Capítulo I – Cinema – Arte “The Untold Stories of Film Directors: Hollywood’s Depiction as Metacinematic Mythmaking” Fátima Chinita Theatre and Film School of the Lisbon Polytechnic Institute Labcom.IFP, Portugal / IMS, Sweden Abstract era seen from the perspective of the “talkies” under threat from their nemesis, television). One way or In the Hollywood metafilm, from the Studio System another it was not the educational value that mattered period to the present day, only a few film directors have for the Hollywood business people involved in such been tackled on screen. Also, whereas the biopic of undertakings; the life of the chosen celebrities was Hollywood stars is usually simply a “rags to riches” tale subject to all kinds of historical abuses. “For most and/or vice-versa, the film director biopic is foremost the of these movies are so untruthful, so false to the evidence of an authorial discourse, although presented memory of the deceased, and so unfair to the living with some sentiment. In other words, what moves that it is almost beyond morality” (Meyers 1978, 12).1 some filmmakers (especially directors) to approach the The modern Hollywood celebrity biopic was born out life and art of their famous peers is a wish to reflect on of a mixture of melodrama and nostalgia. the nature of their common medium and on the quality This tendency follows the general paradigm of of their own output. This article focuses on two films: Hollywood-on-Hollywood films as determined by “Chaplin” (1992, directed by Richard Attenborough) P.D. Anderson in his important book on classical and “Ed Wood” (1994, directed by Tim Burton). From metacinema (Patrick Donald Anderson 1978). The very early in his cinematic career, Charlie Chaplin was paradigm is twofold. On the one hand, there is the as famous as he was infamous, whereas Ed Wood positive view of successes achieved in Hollywood was never famous and barely infamous. Still, the best by hopefuls of all over America attracted there as by and the worst film directors are portrayed in a style not a magnet.2 On the other hand, there is the misery of entirely dissimilar to one another in their respective failure inflicted by the industry, the nightmarish life of biopics, and in compliance with the rules advocated by stars who fall from grace into addiction, descending the Aristotle for tragedy in the “Poetics.” These two films stairs of fame into oblivion and solitude. Film audiences manage to portray, from beginning to end, the essence responded well to both formulas, either considering of the charismatic celebrities they depict. With that the rise to fame as an incentive for future action and, aim, they de-mythicize both the men and the medium therefore, a possible alternative to their dreary lives, they worked for, but only in order to re-mythicize the or delighting in the decay of others apparently more directors and cinema in a new splendour. fortunate than themselves. According to Anderson, then, it was either through identification or vengeful Keywords: Hollywood biopics, Film directors, Film “compensatory illusion” that the viewers adhered Chaplin, Film Ed Wood, Greek tragedy. to these films (331-332).3 However, Hollywood-on- Hollywood films are not biopics per se; they merely 1. A life in moving pictures, or a moving life represent fixed possibilities of success or failure for in pictures? any character. Usually, in such films only the social environment is true, not the protagonists themselves. As stated by Alex Barris (1978, 141), film biographies Mostly, the Hollywood movie biopic about celebrities about American show business celebrities were rare further differs from the usual Hollywood-on-Hollywood until the end of WWII. In the fifties, however, when the films in that the people depicted in the former are, exposé trend entered the movies, biopics became a supposedly, real. Not only did the biopics’ heroes exist staple of Hollywood cinema. The trend began in 1946, biologically, but their story was supposed to be true. following the success achieved by The Jolson Story However, Richard Meyers reminds us that not much (1946, Alfred E. Green), a film about the vaudeville separates the fictional accounts from the real ones: performer who was the first to be heard singing on the “These movies [biopics] are rarely made as anything big screen. The late fifties saw the demise of the Studio but a backhanded compliment to the [usually dead] System, which resulted, in the next decade, in a boom subject” (1978, 12). Therefore, of the two principles of biographies of famous cinematic characters. As I have just mentioned – biological existence and real Margaret Tarratt points out, “The decline of Hollywood life stories – only the first one can be considered as the nerve centre of the world’s film industry has undisputably accurate in the classical biopic. been accompanied by a marked