? 🎞️ ?

with the flack the recent amy winehouse movie has been getting, i always go back to this as a question. there's some cases where it feels outwardly gross, like if it hasn't been that long since the person has died, or if the filmmakers are trying to put a spin on a person that conflicts with the reality of who they were (make a bad person look better, make a good person look worse, y'know) however, many of the other elements feel almost up in the air. - how long is considered "long enough" for a filmmaker to justify creating a story and capitalizing off a person's death? bc, i mean, under capitalism, ur going to be doing that by default - embellishments. like, just in general. the struggle between just telling it like it is and what makes for a good narrative. and when it gets to a certain point where it's like, why didn't you just make an original story if you're gonna veer so far from the truth? - how much do you involve any living relatives? especially depending on how those relatives feel about representing the person, protecting their legacy or what they may stand to gain from them, even after they've gone - making a biopic about a person who's still alive. do they have a right to have a say in how they're represented, for good or ill? do the actors representing them have a responsibility to have some kind of audience with them? idk, food for thought

Apr 15, 2024

Responses (3)

Related Recs