It's time to stop pretending that the term "biopic" is inherently toxic. You know who isn't pretending? Hollywood, where they're still churning out soulless, feel-good stories about real people because let's be real, it's a lot easier to make a movie about someone's life when you can just gloss over all the messy details.
Take, for example, the new biopic about Freddie Mercury. It's not a biopic at all, no sir. It's more like... well, we're not really sure what it is, but definitely not a biopic. And neither are the Bohemian Rhapsody guys! They're totally not using this movie as an excuse to sell a gazillion copies of Queen's greatest hits.
But why should we be surprised? After all, the history of biopics is riddled with egregious historical inaccuracies and gratuitous musical numbers. I mean, who needs accuracy when you can just make up some nice stories about how Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart were BFFs?
And don't even get me started on the artist-approved music biopic subgenre. Because what's more convincing than a movie about someone's life that's been approved by their estate? It's not like they have a vested interest in portraying their subject in a flattering light or anything.
But wait, there's hope! Maybe, just maybe, some of these movies are actually good. Like that one Bruce Springsteen biopic that came out recently. I'm pretty sure it was made with the cooperation of his team and everything.
So let's give up on trying to define what a biopic is and just accept that they're all biopics now. It's not like we have anything better to watch, anyway.