the biofilm) represents the life history of anactualperson.

Unlikedocumentaryfilm, biopics employ actors to play the roles of these individuals: they are dramatised, fictionalfilms.Biopicsareoftenmarketedas beinginspiredbyorbasedonthelivesof famous people including entertainers, royalty, scientists and even criminals. Custens study focused on the variety of biopicsreleasedsolelyduringthestudioera of Hollywood cinema (approximately 1930 to 1960). In contrast, Dennis Binghams Whose Lives Are They Anyway? The Biopic as Contemporary Film Genre engages in a comprehensive discussion of the history of biography ranging from the biographical writing of Lytton Strachey (18791932) throughtotheindependentfeaturefilm Im Not There (Todd Haynes, 2007). Whose Lives also looks at the various forms of biopic including theatrical releases, made fortelevision movies and short films. The book describes the aesthetic differences of these forms and the impact they have on the life story of the star. The depth of the study makes Whose Lives arguably the single most prolific academic study to date that analyses the current state of the biographicalfilm. There are innumerable ways to categorise and hence study the biopic, including type of protagonist, period of release, narrative theme and aesthetic. Whose Lives appropriately groups the selected biopics according to the gender of the protagonist. Separated into these two sections, WhoseLivestacklesthesignificant differencesbetweenthe(white)malebiopic and female biopics: As Bingham explains, This book studies the evolution and life cycle changes of the genre. It also sees biographies of men and women as essentially different genres, as criticism of

New Scholarly Study of the Contemporary Biopic

Penny Spirou
Macquarie University

REVIEW

Title:WhoseLivesAreTheyAnyway?The BiopicasContemporaryFilmGenre Author:DennisBingham Publication Details: Rutgers University Press (New Brunswick, New Jersey & London) PublicationDate:2010 PaperISBN:9780813546582 ClothISBN:9780813546575 RRP:USD$32.50 NotsinceGeorgeF.Custensseminalstudy, Bio/Pics:HowHollywoodConstructedPublic History, has there been a significant attempt to provide any major scholarly study on the biopic. The biopic or biographical film (sometimes referred to as
78

SPIROU|REVIEW: THE CONTEMPORARY BIOPIC literarybiographyhasalsotendedtodo(10). Asmenandwomendiffergreatly,sotoodo filmsabouttheirlives.AsBinghamargues:

Thisdifficulty,accordingtoBingham,kept female biopics in a cycle that constantly represented womens lack of success and theirmistreatment.ThetrendthatBingham determines in Whose Lives is that even though particular careers or life events contrast for each individual, the life of an actual woman is represented in a distinctly different way to that of a man in a biopic. The disparity is attributed to cultural perceptions of gender throughout history, in line with views evoked and established predominantlythroughclassicalHollywood cinema. Through close analyses of selected films, the first section of Whose Lives, The Great (White) Man Biopic and its Discontents, offers a perception that films about men have gone from a celebratory wartsandall to investigatory to postmodern to parodic (10). Bingham discusses various films, some not even marketedasbiopics,including CitizenKane (1941). In Chapter Three, Citizen Kane and the Biopic, Bingham notes that the saving grace of the Great Man...is his self possession (66). Unlike the female, the male protagonist knows and acknowledges his own weaknesses and pushes past them, according to Bingham. He simultaneously displaysweaknessandstrength.

The Great (White) Man Biopic also includes indepth reflections on the works ofprominentbiopicdirectorsSpikeLeeand OliverStonethroughanalysisof Malcolm X (1992), Nixon (1995) and W. (2008) respectively.Thebookmakesthepointthat the role of the director, especially in contemporary cinema, is crucial. This is particularlysignificantbecause,asBingham points out in Whose Lives, many directors began their careers as scholars themselves: ToddHaynesmajoredinsemioticsatBrown University,MartinScorsesereceivedanArts degree in English and an MFA in film directing at NYU and Bill Condon studied philosophy at Columbia University. Furthermore, I argue that contemporary filmmakers are unbound by the production codes and censorship guidelines of the studios,astheywerebackintheHollywood studiosystem. The second section of Whose Lives, A Womans Life is Never Done: Female Biopics,arguesthat:
biopics of women...are weighed down by myths of suffering, victimization, and failure perpetuated by a culture whose filmsrevealanacutefearofwomeninthe publicrealm.Femalebiopicscanbemade empowering only by a conscious and deliberate application of a feminist point ofview.(10)

