Documentary vs Biopic: AKA ‘Amy’ vs The Tragedy That Is ‘Back to Black’
By Orla Ruane, First Year English Literature
Sequels, prequels, biopics: the holy trinity of unoriginality that faces Hollywood today. As production companies focus on reliability rather than originality the public are faced with second rate versions of reworked stories that they hope will drive people to dying cinemas globally. As the latter of the three see varying success in accuracy and critical acclaim, with Rami Malek winning an Academy Award as best actor in his portrayal of Freddie Mercury, it is too often the case that capitalism has hijacked the art of filmmaking in today’s age. When I began thinking about biopics, notably the ones that failed, you may have read the title but Back to Black, directed by Sam Taylor-Johnson immediately sprung to mind. I mean what did we expect from the director of Fifty Shades of Grey?
We did not know Amy Winehouse. Few truly knew Amy Winehouse. She was the voice of a generation who tragically died as a result of substance abuse, eating disorders and mental health issues. It goes without saying that the turbulence she faced cannot simply be condensed into a few hours of entertainment for the general public. But when this was attempted, what became of it was a glorified recounting of her life that failed to hold accountable those who had a hand in her death, as well as glossing over the legacy she left as a British icon.
It is Asif Kapadia’s documentary ‘Amy’ that truly sheds light on the singer’s life, equally highlighting her success as well as her constant struggles with addiction and attempts to remain sober. The documentary is a full picture of the humanity behind the artist, displaying the persistent media abuse that infected every aspect of her life. As the biopic glosses over the role that the media played in her demise, it is easy to forget the chokehold tabloid newspapers had on society in the early 2000s. Front page headlines from The Sun captioning a struggling artist as ‘Amy On Crack’ in order to sell more copies, this is seemingly left out of the biopic, so are the cheap shots made by comedians to a sea of laughter at her expense, so is her performance where she was booed in Belgrade having been forced to perform. Funnily enough, the societal alienation of Amy Winehouse is completely omitted from the biopic, yet the documentary does not shy away from the reality that the press had a hand in killing her. Whether they’d like to admit it or not.
One major discrepancy between the biopic and the documentary is the failure to challenge the men closest to Winehouse. Kapadia’s documentary clearly portrays the influence of Blake Fielder-Civil, Winehouse’s ex-husband, in introducing her to hard drugs. Whilst one single person is not wholly responsible for another’s actions, the documentary references moments in Amy’s life where after achieving sobriety, his influence results in her re-using, a destructive nature that is not mentioned in ‘Back to Black.’ Since the release of Kapadia’s documentary, Fielder-Civil filed a lawsuit for £1 million in 2019 and claimed he was owed this money as he was married to Amy when her best-selling music was released. Her 'charming' ex-husband also sold his story and offered to sell photos of Amy to the press, leeching off her legacy. But sure, depicting him as one of the lads with a tendency to fall on the wrong side of the tracks was a great artistic choice for the biopic and did not fail Amy Winehouse at all.
Winehouse’s relationship with her father, Mitch Winehouse, is also up for debate, as the divide between the biopic and the documentary portrays him in two different lights. The biopic takes the stance of Mitch as a man who just wants the best for his daughter. This is challenged in the documentary, with Mitch's perversion of Winehouse’s admittance to rehab and audio of her father's arguments portray a man fuelled by greed, attempting to make money off of his daughter.
Documentaries are the closest the public will ever be to understanding the experience of a person’s life in the public domain. Asif Kapadia’s Amy provides a rounded picture of the jazz singer from childhood, through her highs and lows, and her struggles that ultimately lead to her death. Amy Winehouse’s emotional turbulence and co-dependence cannot be depicted in any way other than her lived experience, let alone by a writer who did not walk in her shoes. So what if her family approved of ‘Back to Black’? Perhaps if it had been more accurate Mitch Winehouse would have hated it as he did with Kapadia’s documentary, telling the writers ‘they were a disgrace’ and that they ‘should be ashamed’. The biopic Back to Black failed in every conceivable way, in ways that should have been inconceivable, how they decided to to not use Amy’s original voice, one of the most recognisably unique voices of the 21st century is beyond me. Hopefully, Amy's image can stop be resurrected and she can finally rest in peace. A moment of silence, please.
Can you think of any documentaries that have done greater justice than a biopic?