Perfect way to tell a biopic

I can certainly agree that there are many exceptions because I usually disagree with any notion that tries to put cinema in a box of what it “should be.” I think it’s good to know one’s preferences but the moment one dictates what film should be is the moment one closes their minds to much of cinema.

To give examples of what I mean by message overriding authenticity, one need only compare Do the Right Thing with Paul Haggis’ Crash. Both seek to be ensemble films that depict a city struggling with wide spread racial prejudice. Neither are subtle in the least. However, due to the heightened, theatrical tone Lee chooses, he’s afforded greater suspension of disbelief. His depiction of racism is authentic to the film he has set up and ultimately, conveys an authentic message on the subject.

Haggis on the other hand, vacillates between theatrical and “gritty realism,” which ultimately undercut each other. Every speaks on the issue of race with a lack of authenticity and it undermines the heightened dramatic moments that feel mismatched with the rest of the film. Essentially, he violates authenticity because he wants every character to voice his message and it ultimately undercuts his film.

At no point do I think Haggis values his message on racism MORE than Lee, nor do I think Lee is concerned with “a good story” over his messaging. The message of that film dictates the story, the characters, and the execution.

Usually, people will dismiss Crash as preachy (and rightfully so), while it’s usually not used for DTRT. It could be, but it’s usually (and rightly) shielded by Lee’s authenticity.

On that same note, I don’t think there’s anything remotely wrong with a message or theme being the primary driving for of a film. I dislike narrative or character as the go-to paradigm for what movies “should be” (and don’t even get me started on “that’s not realistic!” as a criticism). I think theme, technique, and mood, among others, are just as valid of purposes for exploration through film. Many of my favorite filmmakers would fall under those labels, from Herzog, to Argento, to Malick, to Godard and countless in between.

Don’t get me wrong, I like a strong narrative and complex characters. But I think making them a default demand in films often leads to people making categorical mistakes in their criticism that carry about as much weight as criticizing the lack of car chases in a ballet.

The Assistant is currently on Hulu, I believe. It’s a slow burn but it’s stuck with me far more than most other films released last year.

Weinstein would be an interesting one. As far as biopics of unlikeable people go, I would like to see one of Christopher Dorner, but I am guessing Holllywood or a major studio wouldn't want to touch that one for like 50 years perhaps.

I didn't have a problem with the inclusion of the Charlottesville footage at the end of KKKlansman at all; what I did find excessive, though, was the scene where Stallworth's supervisor is talking about white supremacist efforts to infiltrate politics, to which Stallsworth responds by saying "America would never elect somebody like David Duke President of the United States of America". It felt like Spike was elbowing me just off-camera, and saying "GET IT?? Because that's what we just did!", and I just thought in exasperation "Yes Spike, I get it". That being said though, while that and a few other examples from the film felt like they were laying it on a bit thick, I still liked the film on the whole, and felt that the Charlottesville footage at the end was actually an example of effective, earned bluntness, and a welcome cold splash of water in response to the narrative that certain other race relations movies tend to send, acting as though racism in America ceased to exist after the 60's.

Leaving aside my earlier point about how I don't think Wolf is as much of a "make up your own mind" kind of film as you make it out to be, I reckon there's a marked difference between Belfort's crimes and Weinstein's crimes that would make it considerably harder (if not downright impossible) to invoke any sort of "temptation" angle when depicting the latter. Belfort does white collar fraud as a means of attaining and upholding his decadent lifestyle; the film only cares about it insofar as the threat of prosecution occasionally interrupts his constant partying (and even then he isn't totally punished for it by the film's conclusion, but that shouldn't necessarily be interpreted as the film taking a wholly ambiguous stance on his actions). That's a far cry from Weinstein taking advantage of a powerful industry position to commit sex crimes and then losing everything as a result of being exposed for said crimes.

