BOOK REVIEW: Inaugural Issue of New Scholar
Title: Whose Lives Are They Anyway? The Biopic as Contemporary Film Genre
Author: Dennis Bingham
Publication Details: Rutgers University Press (New Brunswick, New Jersey & London)
Publication Date: 2010
Paper ISBN: 978-0-8135-4658-2
Cloth ISBN: 978-0-8135-4657-5
RRP: USD$32.50
Review Title: New Scholarly Study of the Contemporary Biopic
Not since George F. Custen’s seminal study, Bio/Pics: How Hollywood Constructed Public
History, has there been a significant attempt to provide any major scholarly study on the
biopic. The biopic or biographical film (sometimes referred to as the biofilm) represents the
life history of an actual person. Unlike documentary film, biopics employ actors to play the
roles of these individuals: they are dramatised, fictional films. Biopics are often marketed as
being ‘inspired by’ or ‘based on’ the life of famous people including entertainers, royalty,
scientists and even criminals. Bio/Pics focused on the variety of biopics released solely
during the studio era of Hollywood cinema (approximately 1930 to 1960); however Dennis
Bingham’s Whose Lives Are They Anyway? The Biopic as Contemporary Film Genre
engages in a comprehensive discussion on the history of biography from the biographical
writing of Lytton Strachey (1879 – 1932) through to independent feature film I’m Not There
(Todd Haynes, 2007). Whose Lives also looks at the various forms of biopic from cinematic
releases, made-for-television movies and short films. The book describes the aesthetic
differences and the impact they have on interpreting the life story of the star. The depth of the
study sees Whose Lives as the single most prolific academic study to date that analyses the
current state of the biographical film.
There are innumerable ways to categorise and hence study the biopic including: type of
protagonist, period of release, narrative theme and aesthetic. Whose Lives appropriately
groups the selected biopics according to the gender of the protagonist. Separated into two
sections, Whose Lives tackles the significant differences between the (white) male biopic and
female biopics: ‘This book studies the evolution and life-cycle changes of the genre. It also
sees biographies of men and women as essentially different genres, as criticism of literary
biography has also tended to do’ (10). As men and women differ greatly, films about their
lives also follow. Whose Lives indicates:
Biopics of women are structured so differently from male biopics as to constitute their
own genre, and they are studied as such in Book Two. The conventions of the female
biopic... have proven much more intractable than those of the male biopic. This is due
to the culture’s difficulty with the very issue of women in the public sphere (23).
This, according to Whose Lives, kept the female biopics in a cycle that constantly represented
their lack of success and mistreatment. The trend that Whose Lives determines is that even
though particular careers or live events contrast for each individual, the life of an actual
woman is represented in a distinctly different way to a man in a biopic. The disparity is
attributed to cultural perceptions of gender throughout history, in line with western views.
Through close analyses of select films, Whose Lives’ first section, ‘The Great (White) Man
Biopic and its Discontents’, offers a perception that ‘films about men have gone from a
celebratory warts-and-all to investigatory to postmodern to parodic’ (10). Whose Lives
discusses various films, some not even marketed as biopics including Citizen Kane (1941). In
Chapter 3, ‘Citizen Cane and the Biopic’, it is noted that ‘the saving grace of the Great Man...
is his self-possession’ (66). Unlike the female, the male protagonist knows and acknowledges
his own weaknesses and pushes past them. He simultaneously displays weakness and
strength.
‘The Great (White) Man Biopic’ also includes in-depth reflections on the works of prominent
biopic directors Spike Lee and Oliver Stone through Malcolm X (1992), Nixon (1995) and W.
(2008) respectively. The role of the director, especially in contemporary cinema, is crucial.
Especially, as Whose Lives points out, many began their careers as scholars themselves: Todd
Haynes majored in semiotics at Brown University, Martin Scorsese received an arts degree in
English and an MFA in film directing at NYU and Bill Condon studied philosophy at
Columbia University. Furthermore, contemporary filmmakers are unbound by the production
codes and censorship guidelines of the studios, as they were back in the Hollywood studio
system.
The second section, ‘A Woman’s Life is Never Done: Female Biopics’ implies that:
biopics of women... are weighed down by myths of suffering, victimization, and
failure perpetuated by a culture whose films reveal an acute fear of women in the
public realm. Female biopics can be made empowering only by a conscious and
deliberate application of a feminist point of view (10).
It is worth noting that while the female biopic displaces achievements on to the male partner
(managers, husbands) (214), the male biopic always places the wife (or female partner) as
secondary to the husband yet she substantially assists him on his path to success (61). These
gender relationships are worth studying more comparatively, rather than in separate sections.
Addressing female biopics such as I Want to Live! (1958) based on author Bingham’s
previous publication in 1999, Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story (1988) and 21st century
films, The Notorious Bettie Page (2005) and Marie Antoinette (2006), Whose Lives
nonetheless introduces and distinctly characterises this long overlooked form of biopic. This
section clearly attests that the female as victim made for a better subject than a survivor and
was adopted as a convention post-Hollywood studio era (217).
