History in the Movies/By Cathy Schultz
To get an Academy Award, Hollywood has learned that the truth is more powerful than fiction. Biographical films-or ‘biopics’ in Hollywood lingo-have recently proven irresistible to Oscar voters. In the last decade, at least one (usually more) of the Best Picture nominees has been a film focusing on real people or events. And in nine of the last 10 years, an Oscar has gone to an actor playing an actual person.
This year the trend has exploded. Three best picture nominees-“The Aviator,” “Ray” and “Finding Neverland”-are biopics, and eight of the acting nominations went to actors portraying real people, who range from the very famous-Ray Charles, Howard Hughes, Katharine Hepburn-to the not-so-famous-Senator Ralph Brewster (who?)
There’s an undeniable power to the phrase “based on a true story.” Historical reality lends biopics an emotional heft. These events really happened to these people, we think. His heart broke in just that way, she overcame that particular challenge and he triumphed (or self-destructed) just like that.
That façade of realism is the attraction of biopics, but also their risk. For even though we know (don’t we?) that biopics tell many “white lies” to simplify the story and make it more cinematic, we still get annoyed when films alter the history they depict.
Biopics, then, have two hurdles to clear in their path to glory and profit-they must resonate as a film, but also pass muster as history. If a film is too cavalier with the facts, if the little lies add up to less justifiable “big lies,” the resulting historical criticism can derail a film’s potential faster than you can say “JFK.”
Such was the fate of the 1999 film, “The Hurricane.” Denzel Washington was nominated for an Oscar for his mesmerizing portrayal of real life boxer and convict, Rubin Carter. As a film, “The Hurricane” is a compelling drama. Its message-an indictment of America’s racism-is powerfully conveyed. We watch, appalled, as racists destroy Carter’s boxing career and send him to prison on trumped-up murder charges.
Early buzz had “The Hurricane” pegged for multiple Oscar consideration. That is until critics began raising troubling questions about the film’s use of history. A key antagonist in the film-a loathsome, racist cop-turned out to be fictional. Critics charged that Carter’s character was misrepresented. And “Sports Illustrated” raised questions about the depiction of his boxing career, claiming that Carter lost bouts to legitimately better boxers, not because of racism. Under the onslaught of negative publicity, the film lost steam, and ultimately it, and Washington, were shut out of Oscar wins.
A similar fate seemed in store for 2001’s “A Beautiful Mind,” starring Russell Crowe as mathematician John Nash. Pegged as an early Oscar leader, the film’s prospects began to wither under attacks on its truthfulness. Critics charged that Nash was in reality an adulterer, father of an illegitimate child, possibly gay and maybe even anti-Semitic.
The filmmakers fought back, enlisting Nash’s wife, his biographer and Nash himself to buttress the film’s credibility. For the record, they admitted to Nash’s first marriage and child (claiming it wasn’t important for the story) but vehemently denied that Nash was gay or anti-Semitic. The counter-offensive worked; “A Beautiful Mind” triumphed at the 2002 Oscars with Best Picture and Director wins. (Crowe, though, lost in the Best Actor race, ironically, to Denzel Washington.)
This year, with three biopics nominated, you might expect to find some controversy, some carrying on about truth versus fiction, some outrage over mangled historical records. But oddly, it’s been very…quiet.
An occasional criticism has surfaced. Some have questioned whether the real J.M. Barrie (“Finding Neverland”) liked boys less innocently than shown in the film. (His biographer claims otherwise.) It’s the kind of criticism that would get more press if the film were considered a frontrunner for the Oscar, which it isn’t.
“Ray” has held up fairly well under historical scrutiny. It’s been reported that the film fabricated the plotline featuring the state of Georgia’s ban against Ray Charles. But that story, while true, didn’t pick up much steam. And “Ray” probably inoculated itself against any charges of misrepresentation by giving such a warts-and-all portrait (addiction to heroin, frequent adultery) of the man.
Which leaves “The Aviator.” It’s hard to view that film as a whitewash of Howard Hughes during the scenes when he’s in the full throes of his obsessive compulsive disorder, particularly when-in a cinematic first, I believe-we watch as he collects his urine in bottles.
But a few lonely voices have attacked its history, shouting out their outrage to an uncaring world. Their criticism can be boiled down to this-Hughes was meaner than the movie shows. Not much clout to that one.
The biggest reason biopics have had an easier ride this year is because a fictional story, Best Picture nominee “Million Dollar Baby,” has played the role of lightening rod, generating controversy not over historical accuracy, but over a moral question raised toward the end of that movie (and, no, you won’t get any more details than that since this is a spoiler-free review.) Attacked by some, praised by others, “Million Dollar Baby” is doing what the best movies can-generate discussion and debate over significant issues.
But it is odd that in the year of the biopic, we don’t have more historical criticism filling the media. Its absence leaves us simply discussing whether we like the Best Picture nominees as, well, movies. What a concept.
Cathy Schultz, Ph.D., is a history professor at the University of St. Francis in Illinois. You can reach her through her website at www.stfrancis.edu/historyinthemovies