My dad has always been the biggest critic of biopics—seriously, in another life, he could have been a fact-checker. He refused to watch Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis, partly because of Luhrmann’s flashy directing style, but mostly due to the inevitable “inaccuracies.” He spends most films muttering, “that didn’t really happen.” So it came as a surprise when he loved A Complete Unknown—and that’s coming from a lifelong Bob Dylan fan. Even more shocking? He only pointed out a few minor inaccuracies. That unexpected reaction is what sparked my questions.
A quick Google search defines a biopic as “a film dramatising the life of a particular person, typically a public or historical figure.” But to condense a life story into a 2-3 hour narrative, events inevitably have to be cut, streamlined, or altered. A striking example is The Iron Claw, where—believe it or not—one of the Von Erich brothers was entirely omitted to make the story less tragic. While some biopics remove details, most tend to embellish for dramatic effect. Take The Social Network, one of my favourite biopics—which, arguably, isn’t much of a biopic at all. Aaron Sorkin, the master of screenwriting, reshaped Zuckerberg's story to heighten the drama, crafting a gripping tale of power, money, and betrayal rather than a strictly factual retelling; which would probably not have won as big at the Golden Globes or Oscars. However films like Nolan's Oppenheimer, which are close to perfectly historically accurate, managed to receive the same, if not more, critical success without embellishment.
maybe that’s what great storytelling has always been about—finding new ways to the truth, even if they come with some creative embellishment
Other biopics have not received the same glowing reception; profiting from someone's life story—especially one marked by tragedy—raises ethical concerns. Both Blonde, and Back to Black, biopics of the lives of Marilyn Monroe and Amy Winehouse respectively, have received criticism for exploiting their struggles rather than celebrating their success. They are two of the lowest rated biopics on Letterboxd, particularly due to them being boycotted for this reason.
Does a filmmaker need permission from the person, or their estate to tell the story? Coppola's Priscilla actually utilised Priscilla Presley as a producer on the film, and based the film on her autobiography 'Elvis and Me'. Luhrmann's Elvis was also met with much praise from the late singers estate, from his daughter, ex-wife, and granddaughter.
A Complete Unknown has the rare advantage of its subject, Bob Dylan, being alive and seemingly unbothered by the portrayal. But is it ever a little bold to make a film about yourself while still alive? Robbie Williams seems to think not—his biopic Better Man features him portrayed as a CGI monkey, pushing artistic licence to absurd extremes.
From The King’s Speech to Bohemian Rhapsody, many of the most acclaimed films of recent decades have been biopics. Even when we think we’re watching fiction, real-life inspiration is never far away. Perhaps every film is, in some way, a biopic—whether of a person, an era, or a cultural movement. So, do we ever really have original thoughts? Or are we just endlessly reinterpreting the lives and legacies of those who came before us? In the end, maybe that’s what great storytelling has always been about—finding new ways to the truth, even if they come with some creative embellishment.