Thanks for featuring my book! I agree with your general conclusions here but I cannot lie. I enjoyed the Springsteen biopic. Maybe my fandom overwhelmed my judgement.
I enjoyed reading this article, but at the risk of being pedantic I believe “Amadeus” had 200 year old (or about 250 years, now), rather than 150 year old, music. Impressive either way!
Really enjoyed this and have just realised I've been watching quite a few music biopics lately (Amy, One Love, A Complete Unknown and Amadeus as a restored version was released in cinemas a few months ago). I'm on the fence about this one because I'm not a Sprinsgteen fan and like you say this biopic doesn't even focus on a well-known album of his, but I may as well give it a go. Very excited though for The Beatles one, which will be a four part extravaganza.
Frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with this genre, in particular the complaint that it’s soulless. I have been watching music biopics since I saw The Glenn Miller Story when re-released in 1960. Most of them were forgettable until La Bamba in 1987, which had a terrific cast, great soundtrack and an unsentimental approach. Lady Sings the Blues also hit some high notes as did Dreamgirls.
That Hollywood has rediscovered this genre with offerings about Elvis, Dylan, Queen, Elton John, Whitney Houston and now Springsteen is no surprise — the music was great, the singers mostly admirable and the periods not expensive to reconstruct. There have been some excellent performances in these films and, personally, I have a lot of respect for those who are willing to risk the wrath of rabid fans who nitpick every departure from the perfection they see in the original performances.
I was prepared to be sorely disappointed by A Complete Unknown and was impressed by it’s verve and depth along with a superb job by Chalamet, portraying a not very likable but extraordinary young Dylan. Hopefully the Springsteen film will overcome my usual doubts as well.
At a time when the studios are turning out comic universe dreck and endless sequels, prequels and remakes, I for one am very happy that music creators are providing grist for film — we have only scratched the surface of this world, which is anything but soulless to me.
I was never a big Bob Dylan fan. I respected his music, but didn’t really like it, and I’m a card carrying Boomer. But I saw “A Complete Unknown” and liked the film and Chalmet’s portrayal of Dylan as a big jerkoff who was a musical genius.
I’m also probably one of a small minority who can’t stand Springsteen, including all the big hits. Wild horses couldn’t drag me to go see a movie about him.
I’m not sure what this proves other than that I probably have bad taste in music😎
Earlier this year, we saw Pavements, which deconstructs the music biopic by focusing on the influential but not terribly popular band Pavement.
The movie got stellar reviews even by people who weren't fans of the band, because it brings together real archival and new footage with the fictional behind-the-scenes of a fake big-budget biopic about Pavement starring recognizable Hollywood actors. The movie lets you see how actors twist themselves to play real people, and how movies lie to you.
As fan service, Pavements isn't great, but as an expose on the whole system of manufacturing legends, it's amazing. It pulled a 95 on Rotten Tomatoes, which is higher than any real biopic ever.
Great post. The thing about the Springsteen biopic is I found myself asking "who is this for?" Now, I'll admit that Springsteen was always 80s/90s background music for me, just one of many rockers in that era getting played on rock radio. Not bad, by any means. I'm not changing the channel, but not finding it particularly special or interesting. This isn't meant as a criticism of him, just my opinion/perception. And while I know there are big fans of his, I've always assumed they skew towards the northeast, which I don't have much cultural connection to, because I have rarely ever known anyone that would mention Springsteen as important to them. So while I am sure I am biased, my gut is that he doesn't have the broader cultural appeal of Queen, Whitney, Bob Marley, or Johnny Cash. I think the market for a movie about him is inherently smaller from the outset.
And so I absolutely do agree that your comment about the title is very astute. That is not a title that's selling the movie to anyone who isn't already a big fan, and I just don't think there are enough of those to carry a Hollywood film, even one with an 'it guy' star. That title says absolutely nothing to me. It sounds like some kind of fan service that I'm not privy to, and I'd no sooner watch that than I would some other relatively obscure product that I have no connection to.
But if I had a choice of what to stream between it and a 20th Dylan biopic, I'll take the Springsteen one just because I might learn something I don't already know (assuming it's not made up).
I saw the banal trailer; I'm a hard pass on the Springsteen film. Prior to that, I was 100 percent going to see the film. (And White was poor casting.)
On the other hand, I saw the trailers for a number of other musical bio-pics and was instantly keen to see films that I'd had no intention of seeing.
Thanks for featuring my book! I agree with your general conclusions here but I cannot lie. I enjoyed the Springsteen biopic. Maybe my fandom overwhelmed my judgement.
