Problematic genre

From time to time I add my voice to a thread asking who might best play some historical character in a really-planned or imaginary (or hoped for) biopic. But the very question suggests the basic problem(s) of the genre.

(1) Casting as a problem: We tend to wish to see the actor who most looks like the character, or at least the public image of the character. But while this might be the easiest choice, it's not always the best. A few months ago we were asked, in the daily poll, "Who should play the Three Stooges?". Mostly everyone picked Jim Carrey to play Curley. I picked James Gandolfini from the list, along with about 0.5% of the others. So we look for an actor who can mimic, not necessarily portray the essence.

(2) Dramatic arc: Most biopics have the same problem with their dramatic structure. Poor and/or simple beginnings, rise, fall, redemption. And an obligatory flash back showing us "why" the person is the way he/she is. It's fitting the character into the narrative structure, rather than finding one that fits the demands of the material.

Orson Welles understood it in his, albeit fictional, Citizen Kane. You can put as many jigsaw pieces into the mix, but you won't understand the person. You can't.

Todd Haynes made what I feel to be the best biopic, when he gave up any intention of "portraying" Bob Dylan, and made an attempt, almost successful in my opinion, to search for what "Dylan" means, where how we view the subject is just as important as the subject itself. I'm Not There was, perhaps, the best biopic in modern times, in that it tried for something else.

That being said, I get excited, along with everyone else, when a new biopic is being planned (my personal fantasy is for one showing the early vaudeville era Marx Brothers). But I understand the basic limitations of the genre.

"If I knew the way, I would take you home" ("Ripple")