These days, it seems that Hollywood’s level of original creativity has been on steep decline. There are so many more remakes and book-to-films than original screenplays, that the Academy may need to strip that particular category from its roster. Even reputable writers and directors are taking the easy way out (Titanic 3D, anyone?).
And it’s no difference when it comes to music.
Biopic after biopic is creeping up, and I’m not sure how I feel about it. I mean, who wouldn’t love to see some vintage Hendrix footage. But a biopic isn’t a collection of old photographs; it’s an interpretation of someone’s life.
It was recently announced that Andre 3000, of Outkast fame, has been cast to portray the legendary guitarist in a biopic of his life (or, rather, his life in London, England, between 1966 and 1967). Now, don’t get me wrong. I think Andre 3000 would make an amazing Hendrix. He’s got the smooth look, the glowing smile . . . I think I just blushed and giggled . . . But how can you fill a movie long enough to call it a biopic with only two years of a life? Albeit, Hendrix’s life is pretty incomparable, but still. Maybe it should be called a “di-biopic” or something.
But the Hendrix flick isn’t the only one of its kind. Taylor Swift has been slated to play Joni Mitchell (another swell casting decision – especially with Swift’s bangs), and Lindsay Lohan has (unfortunately) been cast as Elizabeth Taylor in the biopic of her life – I metaphorically vomit every time I think about that train wreck portraying one of the most amazing and prolific actresses of many a generation. Poor Liz must be tossing in her grave . . . .
What do you think? Are you like me – would you rather watch some cool hidden footage? Or do you love the Hollywood interpretations?