28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[balmakboor]

I would die a happy man if my dream movie would come true. A biopic of Mick Jagger and the Stones focusing especially on the period from Aftermath through Exile on Main Street directed by the man who seems born to direct the story Martin Scorsese. Two of my favorite movies since my college days in the early '80s have been Performance and Gimme Shelter and my head swims at the possibilities of Scorsese bringing those events to life. Not to mention the delicious weirdness that must've surrounded the recording of Satan Majesties Request, the party where Jagger proudly showed up with his brand new creation Beggars Banquet only to be upstaged by McCartney showing up with Hey Jude, and Mick's collaboration with Kenneth Anger on Invocation of My Demon Brother and so many other bits of coolness. Not to mention Mick's acting in a Western.

Other choices for director:

Hal Ashby (too bad he passed away)
Todd Haynes
Gus Van Sant
John Cameron Mitchell

[Ezee E]

But who would play Mick?

[Winston*]

But who would play Mick?

Guy Pearce, Rory Culkin, Max Von Sydow, Michael Clarke Duncan, Charlotte Rampling, and a cat wearing sunglasses.

[Mysterious Dude]

Guy Pearce, Rory Culkin, Max Von Sydow, Michael Clarke Duncan, Charlotte Rampling, and a cat wearing sunglasses.

So... Leonardo DiCaprio?

[transmogrifier]

No more biopics! Down with biopics!

Make movies about discrete historical events, sure. But let's stop these draggy, centreless, pointless shallowfication of famous lives. Please.

[Watashi]

I'm going to make a biopic of trans.

Ellen Page will star.

[transmogrifier]

I'm going to make a biopic of trans.

Ellen Page will star.

As long as it focuses only on that time I cured cancer but then lost the formula in a freak spelunking mishap. Paul Dano can play me, with a lisp.

No need to be all portentous about my birth, or try to pinpoint a time in second grade where the careless dismissal of my affections by a young crush laid the seeds from which my spelunking obsession would sprout, nor to frame it with me sitting at my computer at the age of 50, arguing with Svensos about the use of the word "atonal" etc, etc.

[balmakboor]

No more biopics! Down with biopics!

Make movies about discrete historical events, sure. But let's stop these draggy, centreless, pointless shallowfication of famous lives. Please.

I don't much like traditional biopics either. That's why I selected the directors that I did. I think they could go well outside of the box. (Although Milk was a bit too inside the box for me.)

Who should play Mick? Hmmm, not sure. It'll take some thought. Maybe Michael Pitt (even though he already sort of played Kurt Cobain).

Other cool stuff to re-enact would be Mick's brief involvement in Fitzcarraldo and attempted involvements in A Clockwork Orange and Amadeus.

[balmakboor]

GoodFellas was a biopic. So was Raging Bull.

[balmakboor]

[Qrazy]

No more biopics! Down with biopics!

Make movies about discrete historical events, sure. But let's stop these draggy, centreless, pointless shallowfication of famous lives. Please.

So are you only against biopics or also character studies in general? Because telling a story about the rise and fall of a fictional character doesn't seem any more pointed or pointless to me than that of a famous person. I can see preferring ensemble pictures to single protagonist centric films but other than that... Although I am with you that there are a large number of rote biopics... but there's also a lot of rote adaptations of novels in general.

[baby doll]

GoodFellas was a biopic. So was Raging Bull.

Exactly. There are good biopics (Goodfellas), and not so good ones (Raging Bull).

[Milky Joe]

There's probably a really interesting essay to be written on how The Dark Knight both capitalized on and ran itself aground on its own hype. I was so unbelievably excited for the movie when I first saw it, and it totally delivered on that first viewing. Every moment was like divine revelation, every scene pitch-perfect. Then I saw it again (and again) and realized how plodding, overstuffed, and boring it really is, how overly methodical it is. It's like they specifically cut it to be seen only one time. There is no nuance whatsoever. Except for Ledger. He kills that movie, and everyone else in it. In a good way, for it was a movie that needed to be killed. Color me not interested in the third one.

[Raiders]

Exactly. There are good biopics (Goodfellas), and not so good ones (Raging Bull).

[number8]

Exactly. There are good biopics (Goodfellas), and not so good ones (Raging Bull).

Backwards.

[transmogrifier]

So are you only against biopics or also character studies in general? Because telling a story about the rise and fall of a fictional character doesn't seem any more pointed or pointless to me than that of a famous person. I can see preferring ensemble pictures to single protagonist centric films but other than that... Although I am with you that there are a large number of rote biopics... but there's also a lot of rote adaptations of novels in general.

