Ask the Critic: Carina Chocano

Question: What’s with the recent popularity of biopics? “The Aviator,” “Finding Neverland” and “Ray” are all up for the best picture Oscar, and there are a slew of others.

*

Chocano: I once knew an acting teacher who liked to say that good-looking actors were at a disadvantage to those less lovely because “beauty breeds the passivity of easy conquest.” It seems to me that biopics are equally genetically advantaged; they don’t have to try as hard to get the love. That’s not to say there aren’t many very fine examples of the genre, including the three currently up for best picture. It’s just that, like Nick Carraway, they’ve had certain advantages.

Built-in fan bases and name recognition go a long way in getting votes, so biographies of legendary artists such as Ray Charles and, to a lesser extent, J.M. Barrie, enjoy a certain head start. Biopics about legendary figures who were not stars but whose names resonate with a certain mystery stoke curiosity for a subject we sometimes didn’t even know was there. Especially when their stories are tinged with scandal, madness or, preferably, both, as in “Kinsey” and “The Aviator.”

And it’s hard to quantify the value of the “based on a true story” story, in which lesser-known protagonists of real-world tragedies, such as Don Cheadle’s hotel manager in “Hotel Rwanda,” are subtly imbued with familiar three-act arcs and the actors playing them swaddled in borrowed heroism.

Of course, when a biopic doesn’t work, or when it misses the mark entirely, it falls flatter than most. But a well-acted, well-executed biopic is one of those rare things that seems to be liked equally by filmmakers, actors, critics and audiences.

No wonder they’re popular. They’re like the prom queen of dramas.

*

Got a question? Go to calendarlive.com/askthecritic to e-mail The Times’ experts on pop music, movies, TV and restaurants, or to browse a free archive of responses.