When making a film about an icon or legend what should the focus be? Strict adherence to the truth nasty and good? Or attempt to reinforce the iconic status of the subject by playing out the scenes which reinforce the myths?

Make the person saintly and wonderful or human and real?

And if you answer real... well just how real is the thing. Some of the people who are held up as icons and legends or role models for one reason or another had quite shocking habits and flaws... this is only human to be sure but what about when these flaws counter the very legend of the subject?

How important is truth in a biopic?

If your icon is a man universally reknowned for being a man of peace and race equality but who in reality was a racist himself who fought against other peoples freedoms?
If your icon is a man universally respected as anice guy and a "great man" but who was a womaniser who betrayed his wives and was extremely vicious and nasty to his contemporys?

How important is the truth when compared to the importance of the legacy... given that for many the subject IS a role model. Is their hero worship and the focus it gives them less or more important than HARD FACTS?

I would say a mixture between the two, portray the icon in a good light but at the same time reveal some of his human flaw......

For example I wouldnt mind a biopic of Malcolm X dipicting the type of person he was before he came to the NOI, but at the same time I wouldn't want to see any wild allegationsabout him beinghomo or bisexual(as one author claims). I would say a biopic should only talk about things that can be confirmed and proved....not any rumors or stuff of that nature.... Ifthere are account andwitnesses who say thatthe icon was a drug addict, then it should be known that person was a drug addict.

Glaring ommisions and glossing over is unacceptable

Hence why I havent seen Ali? And you know how big a boxing fan I am !!!

I'm looking for realness. Thats why I loved Malcolm X. Obviously some things will get ommitted because of time constarints/ not hollywood enough. Thats to be expected, but only to an extent

Cash

Ali was pretty real though. They showed him womanising, his own colourism and so on. It was just subtle is all. They didn't show how badly he treated Frazier or the nasty names he called people and how he did all sorts of things to his opponents like go to their homes and trouble their peace in front of their familys and that... but I think from the things he said about Listion "big ugly bear" they touched on it but subtly. What you think?

Drunk....





Ali said repeatedly that the comments he made were to get the opponent angry.....



I think he crossed the line by calling joe frazier a "gorilla" and having a gorilla action figure at press conferences.....and frazier called him out "talk all this black stuff and calling another black man a gorilla"

clear contradiction...but to ali it was just promotion for a fight....get frazier angry and have controversial press conference.....



Biopics should try to sho w3 dimensional person as much as possible...but to sell tickets..have to use creative license a biy....



documentaries are always more interesting because they aren't tring to capture hollywood audience...