Monday Morning Poll: The Great Biopic Debate
Filed under: Critical Thought, DIY/Filmmaking
As Hollywood prepares for its latest surge of biopics, yesterday's New York Times featured a very interesting article that posed the folllowing question: When it comes to acting in a biopic, is is better to mimic or transcend? As the Times points out, back in the day, there wasn't much of a debate. Despite not looking much like their characters, folks like Robert Redford (All the President's Men) and Warren Beatty (Bonnie and Clyde) had no problem convincingly portraying historical figures without dramatically alter their appearances.
However, you can't help but be blown away after witnessing the transformations Nicole Kidman (The Hours) and Charlize Theron (Monster) completed as part of their respective takes on Virginia Woolf and the real-life serial killer Aileen Wuornos. Sure, Theron did a nice job of capturing Wuornos through her acting, but let's face it -- there's no way she would have won an Oscar without all that make-up.
Some would argue a great actor shouldn't have to completely change his or her look in order to capture the essence of a person. This past year, Philip Seymour Hoffman (who looks nothing like the writer) dazzled as Truman Capote, despite barely changed his appearance for the role. Same goes for Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon when they took on Johnny Cash and June Carter Cash in Walk the Line.
So, I ask you: Is it important to you for an actor (or actress) to change their appearance when starring in a biopic, should they look nothing like the person they're portraying?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-07-2006 @ 11:57AM
Alex said...
It's always good luck when a top actor already looks something like his/her subject (Denzel Washington in Malcolm X, for example) but acting has always been about putting on makeup and such. Why should it be considered cheating or a lesser performance if they put on prosthetics just because they don't look like the real person? Tom Cruise doesn't look like Ron Kovic, so get him a mustache and some sideburns.
Also, sometimes the best actor in the world doesn't fit a part exactly. I know this is an exaggerated example but Denzel would never be convincing as JFK. If appearance wasn't an issue, he'd probably turn out a great performance but appearance would DEFINITELY be an issue concerning authenticity, so a good performance isn't always enough.
Reply
8-07-2006 @ 12:01PM
jmchez said...
Well, the actor should at least look a little like the person being portrayed. That's what surprised so many people when Theron wanted to portray Wuornos. If she hadn't used makeup and dental prosthetics it would have been ridiculous. Gorgeous hyperbeauty as trashy prostitute would not have worked. You got to suspend your disbelief a little.
That being said, acting should still carry most of the weight. Otherwise, all we would need are those impersonators from the Las Vegas "Rock Stars Live" revues (they include mostly dead stars actually).
Reply
8-07-2006 @ 3:03PM
Cath said...
That depends on the role. Bruce Greenwood did a spectacular job of transcending caricature in 13 Days. On the other hand, Charlize Theron proved that she was prepared to make herself unattractive, but also that she has no idea what lower class people are really like. Nicole Kidman, who is an otherwise brilliant actress, failed to find the elegance and dignity of Wolfe behind that ridiculous prosthetic nose. While costuming and physical alterations like weight gain can help an actor find an anchor, it won't make up for a lack of historical or cultural understanding.
It's hard to portray real life people. For one, they almost never look like movie stars. For another, few actors enjoy the life experiences that let them comprehend the character and his/her world. The burden to mimic, especially when the character is beloved or well-remembered is so heavy that most actors fail to get beyond mere surface. My hat is off to anyone daring enough to try, but IMO very few succeed.
Reply