The entertainment industry loves biopics. In 2022 alone, productions including Spencer, House of Gucci and Inventing Anna have given us cause to binge-watch and obsess over these iconic figures in history, through the voyeurism of the screen. But what happens when the subjects don’t (or can’t) give their consent to the way biopic writers and directions tell their story? Is there an ethical dilemma that should be considered? It’s their life, after all. We look at both sides of creating and watching biopics that don’t have the consent of their real life protagonists – when it might be justified, and when it might go too far.
Legal requirements and life rights
There are lots of instances where the subject of a film or TV biopic did not consent to the production, or were never asked at all. That’s because studios and producers don’t legally need consent to tell someone else’s story – they need life rights.
Production studios will usually acquire the “life rights” of the subject before making the film, and it’s rarely an issue if the figure is already in the public eye and has been widely reported on. Screenwriter and intellectual property attorney John L. Geiger told IndieWire in 2019 that “the concept of life rights is really something of a misnomer, because no one owns the facts that make up the narrative of their life.” Similarly, Entertainment & Media Law Signal explain that “in a sense, a ‘life story’ is really just a collection of facts about a person. And as courts have repeatedly made clear, there is no copyright in facts.”
It means there is very little legal obligation for studios when it comes to making biopics. For example, the series Pam & Tommy was able to go ahead without the approval of Pamela Anderson because the show is based on the facts from a 2014 Rolling Stone article. Because of this, Anderson was not paid anything for the rights of the series, despite it being a fictionalised version of her life.
Is a non-consented biopic ever okay?
Entertainment media can and should be a place where we can take a critical look at an individual’s behaviour, even (or perhaps especially) if they don’t endorse their own biopic. Some biopics that were never consented to or endorsed by the person in question provide a valuable, lasting critique and help shape the way we understand society.
Sarah Palin did not agree to Game Change, the film based on Palin and John McCain’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential election campaign – calling it a “false narrative”. But others who were part of the campaign including senior strategist Steve Schmidt, said it was “very accurate”. Similarly, Mark Zuckerberg did not enjoy how he was portrayed in The Social Network, but some critics argue that it’s one of the most important films of the 2010s.
It’s hard to argue that either film should not have been made just because the subjects didn’t agree.
The problem with biopics like Pam & Tommy
So where is the line? Biopics without consent become problematic when they explore trauma and other vulnerable events from the subject’s life. Take the movie Bombshell, which recounts the experience of the women who exposed Fox News CEO Roger Ailes’ sexual harassment. None of the women whom the film is based on were contacted or consented to it being made. Megyn Kelly, one of the four women involved, said on Instagram: “I have no connection to the movie Bombshell other than I lived it. I did not produce, consult on, or have anything to do with the film. Neither I nor the women I watched it with [the other three women it was based on] sold the rights to our stories”.
Sources close to Anderson said the “Pam & Tommy Hulu series has been very painful for Pamela Anderson and for anyone that loves her”. The source adds that Anderson still “feels so violated to this day” about the stealing of her sex tape, which the series chronicles.
In a post #MeToo world, consent should be something that is not only considered, but accepted when given or declined. In the case of Pam & Tommy, it does feel unethical that the series was able to go ahead, considering it dramatizes and sexualizes an incredibly traumatic experience in her life and turns them into an avenue for entertainment and profit. It has prompted Anderson to tell her own version of the story in a documentary with Netflix, this time with her full consent and involvement.
So, should we watch them?
At the end of the day, you’ll have to make your own decision about whether you think it’s ethical to watch biopics where the subjects haven’t given consent. The movie and television industries are full of unethical decisions and this is just one aspect.
In situations where there is trauma and the real-life subjects have not been paid, those who work on biopic films and shows financially benefit from someone else’s pain and exploitation. While the intentions might be to portray subjects, like Anderson, in a positive way it doesn’t erase the potentially negative impacts that come from dragging these stories back into the spotlight.
Comments are closed.