Stop making biopics!

I realize some people lead fascinating, harrowing and complex lives. I'm also glad for this truth. The fact that some people have lives that are worthy of being adapted into biography films is not what concerns me. What concerns me is that these films, commonly called biopics, are being made and released with such alarming frequency that they are stomping on and casting shadows over other truly interesting and original films.\nIt seems lately that if a notable celebrity, politician, historical personality or infamous criminal has a life worthy of public attention, then his life story is patented, marketed and shoved onto an unwitting public in the form of a biopic. \nJust look at the evidence; at this year's Oscar ceremony, only one best actor nominee had not portrayed someone who actually lived. In the supporting actress category, three of the five nominees had roles based on living persons. Three of the best picture nominees were biopics. Also, other films like "Hotel Rwanda," "Vera Drake," "Kinsey" and "The Motorcycle Diaries," which were nominated in acting and screenwriting categories but not for best film, featured historical figures. This is to say nothing of the tremendous amount of biopics in Academy history that have been nominated for or won the statuette, 22 nonfiction-based feature films since 1999 by my count. \nSo what could account for this staggering lack of originality? Why is it filmmakers keep making true-life stories instead of working with original stories? There could be several reasons. One of the most dominant seems to be the availability of such engaging life stories. So many interesting people have lived and died and filmmakers like making films that pay tribute to their heroes. Films like "Schindler's List," "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Gandhi" remind us what heroes are made of and how some people can change the landscape of society for the better. \nThese films have their place in the annals of film history, and rightfully so. But what sets them apart from the seemingly excessive bunch of biopics being produced lately is that they are based on people whose lives changed history. They are stories that begged to be told, whereas it sometimes seems the current trend in biography filmmaking seeks to glorify personalities whose life stories are interesting to the people who make the films, and then turn around and tell the viewing public they should be interested in these people as well. \nThere is a light at the end of the tunnel however. There has been an interesting trend in the Academy Award's winning selections for two categories in the past five years. In the writing categories, Best Original Screenplay and Best Adapted Screenplay, the Academy has selected original works of fiction all but three times. Films like "American Beauty," "Lost in Translation" and "Gosford Park" have been honored with writing awards. And surprisingly at this past year's ceremony, all of the nominated biopics in writing categories were defeated by "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" and "Sideways" -- two films many critics believe to be the best films of the year. \nSo what is the message being sent here? Write an original screenplay, make a good movie, get nominated for numerous awards and then get shoved aside at the ballot box and the box office for biopics that reek of Hollywood marketing and high production values. This sadly seems to be the trend and fate of so many good movies: movies that are ignored because some producer just decided that some noble dead person's life is worth the Hollywood fanfare it will inevitably receive. \nDon't get me wrong, I think biopics are sometimes very worthwhile. I won't deny that I wholeheartedly enjoyed "Ray" and Finding Neverland, interesting stories about interesting men who made good art. But can anyone argue that J.M. Barrie had the same effect as Mahatma Gandhi in the grand scheme of history?\nThat's not to say that only monumentally important historical figures deserve films made about them, but why such a high volume of films about people who simply wrote well, acted well, sang well or killed people? Some people even get multiple films made about them; John F. Kennedy was the subject of "JFK" as well as "Thirteen Days." One of my favorite film taglines continues to be for the film "Ruby," a biopic of the life of Jack Ruby, "the man who shot the man who shot JFK." Come on now, this is getting a little ridiculous. I'm not saying anything as radical as let's stop making movies about the life or assassination of JFK, but do we have to exhaust every possibility? Making films about his wife, his secretary of state and his assassin's assassin seems like taking the nation's fascination with the murder a little too far. \nThe film community and film-viewing public would be better-served if the Hollywood juggernaut stopped turning out biopics in industrial-sized bundles every year. True to life stories have their place, but let's try to keep at least some of them in the documentary category.