Hollywood has traditionally been much more comfortable telling stories about extraordinary men than extraordinary women. Accomplished women are missing from far too many mainstream American films in general and are more commonly used as background or supporting roles for dominating men. 

The biopics of the last ten years reveal trends in how Hollywood represents and portrays the lives of men and women. Though several female biopics have been nominated and won awards —such as Renée Zellweger, who won the Academy Award for Best Actress for her portrayal of singer and actress Judy Garland in Judy (2019), and Meryl Streep, who won her third Academy Award for Best Actress for playing British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady (2011) — female biopics are still played for melodrama. They focus on romance, sexuality, suffering, family conflict, trauma, personal sacrifice, or personal tragedy rather than heroic and professional conquest, as seen in male biopics. 

Female biopics tend to focus on the gender inequality already rooted in society. They lean into the very evident aspect of culture and add little compared to the cultural narratives that have historically equated male lives with public power and enterprise. Consider Cillian Murphy’s Oppenheimer (2023), which foregrounds the male figure’s professional achievement while also reflecting scientific progress, political power, historical catastrophe, moral conflict, persecution, and legacy. Meanwhile, Kristen Stewart’s Spencer (2021) is all about marriage, emotional isolation, family expectations, motherhood, psychological distress, and escape from an oppressive institution.  

Though both stories were identified by Hollywood as big stories that deserved biopics, there’s a difference in the storytelling aim. For Oppenheimer, it is what this man did to history, while for Spencer, it becomes more about what the institution and her personal relationships did to her. Male suffering is often interpreted as greatness, while female suffering is tragedy.  

Michael (2026), though not popular with critics, was received more warmly by the general public, who admire Jaafar Jackson for portraying the hardships the iconic superstar endured, even in his early days. The family conflict, external battles, and fall-and-redemption cycle make his story naturally suited to large-scale tension. Especially when it is about THE Michael Jackson. 

Steve Jobs (2015) is another prime example. The “great man” biopic presents a dramatic narrative centered around his genius, ambition, failures, personality, relationships, and professional legacy, whereas the women in the story — Joanna Hoffman and Lisa Brennan-Jobs — remain in the background. 

History reveals that men had greater access to political office, positions of institutional authority, business ownership, professional sports, and many other fields. It openly declares the gender discrimination in our society that did not let women lead the game. That pattern translates to Hollywood’s female biopics, where the lesser representation of women is conspicuous. 

To the advantage of Hollywood filmmakers, there is a pre-existing catalog of a large number of documented famous men. Despite an IP shift after Hidden Figures (2016), Hollywood’s inclination to treat famous men as valuable intellectual property fits with the notion that studios start with a neutral database of equally famous men and women. 

The IP shift is necessary but is not sufficient to erase the historical advantage male biopics already enjoy. The distinction lies between having valuable IP and having culturally powerful IP. A woman can be a highly accomplished historical figure and still have less existing cultural recognition than a famous man. For example, On the Basis of Sex (2018) can turn Ruth Bader Ginsburg into IP, but the film has to build or reinforce her cultural mythology. In contrast, Oppenheimer depicts a man with a deeply ingrained historical consciousness in America. The same stands true for Elvis (2022), Michael, and A Complete Unknown (2024).

Hollywood likes to maintain the narrative that “this man changed the world,” while female biographies prevail against a different assumption: “What did this woman accomplish beyond her relationships, family, suffering, or personal life?” A female biopic can receive strong reviews and award attention without becoming an enormous cultural phenomenon, resulting in a smaller impact than that of male biopics. 

Article Courtesy of Madiha Ali

Feature Image Credit to Lionsgate