Bollywood has seen an unprecedented boom in biographical films over the past decade (2015–2025). From sports legends and political icons to business innovators and film stars, real-life stories have taken center stage. These biopics promise inspiration and insight into extraordinary lives, but do they deliver authentic tributes, or are they crafted as commercial ventures riding on famous names? In this deep dive, we explore the rise of Bollywood biopics across various fields, examine how faithfully they portray their subjects versus the creative liberties taken, and analyze whether the motive is honoring legends or minting box-office success.
The Rise of Biopics in Bollywood
In recent years, Hindi cinema has shifted towards more “realistic” storytelling, and biopics have become a go-to genre. Bollywood has always loved grand drama, but audiences now gravitate to stories “based on true events,” which feel relatable and emotionally resonant. This trend truly picked up momentum around 2015 and shows no signs of slowing. Filmmakers and stars alike have embraced biographical roles, seeing them as both artistic challenges and potential commercial goldmines.
Several factors explain this surge. Proven box office success is one: films like M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story (2016), Dangal (2016), and Sanju (2018) were not only critically acclaimed but also huge money-spinners. A real-life story comes with built-in audience interest, especially if the subject is a beloved celebrity or national hero. Moreover, biopics tap into viewers’ emotions strongly. Knowing that the struggles and triumphs on screen actually happened can inspire and move audiences in ways pure fiction may not. From the gritty determination of athletes to the sacrifices of war heroes, these narratives celebrate resilience and human spirit, creating an instant emotional connection.
However, with popularity comes patterns and pitfalls. Bollywood’s biopic boom has also raised questions about creative originality (are filmmakers relying too much on existing stories?) and about authenticity (whose truth is being told?). As we examine biopics across different genres, sports, politics, business, and the film industry itself, a complex picture emerges of films that juggle fact and fiction, reverence and entertainment.
Contents
- The Rise of Biopics in Bollywood
- Sporting Legends on the Silver Screen
- Political Biopics: Between Story and Spin
- Entrepreneurs, Innovators and Unsung Heroes on Film
- Bollywood’s Self-Portrait: Biopics on Film Stars
- Fact vs. Fiction: Balancing Authenticity and Drama
- Global Comparison: How Do Others Do It?
- Between Reverence and Reality: The Way Forward
Sporting Legends on the Silver Screen
Some of the most popular biopics have centered on sports personalities, tapping into India’s passion for cricket, hockey, wrestling, and more. These films tend to be patriotic and triumphant, portraying their subjects as heroes who brought glory to the nation. They also usually perform well commercially due to the massive fan followings sports stars enjoy.
Cricket Biopics: The craze arguably kicked into high gear with M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story (2016), based on star cricketer Mahendra Singh Dhoni. Portrayed by the late Sushant Singh Rajput, the film traced Dhoni’s journey from a ticket collector in a small town to the World Cup-winning captain of Team India. It struck gold at the box office, fueled by Dhoni’s enormous popularity. Critics praised the engaging storytelling and Rajput’s performance, though they also noted the sanitized treatment. The film glorified Dhoni’s achievements while omitting controversial episodes (for example, IPL spot-fixing allegations or rifts with teammates were left out). This omission was likely intentional, given Dhoni’s involvement in the project; the filmmakers focused on inspiring moments and personal struggles rather than any tarnish on his image. The result was a feel-good, hagiographic account, immensely entertaining for fans if not a probing warts-and-all biography.
Following Dhoni’s success, 83 (2021) brought another cricket epic to the screen – the story of India’s underdog victory in the 1983 Cricket World Cup. With Ranveer Singh transformed into captain Kapil Dev, the film meticulously recreated historic matches and iconic moments (Kapil’s famous catch, for instance, was reproduced with near-perfect accuracy). The production did extensive research and even involved real 1983 players as consultants to ensure authenticity in cricketing details. In terms of factual fidelity, 83 was largely faithful to the events and spirit of the tournament. It played as a straight tribute to a legendary team, with little dramatic embellishment beyond injecting emotional backstories for some players.
Critics lauded the nostalgia and technical accuracy, though a few felt it was more a celebratory docu-drama than a gripping film narrative. Interestingly, despite positive reviews, 83 underperformed commercially, partly due to its late-2021 theatrical release when pandemic worries still kept audiences away, and perhaps because younger viewers lacked a connection to an event from the 1980s. This underperformance shows that even a well-made, authentic biopic isn’t guaranteed box office success without the right timing and buzz.
Wrestling and Other Sports: Dangal (2016) remains one of Bollywood’s biggest hits ever, turning the true story of wrestler sisters Geeta and Babita Phogat (and their driven coach-father) into a blockbuster. With Aamir Khan in the lead, Dangal balanced authenticity with the classic underdog sports drama formula. It stayed mostly true to the core facts, the Phogats’ rural upbringing, unconventional training, and international victories, but took some creative liberties for dramatic punch. For instance, the film’s climax created a fictional scenario where Geeta wins her gold medal match while her father is locked out of the stadium (heightening the tension), whereas in reality, he was very much present.
