Based on a True Story…Again?

We’ve made no secret of our belief that Hollywood is producing just a few too many paint-by-numbers Black biopics, and this week’s announcement of a whopping four black-themed biopics was just a case in point. According to Rotten Tomatoes’ Weekly Ketchup, all systems are go for an “official” biographical drama on Martin Luther King Jr., with Steven Spielberg at the helm; Will and Jada’s Overbrook Entertainment (in concert with Sony Pictures) has acquired the rights to John Keller’s life story (an ex-Marine who oversaw the rescue of 244 fellow Katrina victims); and Denzel is mulling his third directorial project, a little pet project called Brother in Arms, about “the only tank unit in the European theater of World War II that was manned by all African Americans”–based on a book co-authored by Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

We should note that the latter project has no shooting date–and the Weekly Ketchup writers slyly suggest that, perhaps, this is because there’s already a black WWII flick in the works—a Tuskegee Airmen project, currently filming in Europe.

Here’s the thing: we love heralding Black accomplishments as much as the next guy–and far be it from us to stand in the way of Our Own Stories Being Told. But aren’t most of these films rather indistinguishable from one another? If you’ve seen Remember the Titans, you’ve seen Glory Road. If you’ve seen Ray, you seen Cadillac Records (or parts of it, anyway). If you’ve seen The Rosa Parks story, you’ve seen Boycott. If you’ve seen Ali, you’ve seen… Will Smith in one too many of these vanity projects.***

It isn’t that we don’t endorse Black films being greenlighted; we do. It isn’t that we don’t love our history; we do. It’s that biopics, as a genre, are largely rote oversimplifications of incredibly complex lives. And no matter how nuanced an actor’s performance (or, as in the case of Denzel as Melvin Tolson, how phoned in), the formulaic storytelling impedes any real understanding of the person’s struggles and, more importantly, the accomplishment(s) that warranted a film in the first place. They all sort of bleed together untill you’re like, “You remember that flick where Cuba Gooding’s in the submarine and he’s a cook who manned a gatling gun?”

The best way to know your history is to research it for yourself. All the swelling music and single-teared male stars in the world aren’t going to provide you comprehensive—or even accurate—knowledge of actual events. So these “First Black ___ to Do _____” biopics work best when you go into them with your facts about the film’s subject straight. That way, you’re just watching for entertainment value and voluntary emotional manipulation.

All that said, we have to admit, we’re more than a little bit amped about Josh Brolin’s genius plan to both produce and star in a John Brown biopic. You can never have enough films about bloody, if ill-fated slave revolts.

24 thoughts on “Based on a True Story…Again?

  1. bitchphd May 26, 2009 at 11:44 am Reply

    The best way to know your history is to research it for yourself.

    Dude, you want everyone to be a historian? C’mon.

    (My worry about the MLK film is that Spielberg is so freaking sentimental. I really tend to dislike his movies, even when I “like” them, because they’re so goddamn manipulative and ultimately shallow.)

    • slb May 26, 2009 at 1:24 pm Reply

      You don’t have to be a historian to Google or ask someone you think might know. You know?

      And yeah, Spielberg can be crazy sentimental. My beef with the MLK flick is that there are already about four MLK flicks. I especially remember my third grade trauma upon viewing the Paul Winfield one….

      • bitchphd May 26, 2009 at 2:32 pm Reply

        You don’t have to be a historian to Google or ask someone you think might know. You know?

        Well, true. Pop culture does have a lot to do with what we “know” about history, though; there’s events, and then there’s the stories we make about ’em.

        (I don’t quibble with the point you’re actually making, I’m just being sort of pedantic.)

      • ladyfresshh May 26, 2009 at 2:34 pm Reply

        Googling something still wouldn’t have the same impact on a person that the packaged movie product does(not i…but i’m a ‘reader’ i don’t think most folks are). The average movie goer really isn’t trying to read like that about these subjects. I would think it works the other way around. If they see something that makes them curious after the movie they go looking for more sources…no?

        • slb May 26, 2009 at 2:40 pm Reply

          It’d be great if they did. Then, they’d know that Wiley College never debated Harvard.

          But they don’t always, trusting that the movie’s given them all the info they need.

          This also presupposes that these movies still have a significant/lasting impact. Do they? Aside from reviving the age-old “we need more positive black films like this!” conversation for a few weeks?

          • ladyfresshh May 26, 2009 at 3:43 pm Reply

            i’m not sure how significant lasting impact would be measured…

            number of viewings vs muse/inspirational motivation(i became an actor, doctor, scientist because i read vs i saw)?

            movies maybe gaining on the impact scale if more people are viewing than reading i would think this increases the chances of impact…

            this is for casual viewing/reading also

            i would think books read during school have alot of impact because of forced focus and critique but i assume casual consumption but this sort of interest drops off majorly for most after formal education

            so i would think a person is more likely to chance upon a movie at a theater or on tv than actually read about it and the possibility of it impacting them maybe greater

            (btw i found out about wiley because i googled afterwards lol)

            unfortunately we have become a visual society and i agree the quality of films leaves much to be desired but id argue much of history that is read is biased and can also contain inaccuracies

    • Winslowalrob May 26, 2009 at 2:48 pm Reply

      Whats wrong with being a historian!?!? We are good people!


      • bitchphd May 26, 2009 at 3:04 pm Reply

        But if everyone were a historian, it would be even harder than it is to find a job.

        See? I’m only thinking of your interests here.

        • Winslowalrob May 26, 2009 at 3:10 pm Reply

          Ha, great point! Thanks BPD!

