Exploitation in Art: is it ever justifiable?

The recent trend for biopics has led to some tasteless efforts all to win an Oscar. People of interest have had the most traumatic aspects of their lives brought up, forcing either them or their loved ones to relive horror situations all so some celebrity can get a shiny statue. After watching the disgusting Blonde last year, I got to thinking about whether it is ever ok to recount someone else’s trauma for others benefit. Then, after seeing Priscilla, my mind further contemplated until I could no more, and I had to get my thoughts out! There are a few major examples that I can think of that, from exploiting a life story of dead person to the family of a dead person. All disgraceful in my opinion. However, there are some where the line between expression and exploitation blur and this is not as straightforward.

Let us start with the most recent and arguably egregious example: Blonde. A truly disgusting piece of trash camouflaging itself as high art. Chuck as many black and white shots in as you want, it cannot distract from the disgraceful content being glammed up with a wide lens! Blonde is the story of Marilyn Monroe, or a dramatized version that for some reason chooses to completely make up some scenarios. I’m no expert in pregnancy but as far as I remember from school, a foetus does not beg for its life whilst inside the womb. This is obviously some attempt at imagery to show the conflict Marilyn had with motherhood, but it is handled so tastelessly and more importantly, dangerously. In times where Roe vs Wade is being overturned and women are losing autonomy over their own body, putting this cheap scene in your film to drum up some emotional conflict because you do not possess the talent to do so in an engaging and interesting way is shameful. That is before even discussing the fabricated sexual assault scenes. Ignoring that, the film is practically just scene after scene of abuse, reducing the life of a great woman to the injustices forced upon her, and not the success she achieved despite this. No, these real assaults were not enough, Andrew Dominik had to add in a false agenda by showing a graphic assault by the President on Monroe. Was the actual abuse not enough? This film reduces Marilyn to an object of desire that gets used and abused through the entirety of her life and that is all she is. The film views her in the same light as the men that did those horrible things, as an object, no time is spent reflecting on the person behind the persona. It is the prime example of a story being told for the benefit of the creator and not the subject, who has had all these horrible things displayed for 3 gruelling hours only for it to be the biggest, most exploitative mess going.

The failures of Blonde do not mean that true stories of abuse and coercion cannot be told, they just need to be handled with care. Sofia Coppola took the time, care and introspective to tell a story with weight. With Priscilla, she makes her experience the entire focus of the film, everything the viewer sees is through her perspective, really helping convey the message she was looking to. Getting Priscilla onboard as an executive producer and basing it on her book keeps the focus on true accounts and lived experience. Sofia Coppola is a master filmmaker in giving a voice to the silent and overlooked so was the perfect choice to tell this story. Not once did I feel like Priscilla was ever being exploited; the entire time it felt that the story was being told her way. Coppola’s use of subtlety is so eloquently done her and this subtlety elevates the source material. I am sure most people are aware of the age gap relationship and grooming of Priscilla by Elvis, just showing this lived out would add nothing to the narrative. Instead, Coppola shows Priscilla’s reality through various film techniques. The dull, bleak, boring reality before Elvis, and the grand, colourful fairytale of her life with Elvis. Except it is not all as it seems, Coppola uses wide, lingering shots of the grand mansion, the fabulous but empty reality of her existence as Elvis’s wife. I like that film does not cheapen the story with shock value scenes. Periodically, Elvis’ cruelty creeps through his perfect persona to remind us of who he really was under the persona. Instead of spending all the time on Elvis, he plays a side character to Priscila’s development; much like she did to him in real life. The consequences of her grooming were that she was moulded by Elvis at a key part of her development to be exactly as he wanted her. This has such a huge knock-on effect and it is a much more interesting perspective to watch her slowly leave this manufactured life of wealth and ease to discover who she really was and live life on her own terms. It is an empowering take on a dark case of grooming, Whilst Priscila does not shy away from the dark reality of Priscila’s life, it does not relish in it, rather using it as a brush to paint a much larger picture of which it is a contributing factor.

