This past Tuesday morning, the Oscar nominations hit the internet once again, and like always, there was a biopic being celebrated among the rest of the films, a tradition that must be broken once and for all. This is not to say that all biopics are bad, but a majority of the time, they are formulaic, schmaltzy, and/or depressing films that don't end up bringing anything fresh to the table. This year's biographical film of choice is Elvis, a film that brings Baz Luhrmann's bombastic visual style into the equation, with the rapid-fire editing, and operatic nature that his films typically boast; yet it does nothing innovative for the typical biopic narrative. It's not a bad film necessarily, but it would be a stretch to say the film deserves all eight of its Oscar nominations. That's just how the Academy treats these types of films though, but should they? Or does the consistent appraisal of showy biopics routinely shut out other films that are more deserving of the awards season spotlight?

The Oscars' History of Narrow Nominations

The Oscars already have a long history of primarily nominating a very specific type of movie as it is. Genre films within the action, horror, comedy, thriller and sci-fi realms rarely stand a chance at garnering nominations, let alone taking home any awards. (Although, this year is looking like that might change.) This leaves us filling up the slots with mostly dramas, a genre that branches out into the biopic subgenre. The Academy eats these movies up! Year after year, especially in the fall and winter when many Oscar-contenders are released, you can almost always count on there being a biopic in contention for the Oscars. Two years ago, they were celebrating the phenomenal Judas and the Black Messiah, last year, it was The Eyes of Tammy Faye, and Elvis this year.

This Year's Biopic of Choice - 'Elvis'

Elvis's true reception is a bit all over the place. It seems as though Academy members love it, but the public perception is more mixed. Like many other biopics that came before it, we follow the rise and fall of one of history's great musicians, catch a couple of fun musical moments, and a leading performance that almost always promises an acting nomination with Austin Butler's as the titular Elvis Presley. Butler is truly fantastic here, perfectly embodying Presley's entire persona, his, ahem, voice, and stage presence and manages to feel believing no matter which point in the singer's life he is portraying. He's completely deserving of the Best Actor nomination that he earned.

The sad part is, the film ends up playing all the hits. We watch Elvis start out from humble beginnings, hit the top of the top, wrestle with addiction and marital problems, and eventually become a shell of his former self. Plot-wise, it's nothing special, but Baz Luhrmann cannot be framed as doing this film for the paycheck, he's clearly passionate about the subject at hand. That being said, it seems as though Luhrmann's interests resided more so in the myth of Elvis, not the story. While the film hits all the typical narrative beats of a musical biopic, it does so at about 1000 miles per hour, preferring to carve out more of the runtime just to watch Presley absolutely crush it on stage. These massive musical moments are undeniably effective, but at what cost to the narrative?

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Biopics

It's not that biopics are inherently bad! They are incredibly valuable pieces of art for their informative nature. Biopics aren't fictional tales where the filmmakers behind the scenes have to find a way to fit some sort of historical or moral lesson into the story, that's their entire purpose. The problem with these films is that when studios make them in an attempt to capitalize on their awards potential, not because they're passionate about the story at hand. This leads to important figures' life stories being told before the right filmmaker comes along, all with the hope of racking up a few acting awards, as well as some writing and Best Picture nominations if they're lucky. You can feel the cynicism seeping off of the screen with the worst biopics. These films don't make up for a weak narrative with spectacle in the way that Elvis does, they feel more like skimming a historical figure's Wikipedia page. You might think that the Academy wouldn't nominate anything less than stellar, but believe me, they routinely nominate these showy, haphazardly thrown together Oscar bait-y films. Look no further than Being the Ricardos or Bohemian Rhapsody.

Studios Need to Limit the Number of Biopics Made

Half the time, when an actor wins or is nominated for their work in a biopic, it's likely that there was an even more deserving actor left in the dust. Performers that are tapping into the essence of a real-life figure aren't any less than their fellow artists, but their work isn't exactly as creative. Most of the time, an actor will have endless hours of footage, audio recordings, and any other form of documentation that you might be able to find and use to help them figure out their performance. Everyone else out there bringing a fictional character to life has a script to work with, then they go from there! It's a tougher task. You could make the logical argument that a performer that is bringing a real-life figure to the screen has the enormous pressure of a legacy weighing on their shoulders, but that isn't necessarily linked with the creative process, it just makes the process more stressful. Look no further than the 2015 Oscars, when Eddie Redmayne won for his performance as Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything over Michael Keaton's performance as Riggan Thomson in Birdman. Redmayne is incredible, no doubt, but Keaton only had the page and a bit of inspiration from his personal life to work with, and in the end, had a more gripping performance.

Biographical films are important, there's no doubt about it. There's a ton to be learned about history and the figures within them and movie biopics help us do that. But with the Academy continually nominating them, year after year, studios get the wrong idea, find figures whose stories haven't been told yet, and rush their lives up onto the big screen, all in the name of accolades. It's a shame. The real-life individual being portrayed on screen ends up robbed of their story being told by the right filmmaker, audiences are subjected to a passionless film, and truly creative, high-quality performances are left in the dust during the awards season. Let's hope the Academy cuts back on the nominations for these types of films and makes more room for wholly original performers, while studios dial back the number of real-life stories they tell every year, and focus on the quality of these films over the quantity.