          I actually dunno how hard it is to find a job as a historian, I find a lot of people who talk about the job market are talking about the other humanities (not that I should not find solidarity with my brothers and sisters in our common exploitation 🙂 ).

  2. Grump May 26, 2009 at 11:51 am Reply

    Is it too much to ask for a Nat Turner/John Brown movie combo?

  3. slb May 26, 2009 at 1:46 pm Reply

    *** The asterisks in the body of this piece are there because I’d intended to iterate that the examples in that paragraph are a bit of an overstatement. Obviously, this films are distinguishable enough from one another to warrant their production, but they still tend to follow pretty predictable and/or interchangeable arcs.

  4. lsn May 26, 2009 at 4:55 pm Reply

    Re the black WW2 films – isn’t there also a Spike Lee one either filming or about to come out? Maybe they’re waiting on box office results from that.

    I’d like to think that seeing these kind of biopics inspires people to go and find out more – but given the number of people who seem to think that “Pearl Harbor” was an historically accurate film I doubt it.

    • slb May 27, 2009 at 12:58 pm Reply

      the spike lee film, Miracle at St. Anna, is on DVD already. it came out last year, i think.

      • lsn June 3, 2009 at 5:26 pm Reply

        Really? Crap, I have to get out more.

  5. lucas green May 26, 2009 at 7:32 pm Reply

    Brilliant post, slb.

    But I wonder if it isn’t possible, even within the emotional nonsense of Hollywood, to do a good film that, in the span of 2 or 2 1/2 hours, gets to some basic non-bullshit truth about the subject.

    I’d guess that the less beatified the person in question is, the better a chance that the resulting film will feel like a human being’s life (so there’s zero chance of getting a good biopic of MLK– he’s our secular saint, and there are too many sensitivities at stake).

    The John Brown thing could potentially be interesting, actually. His life contains enough interesting ambiguities, and I don’t think folks would be offended one way or the other.

    Ah…who am I kidding? Hollywood’s got to make its money back. So, repeat after me: innocuous beginnings, youthful waywardness, awakening, struggle, and ultimate triumph.

  6. LaJane Galt May 27, 2009 at 9:30 am Reply

    I hope Brolin goes buckwild as John Brown.

  7. michaelTO61 May 27, 2009 at 12:11 pm Reply

    I think this all depends on the story you are going to tell. Are you going to try and do the whole life? That strikes me a a mistake because detail and character get swept aside for a series of events we all ready know or at least I know. I’d LIKE to see Coretta cussing him out and his kids crying when he was away for so long. I’d like to see some real doubt. I’d like to see if he was obnoxious. Mahalia Jackson said he was just a man. So let’s see what that really means. If they did something interesting with the form then I’d have no issue with paying to see a movie like this but I won’t be down with a movie that starts with a bullet ringing out in the dark and then takes us to said bullet ninety minutes later entering MLK’s head. Been there. Didn’t like it when I was there. Turn down the tshirt. What really gets me about all these movies is that there is SOOO much more that is more interesting than what they are putting forward. I wish more historians wrote screenplays.

    • Ron May 28, 2009 at 6:12 pm Reply

      If only screenplays weren’t so miserable to write.

  8. young_ May 27, 2009 at 12:59 pm Reply

    This is a very interesting post. I’m not sure how to make sense of this issue– my initial, gut take is that America seems to have an overall disinterest in serious black fiction and that the studio execs know that tying these stories to “real life stories” is a way to make a lot more money off these projects. But do we have any info on how these films come to be in the first place? Are guys like Will Smith, Denzel and Cuba coming up with these ideas and actively pitching them to the studios?

    • slb May 27, 2009 at 1:11 pm Reply

      from what i understand, people like will/denzel/cuba/halle (who’s also working on two or three biopics right now) purchase the rights to the stories, solicit spec scripts, and try to get studios to pick up the scripts–usually on the condition that said actor produces (contributes significantly to the overall costs of production) and/or star (which, supposedly, makes the film less of a risk b/c the actor’s a box office draw).

      but forcing the producer/actor to star in the film often backfires, as in the case of The Great Debaters. denzel’s only a box office draw in action flicks, whereas will is a draw across genre lines.

  9. Ron May 28, 2009 at 4:33 pm Reply

    I think the problem here is simple. Black stories are only told in this historical “see, we’ve really help build the country,” sort of way that treats folk as relics, rather than living, breathing individuals who are diverse, complex and as multifaceted as others.

    But Hollywood thinks people don’t want to watch those movies and so, they market the few that make it out poorly and the whole think on these greenlighted flicks is that they’ll be instant box office draws and reiterate stuff we knew, give us a few morsels we didn’t and assuage the guilt of a souls for a few days until they retreat to their normal spots.

    I don’t know if there’s any way around it, since the capital tends to come from the same places and people can probably argue with their pocketbooks, but…I have no idea if that’d be right. Seems like it’ll take another generation and we’ve seemingly regressed from the 80s and what amounted to the golden years of black screen presence.

  10. feministdonut May 29, 2009 at 10:33 pm Reply

    Okay, I just *know* you didn’t compare “Glory Road” to “Remember the Titans.”

    One is about basketball, and the other is about football and sucks. Hel-lo? 😉

  11. Diana Barry Blythe May 31, 2009 at 12:12 am Reply

    Say that, PostBourgie! Say that! Educate yourselves, people!! 😀

  12. […] Guest Contributor slb, originally published at PostBourgie We’ve made no secret of our belief that Hollywood is producing just a few too many […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: