BOOK REVIEW
New Scholarly Study of the Contemporary Biopic
Penny Spirou
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
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 lives of
famous people including entertainers, royalty, scientists and even criminals. Custen’s study focused
on the variety of biopics released solely during the studio era of Hollywood cinema (approximately
1930 to 1960). In contrast, Dennis Bingham’s Whose Lives Are They Anyway? The Biopic as
Contemporary Film Genre engages in a comprehensive discussion of the history of biography ranging
from the biographical writing of Lytton Strachey (1879–1932) through to the independent feature film
I’m Not There (Todd Haynes, 2007). Whose Lives also looks at the various forms of biopic including
theatrical releases, made-for-television movies and short films. The book describes the aesthetic
differences of these forms and the impact they have on the life story of the star. The depth of the study
makes Whose Lives arguably 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 these two sections, Whose Lives tackles the
significant differences between the (white) male biopic and female biopics: As Bingham explains,
‘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, so too do films about their lives. As Bingham argues:
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 ‘difficulty,’ according to Bingham, kept female biopics in a cycle that constantly represented
women’s lack of success and their mistreatment. The trend that Bingham determines in Whose Lives
is that even though particular careers or life events contrast for each individual, the life of an actual
woman is represented in a distinctly different way to that of a man in a biopic. The disparity is
attributed to cultural perceptions of gender throughout history, in line with views evoked and
established predominantly through classical Hollywood cinema.
Through close analyses of selected films, the first section of Whose Lives, ‘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). Bingham discusses various films, some
not even marketed as biopics, including Citizen Kane (1941). In Chapter Three, ‘Citizen Kane and the
Biopic,’, Bingham notes 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, according to Bingham. 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 analysis of Malcolm X (1992), Nixon (1995) and W.
(2008) respectively. The book makes the point that the role of the director, especially in contemporary
cinema, is crucial. This is particularly significant because, as Bingham points out in Whose Lives,
many directors 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, I argue, that
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 of Whose Lives, ‘A Woman’s Life is Never Done: Female Biopics’ argues 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, as Bingham does, 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 substantially assists him on his path to success (61). These gender
relationships deserve more comparative study, rather than being analysed in separate sections as is the
case in Whose Lives. Although Whose Lives analyses female biopics included in Bingham’s earlier
work (such as Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story [1988]) as well as The Notorious Bettie Page
(2005) and Marie Antoinette (2006), the book nonetheless introduces and distinctively characterises
this long-overlooked type of biopic. Bingham’s focus on the female biopic clearly attests that the
female as victim was a more marketable subject than a female survivor and was thus adopted as a
convention post-Hollywood studio era (217).
The methodology adopted in Bingham’s chapters, each of which centres on one particular biopic,
commences with research into the actual individual’s life. The chapters then progress to a discussion
of the history of biopic filmmaking, followed by an assessment of the film, 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—that it has evolved dramatically over time and continues to
change. In its analysis of the evolution of the biopic, Whose Lives suggests that this genre is currently
at the neoclassical stage, meaning that these films integrate elements of all previous forms of the
genre (17-18). The contemporary biopic encompasses all developments of the genre throughout its
history in the cinema. According to Bingham, the biopic was a classical, celebratory form of
representation which transformed into a realist, melodramatic form. Hollywood studio era biopics
were a producer genre, whereas cotemporary biopics 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) (18). The evolution of the genre
is apparent and Bingham reiterates this notion throughout Whose Lives.
As opposed to Bingham, academic historians such as Robert A. Rosenstone, Robert Brent Toplin,
John E. O’Connor and Hayden White centre their examinations 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 Bingham 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 and of the public. Films function as a
vehicle for individuals to attempt to understand their own identities. The biopic shows just one of the
innumerable ways in which a famous individual can be perceived.
The problem with a study so vast is that some forms of biopic (and issues raised therein) are excluded
altogether, especially considering that there were at least one hundred biopics released within the last
decade (2000 to 2010) in the USA alone (IMDb search). As Bingham 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 such as La Vie En Rose and Gainsbourg (France,
2007 and 2010), Control (Britain, 2007) and The Red Baron (Germany, 2008) deserve as much
attention as do Hollywood films. Perhaps due to the diversity of the biopic, an enlarged comparative
international study is best saved for another scholarly enquiry entirely.
Fundamentally, the study of the biopic involves interdisciplinary work. It engages with film
studies/theory, cultural studies, historical studies and biographical studies (to name a few relevant
disciplines). Therefore, Whose Lives will certainly make a substantial impact on multiple fields of
academic study and will draw attention to this unappreciated genre. Indeed, one of the central issues
that Bingham highlights in this book is that the academic study of the biopic is incredibly
undervalued—a valid concern, prompting Bingham to suggest the need for ongoing scholarly analysis
(22). Regardless of this marginalised field, Whose Lives Are They Anyway? The Biopic as
Contemporary Film Genre makes a solid contribution to scholarly study. An engaging read, this book
is an open work that allows room for future endeavours in this area, which are anticipated to expand
upon this foundational research.
Works Cited
Citizen Kane. Dir. Orson Welles. Perf. Dorothy Comingore, Joseph Cotten, Orson Welles.
RKO Pictures, 1941. Film.
Control. Dir. Anton Corbijn. Perf. Toby Kebbell, Alexandra Maria Lara, Samantha Morton,
Sam Riley. Momentum Pictures/ The Weinstein Company, 2007. Film.
Custen, George F. Bio/Pics: How Hollywood Constructed Public History. New Jersey: Rutgers
U P, 1992. Print.
Bingham, Dennis. Whose Lives Are They Anyway? The Biopic as Contemporary Film Genre:
New Brunswick, Rutgers U P, 2010. Print.
Bingham, Dennis. ‘“I Do Want to Live!”: Female Voices, Male Discourse and Hollywood
Biopics.’ Cinema Journal 38.3 (1999): 3-26. Print.
IMDb. Genre: Biography. <http://www.imdb.com/genre/biography>, accessed 4 May 2011. Website.
I’m Not There. Dir. Todd Haynes. Perf. Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Heath Ledger,
Richard Gere. The Weinstein Company/ Paramount Pictures, 2007. Film.
La Vie En Rose. Dir. Olivier Dahan. Perf. Marion Cotillard, Gerard Depardieu, Sylvie Testud.
Picturehouse, 2007. Film.
Malcolm X. Dir. Spike Lee. Perf. Angela Bassett, Spike Lee, Denzel Washington. Warner
Brothers, 1992. Film.
Milk. Dir. Gus Van Sant. Perf. James Franco, Emile Hirsch, Sean Penn. Universal Pictures,
2008. Film.
Nixon. Dir Oliver Stone. Perf. Joan Allen, Anthony Hopkins, Paul Sorvino. Hollywood
Pictures/ Cinergi Pictures, 1995. Film.
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. Print.
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. Print.
The Red Baron. Nikolai Mullerschon. Perf. Joseph Fiennes, Lena Headey, Til Schweiger,
Matthias Schweighofer. Warner Brothers, 2008. Film.
Toplin, Robert Brent. ‘The Filmmaker as Historian.’ American Historical Review 93.5
(1988): 1210-1227. Print.
W. Dir. Oliver Stone. Perf. Elizabeth Banks, Josh Brolin, James Cromwell. Lions Gate, 2008. Film.
White, Hayden. ‘Historiography and Historiophoty.’ American Historical Review 93.5
(1988): 1193-1199. Print.