianJ — October 28, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
Catch Me If You Can and The Aviator. Both very stylish and entertaining, and in places, thought-provoking.
Comment by Mansfield — October 28, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
Biopics go way back to the 30′s at least. They were even worse back then…
I disagree about Lawerence of Arabia. While it doesn’t cover his whole life I think it covers the major part (and is based on his autobiography as I recall). To me it is the classic biopic.
Catch Me If You Can is an interesting call. I’d forgotten about that one. It’s one of Spielberg’s best films (IMO). If I count Lawrence I really need to count that one.
Amadaeus ought be there too, although I’ve not seen it in ages.
Butch Cassidy is too fictionalized to count as a biopic IMO. It is a great film though.
Ghandi definitely has to be there.
Seven Years in Tibet – ah yes, the year of Dhali Lama films. I thought it was serviceable but not great. Ditto the Scorsese Dhali Lama film – far better than Seven Years but overall a big disappointment (IMO). Ditto the Aviator.
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind was probably highly fictionalized by the author from everything I’ve read. Plus it was a pretty flawed movie.
Comment by Clark — October 28, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
I liked the Tina Turner biopic from a few years ago pretty well. I can’t remember if it played in theatres or was made-for-TV, but I think the former. Not some life-changing classic, mind you, but still pretty enjoyable.
Comment by Aaron Brown — October 28, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
AB: do you mean Beyond Thunderdome?
Comment by BrianJ — October 28, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
No.
Comment by Aaron Brown — October 28, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
What’s Love Got to Do with It, with Angela Bassett and Lawrence Fishburne. It was a theater movie. It might not have been high cinema, but it wasn’t a bad movie.
Add me as a second vote for Amadeus. I still cry when I watch it- not that that’s a measure of a good movie either.
The Killing Fields, fantastic movie- and I canno think why it wouldn’t be considered a biopic. Especially if The Hulk is. Come on!
Comment by Tracy M — October 28, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
Tracy: I was reluctant to include The Killing Fields as a biopic because it stretches the definition too much—pretty soon every historical movie is a biopic. The Hulk obviously stretches the definition in a different direction: every movie depicting the life of one central character is a biopic, even if it’s completely fictional. It seems like a true biopic should:
a) be historical, and not just loosely
b) focus on one main person
c) cover a substantial amount of that person’s life, not just what he/she did during a specific period, even though it need not cover his/her entire life.
I can’t quite remember how much The Killing Fields divides its attention between the three journalists, thus I’m not sure whether it’s truly biopic; i.e., is it a movie about Dith Pran or is it a movie about the killing fields in Cambodia?
Comment by BrianJ — October 28, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
I agree with BrianJ, I guess the root word is Bio, meaning life (I think), so it should really be about someones life.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — October 28, 2009 @ 7:59 pm
I read The Killing Fields as being about the life of Dith Pran- but I could be misremembering. I do distinctly remember feeling mowed over by it though.
Comment by Tracy M — October 28, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
Clark,
I felt Kundun was boring, and while Seven Years in Tibet wasn’t any more quickly paced, something about that film really touched me. Maybe it was the music, but I really liked it.
Have you seen the director’s cut of Amadeus? It adds more back story, though it is clear the extra didn’t really add that much more to the story.
Comment by Dan — October 28, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
Kundun was boring. But it was so beautifully filmed. Reminds me of films like The Red Line or The New World by Malick (whom I assume was a big influence on S.) But yeah, it’s on of S’s films I’ve no desire to see again.
My problem with Seven Years (beyond Brad Pitt whom I’ve only liked in a few films) was that it just felt “forced.” It didn’t flow naturally. There was just way too much cliche in it. Which is also my big problem with most biopics.
Can I make my deep and troubled admission? Despite being a huge Lynch fan I’ve never seen The Elephant Man. (I also have never seen Eraserhead or Inland Empire)
Comment by Clark — October 28, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
I remember liking Gary Cooper as Sgt. York and as Lou Gehrig, and James Cagney as George M. Cohan, but not James Cagney as Lon Chaney Sr. I should rent Sgt. York and Yankee Doodle Dandy and see how they hold up now that they are about twice as old as when I last saw them. Last month I watched A Hard Day’s Night (biopic?) for the second time, the first time being 1985. I and the world definitely felt a quarter century older.
Comment by Mansfield — October 29, 2009 @ 7:26 am
I liked The Aviator fine. Ed Wood’s a great choice. I also enjoyed Finding Neverland. One thing all three of these have in common is that they are all highly fictionalized. Maybe that’s true of all biopics to one degree or another. Citizen Kane is basically a fictionalized biopic of William Randolf Hearst.
There’s a biopic I watched years ago about the explorer Richard Burton (not the actor) called Mountains of the Moon that I remember being really great.
I’d like to see The Informant! which is based on the non-fiction book of the same name (minus the exclamation point).
Comment by BTD Greg — October 29, 2009 @ 8:24 am
Skip Eraserhead, Clark. Totally not worth your time. I’m still wishing I had that time back and I saw it in high school. I hate very few movies, but I hated that one.
Comment by MCQ — October 29, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
No way. See Eraserhead. Now. I haven’t seen it since high school, either, but a cult classic is a cult classic for a reason.
Comment by Susan M — October 29, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
Because it’s abysmally stupid and moronic?
Comment by MCQ — October 29, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
I’ll give you one thing: it’s very original. Very few movies manage a completely banal plot, total absence of dialogue, disgusting visuals and stultifying dullness all at the same time. It’s a real achievement.
Comment by MCQ — October 29, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
I thought Something the Lord Made was an excellent movie. Though I suppose it focuses mostly on a certain time period in the lives of two great men. I love Walk the Line but it’s more the story of John and June than anything else. So perhaps it’s more of a biographical romance.
Comment by Rose Tyler — October 29, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
I would have to add “Yankee Doodle Dandy” with James Cagney and “Lust for Life” with Kirk Douglas. In the spirit of “Amelia” I would definantly add “The Spirit of St. Louis” with Jimmy Stewart. Truth be told, “The Ten Commandments” with Charlton Heston as Moses has to be included. Another one that should be included is “Malcolm X” with Denzel Washington that gives a tremondous performance.
One I would take out from above is “Gandhi,” one of the most boring movies ever made. I can’t get past the first half hour without wanting to fall asleep. The only reason its included is because its about that one famous guy that everyone should love and remember.
Comment by Jettboy — October 30, 2009 @ 8:02 am