Gem/åben hele nummeret som PDF - 16:9

tragedy (e.g. the assassination of Lincoln) and a political
success (e.g. the emancipation of the slaves), or vice versa;
A use of authenticity-enhancing features such as captions
(as a temporal and spatial marker) and archival footage.
The Political Biopic and the Star System
It is a well-known fact that American films are streamlined and
systematized, and that Hollywood is known for its industrial,
conventional way of creating films. “A successful product is bound up
in convention,” writes Thomas Schatz, “because its success inspires
repetition.” (Schatz 1980, p. 5). Accordingly, American films abide by
different systems, i.e. the genre system (based on readily recognizable
genres), the studio system (where the production, distribution and
exhibition of films are centralized and controlled by a few major
companies), the continuity system (where films are edited in a
seamless way, allowing for identification and immersion) and the star
system (where films are sold through reference to major stars like
Marlon Brando and Meryl Streep, for whom the films become vehicles,
re-affirming their stardom) (ibid.).
In this particular context the biopic is particularly interesting, since
films of this genre are not only readily recognizable, but also natural
vehicles for great actors and actresses. A biopic, in other words, is
“Oscar material”, inasmuch as the film relies heavily on an actor’s
ability to imitate or mimic a famous person.
Most of us, it seems, have a natural interest in imitation, and
impersonations have long been a popular attraction – from various
Elvis impersonators to stand-up comedians (e.g. Jim Carrey)
humorously mocking celebrities (such as Clint Eastwood) and actors
playing well-known people, thus propelling their careers to new heights
of stardom.
Joaquin Phoenix, semi-famous for his role in The Gladiator (1999),
became a household name after starring as Johnny Cash in Walk the
Line, and people like Jamie Foxx and Josh Brolin went from B-list
actors to Hollywood stars after appearing in Ray (2004, dir. Taylor
Hackford) and W (2008, dir. Oliver Stone) (fig. 11-12).
As Hal Foster (1996) says, we may currently be witnessing a “return of
the real”, as markets are being flooded with political (auto)biographies
(e.g. George W. Bush’s Decision Points [2011]), autobiographical fiction
and mockumentaries (e.g. The Death of a President [2006], depicting
the imagined assassination of George W. Bush), and documentaries
and biopics about famous political figures (e.g. W). This alleged “return
of the real,” however, only partly explains the American fascination
with biopics, and another explanation, I argue, could be located in the
personalized approach to history which is prevalent in the US.
History as a Personalized Narrative
The names D.G. Monrad and Orla Lehmann would hardly ring a bell to
any Dane, let alone non-Danish people. However, these men have in
fact been central to Danish history, signing the most central of all
historical documents in Denmark – Danmarks Riges Grundlov (1849)–
a document similar in national importance to America’s The Declaration
of Independence (1776) (cf. Den store danske).
In the US, on the other hand, most people would know of the men
who signed the aforementioned declaration – indeed, they are even
recognized as “the founding fathers” – and this accounts for a central
difference between the historical memory and conception in the two
countries (cf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYyttEu_NLU).
The biopic is not an unknown genre in Denmark, and biographical films
and drama series have been made on iconic authors like Hans
Christian Anderson (cf. Den unge Andersen, 2005), singers like Liva
Weel (cf. Kald mig Liva, 1992), variety and film actors like Dirch
Passer (cf. Dirch/A Funny Man, 2011), great inventors like Jacob
Ellehammer (cf. Nu stiger den, 1966) and founders of successful
national companies like Carlsberg (cf. Bryggeren, 1996-1997). Political
biopics, however, are a rarity in Denmark – to put it mildly – and this
reflects an entirely different approach to politics and political history in
Denmark, compared to the US (fig. 13).
An All-American Hero: Lincoln as a fictionalized character
A natural figure on whom to base a political biopic is Abraham Lincoln,
a former American president who is known for delivering such hugely
popular speeches as “The Gettysburg Address” and “The Emancipation
Proclamation” (1863), and who is – perhaps narrow-mindedly –
remembered for having freed the slaves.
Hence, Lincoln, who sought a consensus and wished to free the slaves
Fig. 11-12: Will Smith and Jamie Foxx both
had their own sitcoms in the 1990s, but
were not considered “serious” A-list actors
until starring as Cassius Clay/Muhammad
Ali and Ray Charles, respectively, in Oscar
nominated biopics).
Fig. 13: In Borgen (DR, 2010-) Sidse
Babett Knudsen plays the first female Prime
Minister of Denmark, a character that is
often seen as a reflection of Helle
Thorning-Schmidt (as of today, the actual
Prime Minister of Denmark). The popular
drama series, however, can hardly be
described as a biographical show, in that
Knudsen’s character is called Birgitte and
in no way physically resembles Thorning-
Schimdt (the main character in Borgen has
also, on many occasions, been compared
to Margrethe Vestager, a Danish politician
representing Det Radikale Venstre. ).
Political biopics are few and far between in
Denmark, but in America the political biopic
is a popular type of film, firmly rooted in
Hollywood’s canon of genres.