It’s a question with no precise answer and no particular set of rules attached to it. Loosely, a biopic tells the story of life, usually one of both triumph and failure and, of course, accomplishment.
Think Chaplin or Ray, standard bio-films that follow the life of their “great” subjects from childhood to death, going over all of the big moments while sure to add a couple “poignant” small moments many viewers didn’t already know about. Sometimes these films bookend their subjects’ lives with elderly collections of the past or last will and testaments (remember Milk, if you can).
Others work are framed in a similar fashion, only under a thinner scope, i.e. the significant event/achievement said subject lead/started/was part of. Think Patton, which begins with his victory in North Africa than Sicily than Normandy, charting his WWII command as a filter through which to study his life. In a (slightly) similar way does Lawrence of Arabia unfold, quickly checking off the historical moves in which he becomes a British military officer so as to concentrate on his brilliant tactical leadership of the Arab Revolt of 1916 and its aftermath. Sticking with the war hook, another easy example (from a much more complicated angle) is Schindler’s List.
All this to reiterate the titular question: what is the art of telling the story of a true life? How can one capture the awe of something, and someone, that really happened?
