It’s a movie starring his nephew in the lead role, approved by his estate, and by all accounts it just feels like an attempt to whitewash him. This is a man who was accused of being a serial child molester, settled with a family out of court for $25 million just to avoid a trial (Chandler), and openly admitted he slept in the same bed as kids while he was an adult (Bashir interview), among other things. I don’t really see what there is to debate.
Anything pointing this out gets backlash on movie-related subreddits, which I find wild. It makes me wonder, if Epstein could sing and dance, would he have gotten a biopic too? Would people be defending him like this?
All famous people are famous for something important. And their other personal traits are less important. Especially now, when the guy is dead long time ago. It is good when somebody is nice all around. But it doesn’t mean that we should forget somebody influential because of their personal life.
You’re overreacting.
Don’t we have movies about Hitler? Try to apply your logic to Hitler and say if we should have movies about him or not.
The “movies” that try to whitewash Hitler are (rightfully) condemned as neo-Nazi propaganda (for example, The Greatest Story Never Told). In the same way, this biopic comes across as apologia for pedophilia. Calling it “personal life” is absurd when that “personal life” involves pedophilia and serial child abuse.
Frankly, neo-Nazis make the same kind of argument you’re making in your first paragraph when discussing Hitler: “yeah, yeah, the Holocaust, but what about the infrastructure?”
If you saw a preview for a Hitler biopic that didn’t have the atrocities you’d hopefully be extremely concerned.