The methodology adopted in each chapter, which centres on one particular biopic,
commences with research into the actual individual’s life. Whose Lives then presses on to the
history of filmmaking, an assessment of the film, then finally placing these research
outcomes in the context of the film genre’s development. The central argument of Whose
Lives is that the biopic genre is not static – it has evolved dramatically over time and
continues to change. In the analysis of the evolution of the biopic Whose Lives suggests that it
currently at the neoclassical stage, integrating elements of all previous forms of the genre
(17-18). The contemporary biopic encompasses all developments of the genre throughout the
history of cinema. The biopic was a classical, celebratory form of representation which
transformed into a realist, melodramatic form. Hollywood studio era biopics were the
producer genre whereas now they are more of an auteur (director) genre. Some biopics are a
critical investigation (atomisation of the subject), parody or minority appropriation
(mythologising a previously marginalised or stigmatised individual). The evolution of the
genre is apparent and author Bingham reiterates this notion throughout Whose Lives.
As opposed to Whose Lives, academic historians such as Robert A. Rosenstone, Robert Brent
Toplin, John E. O’Connor and Hayden White centre their examination of the biopic on
biographical accuracy. Fabrications, omissions and specific details of the life narrative are
their primary concerns. However the function of the biopic, as Whose Lives asserts, is not
historical precision: it is a form of entertainment that demonstrates how or why that star
persona is significant and how this may help us, as film audiences, learn about our own
society and culture. After all, filmic representation of history is a reflection of (overtly
subjective) perspectives: of filmmakers, public assumption and understanding our own
identity. The biopic shows yet one way, out of innumerable directions, in which a famous
individual can be perceived.
The problem with a study so vast is that some forms of biopic and issues they raise are
without doubt, left out altogether, especially considering there were at least one hundred
biopics released within the last decade (2000 to 2010) in the USA alone. Duly noted, Whose
Lives is ‘drawn to certain films without a lot of concern for what national cinema they
represent. This book is not a representation of biographical films from around the world’ (26)
and tends to focus predominantly on Hollywood films. However, international biopics
deserve as much attention as the Hollywood film including those such as La Vie En Rose
(2007) from France, Control (2007) from Britain and The Red Baron (2008) from Germany.
Whose Lives focuses largely on North American films, drawing little attention to other
national cinemas and how they have represented popular individuals on screen. Perhaps due
to the diversity of the biopic this study is best saved for another scholarly enquiry, entirely.
Overall, the study of the biopic involves interdisciplinary work: film studies/theory, cultural
studies, history and biography (to name a few). Therefore, Whose Lives will certainly make a
substantial impact on this unappreciated genre and tap into multiple fields of academic study.
Further, one of the central issues Whose Lives highlights is that the academic study of the
biopic is incredibly undervalued – a valid concern that even Whose Lives suggests requires
ongoing scholarly analysis (22). Regardless, Whose Lives Are They Anyway? The Biopic as
Contemporary Film Genre makes a solid contribution to the field that has taken too long to
be recognised as a worthy area of scholarly study. An engaging read, this book is an open
work that allows room for future endeavours in the area which are anticipated to expand and
develop upon this foundational research.
Works Cited
Citizen Kane. Dir. Orson Welles. Perf. Dorothy Comingore, Joseph Cotten, Orson Welles.
RKO Pictures, 1941.
Control. Dir. Anton Corbijn. Perf. Toby Kebbell, Alexandra Maria Lara, Samantha Morton,
Sam Riley. Momentum Pictures/ The Weinstein Company, 2007.
Custen, George F. Bio/Pics: How Hollywood Constructed Public History. U.S.A: Rutgers
University Press, 1992.
Bingham, Dennis. Whose Lives Are They Anyway? The Biopic as Contemporary Film Genre:
New Brunswick, New Jersey and London: Rutgers University Press, 2010.
Bingham, Dennis. “‘I Do Want to Live!’: Female Voices, Male Discourse and Hollywood
Biopics”. Cinema Journal 38.3 (1999): 3-26.
I’m Not There. Dir. Todd Haynes. Perf. Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Heath Ledger,
Richard Gere. The Weinstein Company/ Paramount Pictures, 2007.
La Vie En Rose. Dir. Olivier Dahan. Perf. Marion Cotillard, Gerard Depardieu, Sylvie Testud.
Picturehouse, 2007.
Malcolm X. Dir. Spike Lee. Perf. Angela Bassett, Spike Lee, Denzel Washington. Warner
Brothers, 1992.
Milk. Dir. Gus Van Sant. Perf. James Franco, Emile Hirsch, Sean Penn. Universal Pictures,
2008.
Nixon. Dir Oliver Stone. Perf. Joan Allen, Anthony Hopkins, Paul Sorvino. Hollywood
Pictures/ Cinergi Pictures, 1995.
O’Connor, John E. “History in Images/Images in History: Reflections on the Importance of
Film and Television Study for an Understanding of the Past.” American Historical
Review 93.5 (1988): 1200-1209.
Rosenstone, Robert A. “History in Images/History in Words: Reflections on the Possibility of
Really Putting History onto Film.” American Historical Review 93.5 (1988): 11731185.
The Red Baron. Nikolai Mullerschon. Perf. Joseph Fiennes, Lena Headey, Til Schweiger,
Matthias Schweighofer. Warner Brothers, 2008.
Toplin, Robert Brent. “The Filmmaker as Historian.” American Historical Review 93.5
(1988): 1210-1227.
W. Dir. Oliver Stone. Perf. Elizabeth Banks, Josh Brolin, James Cromwell. Lions Gate, 2008.
White, Hayden. “Historiography and Historiophoty.” American Historical Review 93.5
(1988): 1193-1199.