#funnily enough his agency according to imdb is curtis brown

[pynkhues]

I feel very uncomfortable abt the Fred Astaire biopic given he absolutely did not want one to happen and was extremely clear about that. If it ends up happening I will 100% think less of everyone involved including Tom, it is a sign of extreme disrespect imo and Tom does not need the money it is just a fuck you I can do what I want, akin to spitting on FA's grave.

I think the problem with Tom Holland isnt his agent because lets be real, his agent and team are excellent. I think from interviews etc Tom is not that interested in film as an art form, doesn't seem aware of indie or foreign directors doing interesting work, and is pretty anti-intellectualism in general. So when he tries to "go indie" he tries to go for projects that seem gritty or interesting on paper, but end up flopping and coming across "THIS IS ACTING, TAKE ME SERIOUSLY." Tom has the power to approach indie directors he likes and get movies funded for him to star in like Robert Pattinson with Safdies, Claire Denis, etc etc. But Tom is not the type to know who Claire Denis is. He should work with someone like Jeremy Saulnier, that is my advice to him lol

I totally respect your uncomfortable feelings about it as a topic, anon! You're right, Astaire was clear about not wanting a bio pic on his life, because he - in his own words - never wanted to feel misrepresented, and any adaptation or exploration of his life as a result feels inherently disrespectful of that wish.

At the same time though - - I don't know. I guess I tend to have two questions about a bio pic, which is a) what is its purpose? and b) who's it for?

(Full disclaimer: I don't disagree with you - I just also have mmm, a mixed bag of feelings on the topic, I guess, haha.)

So let's talk a little about bio pics

Because it's an interesting conversation, right? They've always been a staple of filmmaking, both for better and for worse, and I do think they vary a lot as a genre. Some of them are naked mouthpieces for the individual or their estate, some are ways to enshrine or disparage an historical figure, some are about capitalising on a current popular trend, some are ways to explore a historical movement or era, to lend it greater understanding or cultural context through a particular person, or to keep an important figure from being forgotten or remembered in a way people with a vested interest might not want them to be remembered, and hell, sometimes I think a bio pic is just about telling an interesting story.

Does intent matter? Yeah, I think so, and I can understand why, in that context, intent can feel immediately malicious when the person a story is based on or inspired by was against the idea, but I don't necessarily think that's automatically the case.

I guess, in that sense, that brings it back to who a bio pic is for. I actually tend to think bio pics are at their worst when they're for the person they're about. Like, I enjoyed Elvis as a piece of entertainment, but as a bio pic it fails on more counts than it doesn't, in no small part because it was for Elvis. It was for his legacy, his daughter and grandchildren, his diehard, uncritical fans, and, in my more cynical moments, for Graceland too. It was about reinforcing a legacy instead of truly exploring it.

And exploring it is important. Good bio pics can help to shed more light and bring a deeper understanding to crucial moments and figures in history, and how someone wants to be represented or understood in that I don't think is entirely their decision. We don't exist in a vacuum; our stories, our histories, the roles we play in the world, aren't ours alone to dictate the terms of. We play roles in other peoples lives, from those who know us, and in the case of many public figures, those who know of them, and to make the decision unilaterly that our legacy can't be explored beyond us is I think both naive and potentially dangerous.

I don't know. It is complicated, and I'm not even saying that I'm entirely comfortable either with the fact that it's happening, especially given there are two Astaire bio pics in the works right now (ironically the other one's cast Jamie Bell, which is kind of funny from a Billy Elliot trivia standpoint), but like I said in my last post, I don't know if I believe that Astaire's wishes should stand so resolutely as others. After all, the law doesn't recognise that stipulation, and if it did, what would there be to stop other people using that as a sort of media gag to prevent critical bio pics that challenge the legacy of a public figure i.e. the counter point to Elvis being able to be this year's Priscilla?

I guess I'm saying that our histories might feel like a thread that belongs to us, but they're ones stitched into the fabric of time and of culture. They inform relationships and families, and in Astaire's case an artform and an industry, and to me, I don't think that means that he owes anyone more than what he gave in his lifetime, but I do think a version of his story lives beyond him - both in the lives he touched and the culture he influenced - and for better and for worse, that's not something he'll ever have complete control over.

Let's talk about Tom Holland

I agree and I disagree on this front - as a total cinephile, I truly feel the pain of him not having known who Pedro Almodóvar was in that one interview, haha, but I don't necessarily think that's an issue. After all, it's literally what he has an agent and a manager for. They should be looking at talent across the board and guiding him towards people they think he'd work well with, especially given he has worked with indie directors before - like, gosh, Kornél Mundruczó was the establishing director on The Crowded Room, and Antonio Campos directed The Devil All the Time.

But you're right - the projects aren't right, and I don't think that it helps that he doesn't seem to be well versed in cinema enough to be able to articulate what it is that he likes and doesn't like, and I also don't think that it helps that he skews young and doesn't really match the styles of the directors he's said he wants to work with (Tarantino in particular I think he doesn't fit the type for, but in looking up a couple of things to reply to your ask, I found out he did meet with Bong Joon Ho last year who I actually think could be a good fit for him).

I like your picks for directors a lot though! I think you're right about Jeremy Saulnier in particular. and while I'm not his biggest fan, I think Justin Kurzel could have a really interesting role for him in that sort of similarly masculinity-soaked indie vein. I also think (and gosh, these aren't even that indie these days, haha) Alex Garland, Karyn Kusama, Dan Gilroy and Marielle Heller would be interesting directors for him.

And while they're not indie, I do also think he'd do well in a Coen Brothers or a Baz Luhrmann.

But who knows at this point. He certainly runs the risk of being Peter Parker forever right now.