Who Wants to Live Forever?

The role of biopics in preserving a legacy

By Sarah Delehanty

Graphic by Ian Nugent

With the upcoming release of “Bruce Springsteen: Deliver Me From Nowhere,” conversations about biopic films have resurfaced. Many ridicule Hollywood executives for their supposed lack of originality and claim that biopics are overdone and underwhelming. According to members of the X community, “the world has enough musician biopics” (@1andonly_ace) and people should “go read a book about them instead of [watching] that highly sensationalized dramatized inaccurate portrayal” (@44girlsss). 

I can’t help but disagree with these disgruntled posters, however. Can the world ever have enough musician biopics? It’s highly debatable. Personally, I love venturing out to the theater to sit alongside the greatest musicians of all time on their passage to stardom. And nowadays, how many people will seek out — and actually finish — a book about a musician they’ve never heard of? How many brilliant artists will be lost in time if we rely solely on print media to tell their story? It’s my understanding that there are two reasons people will go see a biopic:

1. They like the musician it’s about.

Or…

2. They like the actor playing that musician.

When actors like Timothée Chalamet or Jeremy Allen White headline a movie, it’s almost guaranteed that people will go see it. That’s what biopics — and digital media in general — do for a legacy that print media cannot. They leverage the Hollywood star system to draw audiences in and prompt them to listen to these stories and learn about the pioneers and legends of music.

I’ve always considered myself a Queen fan. I used to jam out to “Bohemian Rhapsody” on car rides with my friends and listen to the Ella Enchanted version of “Somebody to Love.” But it wasn’t until I watched the Freddie Mercury biopic, “Bohemian Rhapsody,” that I discovered some of Queen’s greatest songs. “Love of my Life,” “Doing All Right” and “Hammer to Fall” have become musical staples since my first viewing — and without Bryan Singer’s film, I never would have discovered these gems. A similar thing happened after I saw “Bob Marley: One Love” with some friends from my hometown. Though none of us had been very familiar with Marley’s music before the film, it turned out to be a summer full of reggae tunes. 

It may be true that some biopics do dramatize and sensationalize their portrayals of some of the greatest figures in music, but I say — bring it on! What’s so terrible about a little bit of Hollywood flair to keep the audience engaged? The biggest draw of cinema during its formative years was simply the ability to see a moving picture, whether it was a train arriving at a station or a gardener being sprayed with a hose. As cinema developed, so did the audience’s expectations. We were no longer satisfied with watching mere depictions of reality. The draw of cinema had evolved into attaining the power to escape the ordinary. 

Doubtful? Just ask yourself: what’s the best-selling movie franchise of all time? I’ll give you one hint: it isn’t a franchise that shows us a true retelling of day-to-day life. It’s the Marvel Cinematic Universe. People pay to travel to other worlds, to cheer for heroes and to feel a chill in the presence of villains all from the comfort of their own seats. I’m not saying that “A Complete Unknown” should’ve featured robots and Dr. Doom. I am saying that in most cases, there must be some level of surrealism for a film to make it big. 

As we developed technology like CGI and green screens, we became increasingly able to deliver the extraordinary to audiences. In turn, they became increasingly hungry for surreality. Our advancements in cinema are both a blessing and a curse. 

Though some filmmakers might add pizzazz with an invented love interest or conflict, in many biopics directors work with friends or family of the artist to ensure the truth is told. So despite our demand for the fantastic, many biopics are as true to reality as possible.