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 and 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. Biopics are marketed as such and audio-visually re-imagine
the life of a famous individual including entertainers, royalty, scientists and even criminals.
Custen’s work focused on the variety of biopics released solely during the studio-era of
Hollywood cinema, however Bingham 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). Bingham also looks at the
various forms of the biopic from cinematic releases and made-for-television movies to short
films and documentaries. He describes the aesthetic differences and the impact they have on
interpreting the life story of the star. The depth of the study sees Bingham’s Whose Lives Are
They Anyway: The Biopic as Contemporary Film Genre as the single most prolific academic
study to date that analyses the current state of the biographical film.
There are innumerable ways in which to study the biopic; from categorising in terms of type
of protagonist, period of release, narrative theme and aesthetic. Bingham appropriately selects
to group the selected biopics according to the gender of the protagonist. Separated into two
books, Bingham tackles the significant differences between the great (white) man biopic and
female biopics. In Bingham’s words ‘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 should also follow. The trend that Bingham determines is that, even
though their particular careers or live events contrast, the life of an actual woman is
represented in a distinctly different way to a man in a feature film.
Through close analyses of select films, Bingham’s first book ‘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). In this book, Bingham analyses
various films; some not even marketed as biopics including Citizen Kane (1941). He 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 Bingham 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; 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 (approximately 1930 – 1960).
The second book ‘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). Addressing female biopics such as I Want to Live! (1958) based on 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), Bingham introduces this long
overlooked form of biopic.
The methodology adopted in each chapter, which centres on one particular biopic,
commences with research into the actual individual’s life. Bingham 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. Bingham’s central argument is that
the biopic genre is not static – it has evolved dramatically over time and continues to change.
In his analysis of the evolution of the biopic he suggests that it currently at the neoclassical
stage, integrating elements of all previous forms of the genre (17-18). From the classical,
celebratory form to realism/melodrama; a producer to an auteurist (director) genre; critical
investigation (atomisation of the subject); parody; and more recently as minority
appropriation (mythologising a previously marginalised or stigmatised individual): the
contemporary biopic encompasses all of these developments throughout the history of
cinema.
As opposed to Bingham, 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 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) perspective/s; 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 in the U.S alone. Additionally, 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.
Bingham’s study 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 Bingham’s study will certainly
make a substantial impact on this unappreciated genre and tap into multiple fields of
academic study. Further, one of the central issues Bingham highlights is that the academic
study of the biopic is incredibly undervalued; a valid concern that even Bingham suggests
requires ongoing scholarly analysis (22). Regardless, Whose Lives Are They Anyway? makes
a solid contribution to the field that has taken too long to be recognised as a worthy area of
scholarly study. It is an open work that allows room for future endeavours in the area which
are anticipated to expand and develop upon Bingham’s groundwork.
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 Blanchette, 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.