I agree with Chris - my fandom may have overwhelmed my judgement, but I thought it several rungs above mediocre. I was pleasantly surprised.
I enjoyed reading this article, but at the risk of being pedantic I believe “Amadeus” had 200 year old (or about 250 years, now), rather than 150 year old, music. Impressive either way!
Just watch Walk Hard [colon] The Dewey Cox Story. It’s better than all of them put together.
Really enjoyed this and have just realised I've been watching quite a few music biopics lately (Amy, One Love, A Complete Unknown and Amadeus as a restored version was released in cinemas a few months ago). I'm on the fence about this one because I'm not a Sprinsgteen fan and like you say this biopic doesn't even focus on a well-known album of his, but I may as well give it a go. Very excited though for The Beatles one, which will be a four part extravaganza.
Frankly, I don’t see anything wrong with this genre, in particular the complaint that it’s soulless. I have been watching music biopics since I saw The Glenn Miller Story when re-released in 1960. Most of them were forgettable until La Bamba in 1987, which had a terrific cast, great soundtrack and an unsentimental approach. Lady Sings the Blues also hit some high notes as did Dreamgirls.
That Hollywood has rediscovered this genre with offerings about Elvis, Dylan, Queen, Elton John, Whitney Houston and now Springsteen is no surprise — the music was great, the singers mostly admirable and the periods not expensive to reconstruct. There have been some excellent performances in these films and, personally, I have a lot of respect for those who are willing to risk the wrath of rabid fans who nitpick every departure from the perfection they see in the original performances.
I was prepared to be sorely disappointed by A Complete Unknown and was impressed by it’s verve and depth along with a superb job by Chalamet, portraying a not very likable but extraordinary young Dylan. Hopefully the Springsteen film will overcome my usual doubts as well.
At a time when the studios are turning out comic universe dreck and endless sequels, prequels and remakes, I for one am very happy that music creators are providing grist for film — we have only scratched the surface of this world, which is anything but soulless to me.
I was never a big Bob Dylan fan. I respected his music, but didn’t really like it, and I’m a card carrying Boomer. But I saw “A Complete Unknown” and liked the film and Chalmet’s portrayal of Dylan as a big jerkoff who was a musical genius.
I’m also probably one of a small minority who can’t stand Springsteen, including all the big hits. Wild horses couldn’t drag me to go see a movie about him.
I’m not sure what this proves other than that I probably have bad taste in music😎
Earlier this year, we saw Pavements, which deconstructs the music biopic by focusing on the influential but not terribly popular band Pavement.
The movie got stellar reviews even by people who weren't fans of the band, because it brings together real archival and new footage with the fictional behind-the-scenes of a fake big-budget biopic about Pavement starring recognizable Hollywood actors. The movie lets you see how actors twist themselves to play real people, and how movies lie to you.
As fan service, Pavements isn't great, but as an expose on the whole system of manufacturing legends, it's amazing. It pulled a 95 on Rotten Tomatoes, which is higher than any real biopic ever.
Great post. The thing about the Springsteen biopic is I found myself asking "who is this for?" Now, I'll admit that Springsteen was always 80s/90s background music for me, just one of many rockers in that era getting played on rock radio. Not bad, by any means. I'm not changing the channel, but not finding it particularly special or interesting. This isn't meant as a criticism of him, just my opinion/perception. And while I know there are big fans of his, I've always assumed they skew towards the northeast, which I don't have much cultural connection to, because I have rarely ever known anyone that would mention Springsteen as important to them. So while I am sure I am biased, my gut is that he doesn't have the broader cultural appeal of Queen, Whitney, Bob Marley, or Johnny Cash. I think the market for a movie about him is inherently smaller from the outset.
And so I absolutely do agree that your comment about the title is very astute. That is not a title that's selling the movie to anyone who isn't already a big fan, and I just don't think there are enough of those to carry a Hollywood film, even one with an 'it guy' star. That title says absolutely nothing to me. It sounds like some kind of fan service that I'm not privy to, and I'd no sooner watch that than I would some other relatively obscure product that I have no connection to.
But if I had a choice of what to stream between it and a 20th Dylan biopic, I'll take the Springsteen one just because I might learn something I don't already know (assuming it's not made up).
I'm curious how all film genres can have a positive return on investment given how many films don't earn back their costs these days.
The graphic tracks returns since 1970. If it were just this year, that would be rough.
I saw the banal trailer; I'm a hard pass on the Springsteen film. Prior to that, I was 100 percent going to see the film. (And White was poor casting.)
On the other hand, I saw the trailers for a number of other musical bio-pics and was instantly keen to see films that I'd had no intention of seeing.
Nothing to do with the film titles.