Examining Ethics in Biopics

Deliver Me From Nowhere isn't your usual biopic. Rather than running through the protagonist's entire life like the plot in Bohemian Rhapsody, this Springsteen-inspired biopic takes a deep dive into the season he wrote Nebraska, from the late fall of 1981 until June 1982, when Springsteen moved from New Jersey to California. The biopic focuses on the relationship between Springsteen and his father, and the narrative culminates at a point in his life where his depression hits a wall and he has to change course for the rest of his career.

In the film, Springsteen initiates a breakup during the height of his depression from a young woman named Faye. She functions like a mirror to his soul, telling him that she's glad he's leaving because he will never find peace until he stops running from himself. Her lingering words catalyze him into seeking therapy, ultimately changing the course of his life and providing a shimmer of hope to the ending that otherwise looks pretty bleak.

From a narrative perspective, the plot seems to end abruptly. There's no real closure between these characters – and there's a good reason why. Faye doesn't exist.

According to People, Faye exists as a composite character of many women Springsteen has dated over the years. In fact, Springsteen and Faye first meet at The Stone Pony, which is where he met his current wife Patti Scialfa. However, for the most part, Faye is a fictional character. For a movie that's based on someone's life, this takes significant creative liberty – especially since Springsteen is still alive. So why were filmmakers allowed to make this choice, and when does it become risky?

What is a Biopic?

Director Scott Cooper labeled Deliver Me From Nowhere as a biopic. Not a documentary. Not a drama. But a biopic. And just like the 2005 film about Johnny Cash, Deliver Me From Nowhere walks the line between fantasy and reality.

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a biopic is "A movie dramatizing the life of a particular person, typically a public or historical figure." Some more examples of modern biopics include Oppenheimer (2023), The Greatest Showman (2017), and Capote (2005).

Biopics at least claim to be "based on a true story" and hold a larger responsibility to the facts than pure dramas. But they're at liberty to contain at least some fantasy, as long as it doesn't compromise the integrity of the facts or the true story. By contrast, dramas about real people aren't ethically tied to the facts, as long as they make that distinction clear.

For example, Blonde, a movie about Marilyn Monroe, is described as an "American biographical psychological drama film written and directed by Andrew Dominik, based on the 2000 novel by Joyce Carol Oates." In a firm stance against the label of a biopic, Dominik states that his film tells an emotional truth about anxiety and doesn't strive for accuracy. He says, "I know the ways in which this is different from what people seem to agree happened. Not that everyone's sure. Nobody really knows what the f*** happened. So it's all fiction anyway, in my opinion."

How are Biopics Different from Documentaries?

By contrast to a drama or biopic, a documentary is "A movie or a television or radio program that provides a factual record or report." The truth-bearing stakes are higher for a documentary. In a biopic, the audience allows a little suspension of reality. In a documentary, there's an unspoken expectation that every word and action represented uphold the cold, hard facts without added elements.

Deliver me from Defamation: When Biopics Backfire

In a biopic, the writer or director may add composite characters or alter timelines to fit the plot or condense complexities to fit a 2 hour slot. However, problems arise when filmmakers depict the main characters in ways that could be perceived as slanderous. Any actions or statements that are downright false qualify as slanderous, but the person depicted is more likely to sue if the depiction is negative or harmful to their reputation.

The best way for a filmmaker to protect themselves against a lawsuit would be to receive written permission from the person they're portraying. However, this isn't always possible. Even so, as long as filmmakers are fairly true to the publicly known facts, they're not likely to face trouble.

That being said, a number of people have hated the biopics made about them, but haven't actually sued. For example, Dr. Adams, the real-life "Patch Adams" portrayed in the 1998 film starring Robin Williams, said the film and its reception "made his children cry." Despite supposed studio negotiations, not a penny of the profits went to him or his charitable causes, either, which likely contributed to his disgust for the film.

Springsteen calls Deliver me from Nowhere an "Anti-biopic"

Thankfully, Scott Cooper won't have to even consider being sued for his portrayal of Springsteen; Bruce himself approved of the movie and was involved in its creation, even assisting in location scouting for several scenes. He calls the movie an "anti-biopic" for the way it focuses on a short season of his career instead of his life as a whole. Sounds like another revolutionary idea – one that feels consistent with the ever-evolving film industry and "The Boss" himself.