The Biopic Epidemic
By JILLIAN CHENG ‘27
Far too many sideburns have made their way to the big picture screen in the past few years. From Bob Dylan to Elvis to Elvis again, biopics have taken movie theaters by storm. And, to be absolutely honest, while the quality of most of these biopics has been quite high, no matter how well-written or filmed this influx of biopics are, watchers, including me, are growing tired of the movie industry’s romanticization and hyper fixation of the past.
Biopics are an easy way to romanticize the past in cinema. A telling example of this romanticism is Bohemian Rhapsody (2018). The movie is a rich biography of Freddie Mercury and music, the richness of Freddie Mercury’s imagination and voice, and how Freddie Mercury became Freddie Mercury. Yet, the biopic skirts around the AIDS epidemic occurring at the same time as Mercury discovers his bisexuality. In fact, a large part of the movie revolves around Mercury’s platonic relationship with his female ex-lover, Mary Austin. While some may argue that this relationship is nuanced and complicated, it ultimately does not provide the full view of Mercury’s life. The movie skirts around conscious LGBTQ representation in favor of a showy depiction of the Freddie Mercury we all know and love. The director’s decision to condense Freddie Mercury’s life excludes his queer identity and his upbringing as an Indian Parsi man. Despite all my criticism, Bohemian Rhapsody is still a great movie. It does not properly represent Freddie Mercury as a man but instead as a legend.
Either way, Bohemian Rhapsody grossed $216.7 million in America. Once an audience sees an actor, back arched in front of a crowd of millions, upon a poster with the words “Bohemian Rhapsody” written in bold, it becomes clear to themwhat the movie is about: Queen. In the most recent age, biopics essentially use sacred figures in pop culture to draw in an older demographic while using an up and coming A-lister as the lead for the younger generation.
Take Elvis (2022). As Austin Butler went on the Elvis press tour, younger audiences fixated on his handsome looks and his comparison to the real Elvis. Social media flooded me with soundbites of Austin Butler speaking, people psychoanalyzing his method acting, praising his depiction of Elvis’ accent which eventually launched him to stardom. Simultaneously, older audiences flocked to theaters to relive Elvis’ dazzling rise to fame. Biopics are popular because they appeal to so many different audiences.
However, once I saw the Priscilla (2023) trailer come out only a year later, I couldn’t bear hearing another take on Elvis’ drawl. No matter how good Jacob Elordi’s Elvis Presley impression was, I just couldn’t bring myself to watch it. Nothing could dissuade me from how glaringly repetitive the movie industry was becoming. The influx of biopics reminded me of Disney’s poor-quality sequel frenzy, like Moana 2, Freakier Friday, and Inside Out 2. It seemed to me like the movie industry was tired of trying new things. There are only so many stories to tell within the biopic genre, and I don’t think directors shouldn’t tell that story, just as I think directors shouldn’t ever make sequels. I feel that the release of biopics could be spaced apart further or movie studios could continue experimenting with different genres.
After seeing so many biopics in a row, the genre falls flat as history is crammed down your throat. Many plots turn out to be small-town-talented-no-name is launched into fame from insert-incident, and while that plot line inherently is not problematic, relying on it for revenue to draw in bigger crowds eventually will no longer be sustainable.
Biopics are good. Most are even critically acclaimed. However, the audience is beginning to suffer from biopic fatigue. Biopics are reliable for making money and for drawing in numbers, but the nature of the biopic prevents its own success when overproduced.