It is worth noting, as Bingham does, that while the female biopic displaces achievements on to the male partner (managers,husbands)(214),themalebiopic alwaysplacesthewife(orfemalepartner)as secondary to the husband, yet substantially assisting him on his path to success (61). These gender relationships deserve more comparative study, rather than being analysed in separate sections, as is the case in Whose Lives. Although Whose Lives
79

NEWSCHOLAR|VOL.INO.I|NEW SCHOLARSHIP? analyses female biopics included in Binghams earlier work (such as Superstar: TheKarenCarpenterStory[1988])aswellas The Notorious Bettie Page(2005)and Marie Antoinette (2006), the book nonetheless introduces and distinctively characterises this longoverlooked type of biopic. Binghams focus on the female biopic clearlyatteststhatthefemaleasvictimwas a more marketable subject than a female survivor and was thus adopted as a conventionpostHollywoodstudioera(217). The methodology adopted in Binghams chapters, each of which centres on one particular biopic, commences with researchintotheactualindividualslife.The chapters then progress to a discussion of the history of biopic filmmaking, followed byanassessmentofthefilm,finallyplacing these research outcomes in the context of the film genres development. The central argument of Whose Lives is that the biopic genre is not staticthat it has evolved dramatically over time and continues to change. In its analysis of the evolution of the biopic, Whose Lives suggests that this genre is currently at the neoclassical stage, meaningthatthesefilmsintegrateelements of all previous forms of the genre (1718). The contemporary biopic encompasses all developments of the genre throughout its history in the cinema. According to Bingham, the biopic was a classical, celebratory form of representation which transformed into a realist, melodramatic form. Hollywood studio era biopics were a producer genre, whereas cotemporary biopics are more of an auteur (director) genre. Some biopics are a critical investigation (atomisation of the subject), parody or minority appropriation (mythologisingapreviouslymarginalisedor stigmatised individual) (18). The evolution of the genre is apparent and Bingham reiterates this notion throughout Whose Lives. As opposed to Bingham, academic historians such as Robert A. Rosenstone, RobertBrentToplin,JohnE.OConnorand HaydenWhitecentretheirexaminationsof the biopic on biographical accuracy. Fabrications, omissions and specific details of the life narrative are their primary concerns. However, the function of the biopic, as Bingham asserts, is not historical precision:itisaformofentertainmentthat demonstrateshoworwhythatstarpersona is significant and how this may help us, as filmaudiences,learnaboutourownsociety and culture. After all, filmic representation of history is a reflection of (overtly subjective) perspectives: of filmmakers and ofthepublic.Filmsfunctionasavehiclefor individuals to attempt to understand their ownidentities.Thebiopicshowsjustoneof the innumerable ways in which a famous individualcanbeperceived. The problem with a study so vast is thatsomeformsofbiopic(andissuesraised therein) are excluded altogether, especially considering that there were at least one hundred biopics released within the last decade (2000 to 2010) in the USA alone (IMDb). As Bingham notes, Whose Lives is drawn to certain films without a lot of concern for what national cinema they represent.Thisbookisnotarepresentation ofbiographicalfilmsfromaroundtheworld (26) and tends to focus predominantly on Hollywood films. However, international biopics such as La Vie En Rose and Gainsbourg (France,2007and2010),Control (Britain,2007)andTheRedBaron (Germany, 2008) deserve as much attention as do Hollywood films. Perhaps due to the diversity of the biopic, an enlarged