Unless the filmmaker in question is really incompetent or misguided, I can't imagine a Weinstein biopic coming across as anything less than fundamentally condemnatory of its subject so I'm not overly concerned about reviewing cultural impact in this hypothetical instance. The film does have to understand and communicate how the subject fits (or doesn't) within the world at large - there's arguably room to do this with a Weinstein biopic not just by focusing on his victims but also those who either actively or passively enabled him. Even Wolf of Wall Street works largely by having Belfort as the centre of a world where his cronies can be at least as bad as him (if not worse) and emphasise that the problem is not just him alone.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

The moment the movie is told from belfort's point of view and he is the lead character in the movie, its taking the ambiguous route. Anyone who sits through a 3 hr movie where they laughed and felt bunch of emotions for the main character will empathize with him no matter what.

For me, the recent movie, "I care a lot" is the best of example of movie that doesn't leave much to ambiguity because i could barely sit through the movie as i was hating the lead role from the get go and movie never made me like her. Now, that's a movie that left nothing for ambiguity. Its incredibly hard to make an entertaining movie when you can't even empathize with the lead character. The more entertaining and fun a movie is, the more you agree with the lead character subconsciously. Its just a fact.

As for comparisons b/w weinstein and jordan belfort. The only difference that would have noticeable impact on the entertainment value of such a movie would be the physical appearance of the elad. You can't cast brad pitt to play weinstein but you can get a james gandolfini type to actor and audience will go with it. Even though they are different. Jordan belfort cheating customers to make millions and weinstein forcing himself on young actresses are both crimes. Crimes like weinstein's in a place like hollywood make is not much different from crimes like belfort's in a place like wall street. It becomes relative based on where it's done. If weinstein did what he did as a high school teacher or college professor then that's a different thing. But in hollywood, where actresses have to flirt but not sleep with, they have to take meetings in hotel suites but not sleep with, where producers/ directors/ creeps can see what an actress looks like naked whenever they want via audition tapes or internet, rules are already bent. It then becomes the responsibility of the individual to decide how far they take it and obviously face consequences as per the law. It's not a justification but the reality is, you wouldn't see that kind of behaviour for that long without getting fired or without some kind of impact on career in other professions. None of the accounts of victims of other predators were as bad as weinstein's and being in hollywood has something to do with that.

Then it's a question of whether you're meant to laugh with him or at him - I would argue that Wolf is fundamentally about the latter. The funniest scene in the movie is the part where he overdoses on high-strength Quaaludes and is rendered a legless, gibbering mess who has to struggle home - we laugh because he's put himself in this incredibly ridiculous situation for no good reason (and one of the final shots of the sequence is his daughter blankly observing all the drug-fuelled chaos, which draws the empathy away from Belfort himself). There's not much to empathise with beyond the very basic desire to succeed at life and even that is flipped on its head by how the film spends three hours on the ins and outs of a broken system ruled by a bunch of arrogant con artists so that by the time the film shows you some "normal" people again they're the ones who are ready to learn how to succeed like Belfort did, indicating a decision to empathise with him that is ultimately the wrong one.

It's one thing to talk about ambiguity, but I don't think that a movie being entertaining and/or a character being sufficiently empathetic necessarily indicates an agreement (even a subconscious one) with the character or their actions. You can empathise with Travis Bickle as a lonely person who can't forge a connection in a city as full of jaded individuals as New York City, but that doesn't mean you'd take an unsuspecting date to a porno theatre.

You never know, these kinds of movies love to cake pretty A-listers in ugly makeup.

But seriously, that's the thing - Weinstein's history goes back decades (he assaulted Asia Argento in the late-'90s IIRC) and it did have to take an unusual amount of effort and plaintiffs to sufficiently expose him so the story has to factor the victims into the proceedings at least 50-50 (or at least focus on the most high-profile ones like Argento or Rose McGowan). That's why I think it's a matter of addressing the culture that allowed Weinstein to continue on like this for years, but then again how honest can Hollywood culture be with itself on film? Then again, it'll depend on the film because this deserves better than to end up as another Bombshell.

Good points. I haven't studied the Weinstein accusations, nor have I followed the trials. But, given the history of the Hollywood film industry, it's hard for me to imagine that the actresses who met privately with Weinstein did not have a notion of what it might take to further their careers. Did Weinstein lock them in the room or chain them up? Could they not have turned around and walked out at any time they wished? Hollywood history is full of stories of actresses (and some actors) who have advanced their careers through sexual favors for influential people.