Can Biopics About Someone Who Has Passed Away Ever Be Ethical?
Photo courtesy of Unsplash
Profiting off pain. That’s what first comes to mind upon hearing that yet another biopic is in the works. Amy Winehouse is the latest celebrity to be desecrated at the hands of a director.
In recent years we have seen a wave of biopics framed with the intention of demonstrating the tortured inner lives of deceased celebrities. The promotion for the Amy Winehouse movie reads; “Back to Black crashes through the looking glass of celebrity to watch this journey from behind the mirror, to see what Amy saw, to feel what she felt.” How on earth can the director “see what Amy saw” or “feel what she felt”? In the same vein, Blonde starring Ana de Armas was released recently, a dehumanising exploitation of Monroe’s traumas which reduced her life to a horror movie-like series of events. Spencer, one of many portrayals of Princess Diana, this time played by Kristen Stewart, explores her psychosis, and sensationalises her eating disorder; depicting her struggles with mental health as a main facet of her personality throughout the movie.
What’s problematic about these depictions is that by watching scenes indicating traumatic events, or enacting the speculated mental health of these celebrities, audiences are led to believe that they are gaining a true introspective understanding of the subjects’ lives. More than just a glossed over retelling of historical events, these films are often framed as psychological dramas. The directors are capitalising off the pain of these tragically deceased celebrities, and the rumours surrounding their lives, for monetary gain, or personal creative agendas. Nothing about these movies was intended to honour or humanise them.
This is not to disrespect the quality of the acting within these movies; Stewart’s depiction of Princess Diana, and de Armas’ portrayal of Marilyn Monroe stand so well when compared to interviews of the late celebrities, that it makes the movies seem even more ‘truthful’. And the disclaimers at the beginning or end of these movies, which state that they are fictional or merely ‘based on’ true events solely serves as a legal precaution, doing nothing to dissuade the effect these movies can have.
The question of whether familial consent does anything to make these movies ‘more ethical’ requires a reflection on the real relationship that the deceased had with their families. What kind of fame or monetary advance can families gain if these movies are created? Addressing the ethics when consent has been refused is a whole other ballgame. Pamela Anderson spoke out about how much the biopic Pam and Tommy hurt her, and it’s not difficult to imagine deceased celebrities who no longer have a voice feeling the same.
Arguments that somehow being in the public eye makes celebrities liable for being portrayed, and having speculative movies made about them, is dangerous. To believe that there is no limit to society’s possession of celebrities is misguided; the parasocial relationships that people curate with celebrities do not mean that intrusive and untrue examinations of their lives are okay. Let them rest.