First Impressions

Will Gore asks why biopics and films based on real characters tend to produce award winners.

Feb 20 2007

After BAFTA wins for Helen Mirren and Forest Whitaker, the hype surrounding the Oscars is beginning to reach fever pitch.

Hype is hardly an alien concept when it comes to discussing the awards season, but it seems to me that in recent years a special kind of hysteria has grown up around films, like 'The Last King of Scotland' and 'The Queen', that portray well-known people, be they worthy or controversial.

It can't be disputed that there have been some superb performances of this kind throughout cinema history. Certainly, Whitaker and Mirren are up there with the best of them, including John Hurt's sensitive portrayal of John Merrick in 'The Elephant Man', Nicole Kidman and her prosthetic nose in 'The Hours' and Ben Kinsley's marvellous 'Gandhi'.

But as has been seen in recent years. films like 'Capote', 'Ray' and 'Walk the Line' receive an inordinate amount of attention. It seems that the overall quality of these films become overstated with the voice of a few critics being drowned out by the sound of backslapping and the ringing of cash registers.

Take 'Walk the Line' for example. After years of obscurity, Johnny Cash was catapulted back into the position of American icon thanks to a critically acclaimed series of albums that led to a whole new generation discovering his music.

Joaquin Phoenix's performance as Cash was loaded with earnestness. Here is a superb performance in an outstanding film about a truly great man, we were told. The idea that the film was average and Phoenix's performance nothing more than adequate was hardly countenanced, such was the prevailing mood of reverence.

The question of veracity is an interesting one when looking at the portrayal of real-life figures. Forest Whitaker's portrayal of Idi Amin is extraordinary, but the fact that 'The Last King of Scotland' is a fictionalised account of Amin presents an immense difficulty.

Whitaker's performance is so persuasive that the average filmgoer with little knowledge of Ugandan history could well come away from the film taking what they have seen as reality, particularly as the film concludes with factual information about what happened next, implying that what has gone before is similarly accurate.

Many would argue that being factually faithful is not important, it is only a film after all. But that line of argument dangerously misses the point. Sure, only Ray Charles anoraks will care if a film maker gets the colour of his underpants wrong, but when it comes to dealing with the recent history of a murderous dictator then the truth of the situation must be fully respected, and paid more than just lip service.

• 
•