growth in the The compliment paid to the subjects in these mythology surrounding it” (1970, 4). The industry classical biopics (Meyers 1978, 12) is achieved embraced these “disclosing” depictions either for their through high impact situations and personal grandeur: potential box office value, which most of the films in these people are seen rising meteorically to stardom, question, however, never realised in full; or as a sort suffering the pangs of hell, or both. Whatever it is of tribute to eras gone by, produced in accordance they do, these celebrities must excel at it, being with an updated ideological position (e.g. the silent notable artists, absolute martyrs, or both. In American 323 4_rp.indd 323 19-07-2017 14:56:33 AVANCA | CINEMA 2017 cinema, grandeur is synonymous with glamour, the and which are committed by someone who does not very foundation of the Hollywood myth and the basis excel much in virtue or justice (45). If this person falls of its El Dorado reputation. Biographical “facts” were upon misfortune, that is due not to an evil or wicked blatantly forged by the studios’ publicists in order disposition on his or her part, but due to a single error to instigate the consumption of the star personae of or frailty (47). This person has to enjoy great reputation the actresses or actors and, consequently, results and fortune as a distinguished representative of an in theatre attendance by the audiences. Celebrity illustrious family (45). The misfortune presents itself was, therefore, one of the forms in which Hollywood in the guise of catastrophe, that is, a disastrous and advertised itself and capitalized on the Hollywood myth. painful action, such as death and physical injury. Clifford By preying on the viewers’ desire to watch Hollywood, Leech (1981) helps to clarify the actions undertaken by the industry fed on a kind of non-intellectual cinephilia: the so-called higher type. It is not so much a matter of an urge to be part of that world and its corresponding moral exaltation, since Greek tragedy has cases of perceived magic. Like the Hollywood-on-Hollywood sons killing their fathers and their own offspring; it is films in general, the biopic of Hollywood celebrities a question of intrinsic naturalness, whereby the hero (covering all entertainment activities within the scope or heroine acts according to his or her own nature, of “showbusiness”) may portray stories of success or revealing a personality bigger than that of other mortals failure, but in this sub-genre the “narrative” is more (who, by comparison, are considered “common”). complex because the films may contain a mixture of Elevated characters belong to a high social rank; both paradigms, combining them for dramatic effect. they are kings, princes and so on. When they fall into The films turn out as a sort of “rags to riches” tale but misfortune they preserve their honour, which causes not without obstacles along the way. them to maintain the viewers’ admiration (because the These biographical accounts were simultaneously audience feels inferior to them). Although Leech does toned down, as far as addiction and misconducts not mention it, in Greek tragedy the existence of the were concerned, and spruced up, so as to underline Chorus prevents all identification between the viewers the talent and the mystique of the depicted artists. The and the fallen heroes, as a result of which catharsis, liberties taken with the truth in biopics of showbusiness i.e. the emotional purging of the audience, ensues personnel were due to legal as well as industrial through other related but not coincidental means. reasons. During Hollywood‘s classical period the Aristotle places great importance on the Studios had to proceed with caution in order to avoid characterization of the hero or heroine so as not to liability suits, either from the depicted celebrities endanger the tragic effect of the play. As terror and themselves, if they were still alive, or from their heirs. pity are triggered in all situations, Aristotle advocated Also, entertainment calls for dramatic tension and that the hero or heroine should not be particularly likeable characters. By changing facts and adding bad or especially good. Pity could only ensue if the happy endings where they did not exist, or by stressing protagonist’s destiny was undeserved; terror would melodrama in some tragic cases where the subjects only be activated if there was a spectatorial empathy were victims of their own destiny, Hollywood made sure with the hero or heroine (the audience would consider that these people were re-written as legends. Even the the hero an unfortunate equal because he or she was most flawed among them were portrayed as fallen human like them). Therefore, tragedy as advocated angels and provoked a blend of pity and admiration. by Aristotle evokes a mixture of admiration and commiseration.