I watched the Steven Jobs biography Jobs a few weeks ago. Jobs is a fascinating person, even if he was a turd. Ashton Kutcher did an amazing job playing him as well. And the script was really quite good. But I didn’t enjoy the film at all. This got me wondering what the problem was. Then it struck me: I don’t like biographies!
Actually, my revelation didn’t last very long. Indeed, as I thought about what it is that I don’t like about biopics, it suddenly dawned on me that there are many biopics that I do enjoy a great deal. Take for example, Goodfellas.
Hmm.
So here is what I realized. The problem with biopics in general is that they lack the elements of storytelling that draw us into a story. Typically, stories move in a particular pattern, with the story slowly revealing itself as the conflict builds. Each scene feeds that conflict. There is a climactic confrontation and then some ending that either wraps up the story nicely or provides a nice twist.
Biopics almost never have any of this. To the contrary, most biopics are simply a series of vignettes from the subject’s life. Basically, the writer picks a few highlights from the person’s life and the actors play out the key moments of these highlights. The result may well accurately portray the subject’s life, but it hardly makes for a compelling story. Indeed, in many instances, these vignettes aren’t even connected in any way, which makes the biopic less like a story and more like a series of short stories. So unless you are entertained by the individual vignettes, then the overall film will drag and feel disconnected.
This method also leaves gaps with audiences as the characters seems to move forward in time without much rhyme or reason except that these are the moments of the subject’s life the writer has chosen to show you.
In Jobs, this manifested itself in the form of things happening with little or no set up, no build up whatsoever, and they were often immediately glossed over. For example, when Jobs’ investors turn on him, it is was kept a secret from Jobs (and the audience) until it happened and it was presented so factually that it totally lacked suspense. Instead, the suspense we got (if any) came from Jobs’ reaction to the event, and that just wasn’t very satisfying from a storytelling perspective.
So what is different about Goodfellas and a film like Amadeus? Well, Goodfellas presents itself more like a story. It treats the early portion of the biography as mere background which the narrator tells with aplomb as he sets up the story. Then the film essentially “begins” by launching into the core of his life, which it presents as the story of the buildup and collapse of the Lufthansa robbery. This gives you the sense that you are watching a single story rather than a series of vignettes, even though you are in fact still watching the vignettes, because you are given a fairly standard storytelling formula.
Moreover, once the Lufthansa storyline plays out, the story seems to take on a faster pace... a concluding pace... as it presents the ending as the fallout from the Lufthansa chaos, with a clear driving theme now being that our hero is slowly being isolated and will soon be hit by his friends. Again, this ties everything together and feels like a continuation of the same story even though it isn’t.
Amadeus is another example of a great biopic. Like Goodfellas this one ties the whole story together as the ongoing (invented) struggle between Mozart and Salieri, and it fits each scene into that story through Salieri’s narrative... just as Henry Hill’s narrative in Goodfellas makes you think he is telling you a single story. The result is a film that does everything a good story does without suffering from the sense that the scenes are unrelated. To the contrary, they are related as part off Salieri’s grand scheme to undo Mozart!
Based on this, it strikes me that the key to making a biopic into a good film is finding a single story narrative that can be imposed on the person’s life. That element is what turns the typical unconnected series of vignettes that comprises most biopics into a film that pulls audiences in and gets them interested in the story.
Thoughts?
[+] Read More...
Actually, my revelation didn’t last very long. Indeed, as I thought about what it is that I don’t like about biopics, it suddenly dawned on me that there are many biopics that I do enjoy a great deal. Take for example, Goodfellas.
Hmm.
So here is what I realized. The problem with biopics in general is that they lack the elements of storytelling that draw us into a story. Typically, stories move in a particular pattern, with the story slowly revealing itself as the conflict builds. Each scene feeds that conflict. There is a climactic confrontation and then some ending that either wraps up the story nicely or provides a nice twist.
Biopics almost never have any of this. To the contrary, most biopics are simply a series of vignettes from the subject’s life. Basically, the writer picks a few highlights from the person’s life and the actors play out the key moments of these highlights. The result may well accurately portray the subject’s life, but it hardly makes for a compelling story. Indeed, in many instances, these vignettes aren’t even connected in any way, which makes the biopic less like a story and more like a series of short stories. So unless you are entertained by the individual vignettes, then the overall film will drag and feel disconnected.
This method also leaves gaps with audiences as the characters seems to move forward in time without much rhyme or reason except that these are the moments of the subject’s life the writer has chosen to show you.
In Jobs, this manifested itself in the form of things happening with little or no set up, no build up whatsoever, and they were often immediately glossed over. For example, when Jobs’ investors turn on him, it is was kept a secret from Jobs (and the audience) until it happened and it was presented so factually that it totally lacked suspense. Instead, the suspense we got (if any) came from Jobs’ reaction to the event, and that just wasn’t very satisfying from a storytelling perspective.
So what is different about Goodfellas and a film like Amadeus? Well, Goodfellas presents itself more like a story. It treats the early portion of the biography as mere background which the narrator tells with aplomb as he sets up the story. Then the film essentially “begins” by launching into the core of his life, which it presents as the story of the buildup and collapse of the Lufthansa robbery. This gives you the sense that you are watching a single story rather than a series of vignettes, even though you are in fact still watching the vignettes, because you are given a fairly standard storytelling formula.
Moreover, once the Lufthansa storyline plays out, the story seems to take on a faster pace... a concluding pace... as it presents the ending as the fallout from the Lufthansa chaos, with a clear driving theme now being that our hero is slowly being isolated and will soon be hit by his friends. Again, this ties everything together and feels like a continuation of the same story even though it isn’t.
Based on this, it strikes me that the key to making a biopic into a good film is finding a single story narrative that can be imposed on the person’s life. That element is what turns the typical unconnected series of vignettes that comprises most biopics into a film that pulls audiences in and gets them interested in the story.
Thoughts?