Fictional characters can have their story tailored to fit themes, or to have satisfying character arcs, or to include interesting events. Real people cannot, and so biopics tend to just include everything that can be considered remotely interesting, with little in the way of forward momentum or cohesiveness. And they are useless as historical record, because a lot of the real life events get changed anyway.

Rule: if someone's life is not interesting enough that you have to change key details for it to work on film, then fictionalize all of it and make it work as an allegory. Because otherwise you are wasting your time.

[Mysterious Dude]

GoodFellas was a biopic. So was Raging Bull.

I think the key difference between these examples and a hypothetical biopic about Mick Jagger is that Jake LaMotta and Henry Hill are rather minor historical figures, if they even qualify as historical figures, whereas the Rollings Stones are one of the most popular musical groups in history. Tell me something about Mick Jagger that I don't already know. I predict a movie about him being about as interesting as Ray or Miracle.

[Adam]

Like transmogrifier touched on - it's impossible to condense even a terribly uninteresting person's life into a two hour movie. The best "biopics" are the ones that focus entirely on a specific event or maybe era in a life and define the person based off that one event/era. So I say if you're going to do a Mick Jagger biopic, it has to revolve solely around his gay love affair with David Bowie and their subsequent contributions to the bucket of semen that Rod Stewart had to have pumped from his stomach

[DavidSeven]

Is Goodfellas really even a biopic in the most traditional sense? It seems more like a "historical film" narrated by a character based on a real life person.

Raging Bull is certainly a biopic, and a good one, but the aesthetic and the performances make the film. I can't say I found LaMotta's story, in itself, to be all that enthralling. In fact, it's probably the worst aspect of the whole thing.

[Russ]

Is Goodfellas really even a biopic in the most traditional sense? It seems more like a "historical film" narrated by a character based on a real life person.

Raging Bull is certainly a biopic, and a good one, but the aesthetic and the performances make the film. I can't say I found LaMotta's story, in itself, to be all that enthralling. In fact, it's probably the worst aspect of the whole thing.

DS, have you seen Lenny? It's similar to the Scorcese film, in that both feature unsympathetic leads, but with an infinitely more compelling narrative, imo.

Plus, Valerie Perrine, ftw.

Only slightly nsfw:

[

Show Spoiler

]

[Adam]

Is Goodfellas really even a biopic in the most traditional sense? It seems more like a "historical film" narrated by a character based on a real life person.

Goodfellas follows the rise and fall cliche to a tee, but yeah, it's more about "the life" than it is about Hill the man. And I agree with you about Raging Bull

[B-side]

I'm liking this Mike Figgis character so far. One Night Stand can be pretty didactic, but it's absorbing stuff. The Loss of Sexual Innocence is the superior film of the 2 I've seen, but both have a nice, moody, jazzy vibe.

[soitgoes...]

I'm winding down on Kurosawa's filmography. It's probably a good thing since I haven't seen anything close to being called great from him in quite awhile. In his post 1950 work there is always flashes of greatness to be found here and there in his films, but nothing sustaining. One more to go, and while I don't think Madadayo will astound, I hold hope that those flashes of brilliance occur more often than not. No matter how it plays out for me, the end of my journey through Kurosawa's films will be somewhat bittersweet. Like a few of you, I imagine, his films really were my first true exposure to world cinema. The beauty of film is that I can revisit him as often as I like.

[balmakboor]

I had promised myself I would wait until the Blu-ray drops in 16 days to watch them again, but I felt in the mood and popped in the first disc of By Brakhage last night. My nearly 30 year love affair with his work continues to be strong. I love Dog Star Man more every time I see it. Watched it twice last night alone. Once the new set comes out, I plan to blog my thoughts on all 56 films. Should be an interesting project.

[balmakboor]

DS, have you seen Lenny? It's similar to the Scorcese film, in that both feature unsympathetic leads, but with an infinitely more compelling narrative, imo.

Plus, Valerie Perrine, ftw.

Only slightly nsfw:

[

Show Spoiler

]

Lenny is another great choice.

I included both GoodFellas and Raging Bull because I think they're both pretty damn brilliant. Very good point made though about them being about minor figures. Jagger is very well known and would require something, as I said before, "out of the box." But, Dylan is well known and I'm Not There is a great film -- as well as one that's far from your traditional biopic.