I used to love biopics. There were often easy and entertaining gateways into cultural figures I found fascinating from afar. Moreover, I\u2019m willing to admit that I was intrigued to see how whatever actor was cast would approach the impression of whoever it was they were playing, how they would adopt their idiosyncrasies and more salaciously, how they would tackle the accent.<\/p>\n
But, I can comfortably say that those days have now passed. My fascination was spared for the days when biopics were fleeting projects and only commissioned to create something truly artistic. Nowadays, they\u2019re a one way ticket to box office success, trying to piggyback off of the cultural conversation that might fleetingly surround the subject of the next picture.<\/p>\n
Sadly, they are now transparent in their intentions and baseless in their execution. And their recurring appearance in culture seems to be working against them, as a growing swell of tired audience members is expressing their distaste for the medium.<\/p>\n
Including Stanley Tucci, who said, \u201cI think those films are ridiculous,\u201d adding, \u201cNo one should ever make one again. How do you take a life and squeeze it into an hour and 45 minutes? I want the specificity. You take a little slice and focus on it, and from that you imagine the whole. I don\u2019t have to see the whole fucking pie. Just give me a little piece.\u201d<\/p>\n
So how did we come to this point? In my mind, I point the modern finger at F Gary Gray and Straight Outta Compton. Released in 2015, it was a compelling account of NWA\u2019s rise to fame and misguided studio executives into thinking all musicians needed a similar celebration.<\/p>\n
Then came the shit. Rocketman, Bohemian Rhapsody, and Elvis are the cr\u00e8me de la cr\u00e8me of said shit, watching like a frightfully long and glossy music video that takes brief breaks for dialogue.<\/p>\n
But of course, despite my outrage, biopics have existed long before the new era of trash and were once designed to do exactly what Tucci asked for; provide an intensely focused account of a specified era. Think Raging Bull, Milk or Capote. But while they seem like relics in comparison to the modern era, they are but youngsters in comparison to the very first biopic.<\/p>\n
So, who was the subject of cinema\u2019s first-ever biopic?
\nBiopics go right back to the beginnings of cinema, where early movie audiences were understandably fascinated with the idea of seeing historical figures, who they could only previously read about or see in paintings, brought to life.<\/p>\n
In light of this new appetite, filmmakers at the turn of the 20th century capitalised, creating a film about Joan of Arc. The film, simply titled Joan of Arc, was directed by Georges M\u00e9li\u00e8s, starring Jeanne Calvi\u00e8re as Joan of Arc, with M\u00e9li\u00e8s and Jeanne d\u2019Alcy in supporting roles.<\/p>\n
But, Stanley Tucci ought to cover his ears because the film was only ten minutes in length, which may have been considered long in 1900 but would have definitely not be enough time to cover the entire life of Joan of Arc.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I used to love biopics. There were often easy and entertaining gateways into cultural figures I found fascinating from afar. Moreover, I\u2019m willing to admit … <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2873,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2872","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog"],"yoast_head":"\n