I could not talk about exploitation without covering my least favourite pretentious Oscar baiter: Jim Carrey. Now I know that has probably surprised a few people, “Jim Carrey is a lovely soul that brings so much joy into the world!” Wrong! He is a melodramatic, egotistical, arrogant man that will willingly misinterpret a dead man’s legacy and adopt it to the point he is a straight up asshole to Andy Kaufman’s loved ones. I watched the documentary ‘Jim and Andy: The Great Beyond’ and my blood was boiling for weeks. What is more, I did not really care about the comedy stylings of Andy Kaufman, and I still felt enraged by Carrey’s enlightened method actor rubbish. I have a big problem with method acting as it is; if you are not good enough to drop the act between takes, you are not a good enough actor to demand to be indulged in whatever silly, self-indulgent ‘journey’ you need to go on to play a character. When you actively and willingly show no regard to people who knew the real person you are imitating, that is crossing so many lines it is not funny. Jim develops this sort of saviour complex where the spirit of Andy takes over his body and speaks through him; he is merely a vessel to deliver art. What a load of poppycock. Not only is this the most pretentious load of baloney I have ever heard, but it is also simply false. Carrey’s perception of Andy’s true persona re misguided and based only on what he thought he knew Kaufman to be. Moreover, he is reminded of this many times by Kaufman’s friends; Andy was not like that. Does Carrey listen? Of course not! He sees it as a challenge to push things further, to the point that he visibly upsets friends of Kaufman’s friends and practically shuts down set with his perverse game of dress up. The part that really riled me though was his interactions with Kaufman’s family. Acting as though their family member had reappeared in Carrey and it was him they were speaking to is nothing short of disgusting. It is textbook exploitation of real grief all to serve the ego trip of a wealthy, pampered actor on a search to find himself. It is hard to watch at times but an interesting look into the fragility of ego and the lengths some will go to in search of false enlightenment.

Sticking with documentaries, I have arrived at perhaps my most uncertain take on exploitation. I am a big fan of Daniel Johnston and his art. His drawings, giving an insight into his reality and experiences within his episodes, and his beautifully simplistic songs are some of the purest examples of art in the 20th Century. His childlike outlook on life and his interpretation of love is both heart warming and soul crushing at the same time; there are not pretences with Johnson. I implore anyone reading this to go and listen to ‘True Love Will Find You in the End’ and ‘Some Things Last a Long Time’, they are fantastic entry points to his music and perfect representations of how his music makes one feel. Johnston was unapologetically himself, and there lies my queries in the ethicalness of his career. Daniel Johnston was a manic depressive that struggled with episodes throughout his life. Now that is not what makes me uncomfortable, nor is the fact that he achieved a successful career despite this. In fact, these are part of what makes his art so great, he uses his struggle and reality to make beautiful art to give the audience an insight into his experience of the world. I am so happy that his art reached and touched so many people. My issue lies with those that surrounded him, looking to make as much money as possible with little regard for the creator of said art. Watching the documentary ‘The Devil and Daniel Johnston was fascinating. It was such a treat to explore the creative influences of Johnston and understand him a little bit more. It added a further layer of enjoyment to his music that I had not noticed before and helped me connect even further. However, it also exposed a seedy underbelly of executives and bottom feeders that were happy to exploit the work of a clearly struggling artist all in the name of profit. Therein lies my dilemma. I love the music that was made, but the circumstances it was made in leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Johnston was a man that deserved an extra focused level of care as someone that had clear mental health issues and acted on them but sadly was exploited and mistreated throughout his career.

There is this notion that all the best art comes from a place of pain, (Anyone that thinks this has clearly never seen the Lego Movie) but this is simply not true. Pain can lead to great art, but at the end of the day, this stems from someone’s lived experience, and they deserve the basic courtesy of handling their trauma with care. The beauty comes from the handling of the pain, and how that translates into beauty, not gratuitous displays of trauma for shock value, that is not art, it is hate. Therefore, I think exploitation is never right in film, the filmmakers owe the subject a duty of care to appropriately represent their pain in a meaningful way.