80

Spirou|REVIEW: THE CONTEMPORARY BIOPIC comparative international study is best savedforanotherscholarlyenquiryentirely. Fundamentally, the study of the biopic involves interdisciplinary work. It engages with film studies/theory, cultural studies, historical studies and biographical studies (to name a few relevant disciplines). Therefore, Whose Lives will certainly make a substantial impact on multiple fields of academic study and will draw attention to thisunappreciatedgenre.Indeed,oneofthe central issues that Bingham highlights in this book is that the academic study of the biopic is incredibly undervalueda valid concern,promptingBinghamtosuggestthe need for ongoing scholarly analysis (22). Regardlessofthismarginalisedfield,Whose Lives Are They Anyway? The Biopic as Contemporary Film Genre makes a solid contribution to scholarly study. An engaging read, this book is an open work that allows room for future endeavours in this area, which are anticipated to expand uponthisfoundationalresearch. NS Penny Spirou is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Media, Music, Communication and Cultural Studies at Macquarie University. She is currently completing her research on the contemporary musical biopic and recently published a critical view article for Metro Magazine (issue 165): I'm Not There: The FutureoftheMusicalBiopic.

WORKSCITED
Citizen Kane. Dir. Orson Welles. Perf. Dorothy Comingore, Joseph Cotten, Orson Welles.RKOPictures,1941.Film. Control. Dir. Anton Corbijn. Perf. Toby Kebbell, Alexandra Maria Lara, Samantha Morton, Sam Riley. Momentum Pictures/ TheWeinsteinCompany,2007.Film. Custen,GeorgeF. Bio/Pics: How Hollywood Constructed Public History. New Jersey: RutgersUP,1992.Print. Bingham, Dennis. Whose Lives Are They Anyway? The Biopic as Contemporary Film Genre: New Brunswick, Rutgers UP, 2010. Print. Bingham, Dennis. I Do Want to Live!: Female Voices, Male Discourse and Hollywood Biopics. Cinema Journal 38.3 (1999):326.Print. IMDb. Genre: Biography. <http://www.imd b.com/genre/biography>, accessed 4 May 2011.Website. Im Not There. Dir. Todd Haynes. Perf. Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Heath Ledger, Richard Gere. The Weinstein Company/ParamountPictures,2007.Film. La Vie En Rose. Dir. Olivier Dahan. Perf. Marion Cotillard, Gerard Depardieu, Sylvie Testud.Picturehouse,2007.Film. Malcolm X. Dir. Spike Lee. Perf. Angela Bassett, Spike Lee, Denzel Washington. WarnerBrothers,1992.Film. Milk.Dir.GusVanSant.Perf.JamesFranco, EmileHirsch,SeanPenn.UniversalPictures, 2008.Film.

81

NEWSCHOLAR|VOL.INO.I|NEW SCHOLARSHIP? Nixon. Dir Oliver Stone. Perf. Joan Allen, AnthonyHopkins,PaulSorvino.Hollywood Pictures/CinergiPictures,1995.Film. OConnor, John E. History in Images/Images in History: Reflections on the Importance of Film and Television Study for an Understanding of the Past. American Historical Review 93.5 (1988): 12001209.Print. Rosenstone, Robert A. History in Images/History in Words: Reflections on the Possibility of Really Putting History onto Film. American Historical Review 93.5 (1988):11731185.Print. The Red Baron. Nikolai Mullerschon. Perf. JosephFiennes,LenaHeadey,TilSchweiger, Matthias Schweighofer. Warner Brothers, 2008.Film. Toplin, Robert Brent. The Filmmaker as Historian. American Historical Review 93.5 (1988):12101227.Print. W.Dir.OliverStone.Perf.ElizabethBanks, Josh Brolin, James Cromwell. Lions Gate, 2008.Film. White, Hayden. Historiography and Historiophoty. American Historical Review 93.5(1988):11931199.Print.

82