Such alterations, including adding emotional subplots or composite characters, are common in sports biopics to make the narrative more cinematic. Despite minor factual tweaks, Dangal resonated widely because it captured the essence of the real story: the empowerment of girls through sports and a parent’s relentless support. The film’s massive success (including unprecedented popularity in China) proved that a biopic can be both authentic in spirit and appealing to global audiences.
You May Also Like to Read
Other sports figures have received similar Bollywood treatment: Mary Kom (2014) depicted the champion boxer’s grit (though casting a North Indian actress, Priyanka Chopra, as a Northeastern icon sparked debate on representation). Saina (2021) portrayed badminton star Saina Nehwal’s rise in a by-the-numbers narrative that earned mixed reviews and modest collections. Soorma (2018) told hockey player Sandeep Singh’s comeback from injury; Gold (2018) dramatized India’s first Olympic hockey win (with a fictional protagonist amid real events); Shabaash Mithu (2022) tackled women’s cricket via Mithali Raj’s story.
Each of these films aimed to inspire with tales of personal struggle and victory. Most stayed respectful, almost reverential, toward their subjects, often to the point of glossing over flaws or controversies. The protagonists are depicted as determined, honorable fighters, and any failings are usually external (unsupportive authorities, societal hurdles, or bad luck), not character flaws. This approach makes for uplifting cinema, though it raises the question: are these films painting a fully honest portrait, or just a heroic montage?
War Heroes and National Pride: In parallel with sports biopics, Bollywood has also saluted military heroes. Shershaah (2021), released on streaming, chronicled the life of Captain Vikram Batra, who was martyred in the Kargil War. The film, starring Sidharth Malhotra, was widely appreciated for its sincerity and patriotic fervor. As with sports figures, portraying a fallen soldier tends toward homage. Shershaah presented Batra as brave, selfless, and almost larger-than-life (with his iconic radio call “Yeh dil maange more!” immortalized). There was little room to critique or delve into personal imperfections – understandably, since the intent was to honor a national hero.
The result was a rousing and emotionally charged biopic that earned public acclaim (and plenty of tears), even if it steered a safe, unquestioning course in depicting its subject. Similarly, Gunjan Saxena: The Kargil Girl (2020) portrayed the first Indian female Air Force pilot in combat, highlighting her struggles against gender bias. That film took a more introspective angle on a hero’s journey, but still simplified some scenarios (the Air Force complained that institutional realities were distorted to create a villainous opposition for the heroine).
Sports and war biopics in Bollywood tend to lionize their protagonists. They are often feel-good films that celebrate achievements that made India proud. The table below summarizes a few notable examples from this category, comparing their fidelity to real events, critical reception, and commercial outcome:
| Film (Year) | Subject | Fidelity to Real Events | Critical Reception | Commercial Success |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story (2016) | M.S. Dhoni (cricket) | High-level events are accurate; omit off-field controversies for a clean image. | Positive reviews; praised for inspiration and performance, though noted as hagiographic. | Super-hit (Huge box office driven by Dhoni’s fanbase). |
| Dangal (2016) | Phogat family (wrestling) | Largely true story; minor dramatization (e.g., fictionalized climax for effect). | Highly acclaimed, lauded for performances and emotion. | Blockbuster (Record-breaking domestic and overseas gross). |
| 83 (2021) | 1983 Indian cricket team | Very high fidelity; meticulously recreates matches and era. | Generally positive; applauded as an authentic, nostalgic tribute. | Underperformed (Critically loved, but lost money due to high budget and timing). |
| Shershaah (2021) | Capt. Vikram Batra (army) | High fidelity; sticks closely to known history and anecdotes. | Positive; praised for heartfelt portrayal and patriotism. | N/A (Direct-to-OTT) – Huge online viewership and popularity. |
| Mary Kom (2014) | Mary Kom (boxing) | Moderately accurate; compresses timeline and training, with some fictional elements. | Mixed-to-positive; Priyanka Chopra’s act praised, but film seen as formulaic. | Hit (Good box office for a female-led film at the time). |
| Saina (2021) | Saina Nehwal (badminton) | Straightforward account; omits any personal controversies (none major publicly). | Average; noted for inspiring story but lacked depth. | Flop (Low collections; limited audience interest). |
(Table 1: Sports and National Hero Biopics in Bollywood, 2015–2025)
As shown above, sports biopics that struck the right chord (Dangal, Dhoni) achieved immense success, whereas some others failed to captivate audiences despite noble intentions (Saina, or the well-made 83 struggling commercially). A common thread is that these films treat their subjects with great reverence, sometimes at the cost of complexity. The fidelity is usually strong regarding key events (scores, medals, battles won), but personal flaws or controversies are downplayed. The heroes might face adversity, but internally, they are painted as nearly impeccable role models.
Critics have pointed out that this one-dimensional portrayal can make biopics feel like fan tributes rather than probing biographical dramas. For example, Mary Kom glossed over the real-life tensions between the boxer and sports authorities, and M.S. Dhoni skipped any mention of his run-ins with cricket board politics. Yet, fans often don’t mind, they come for inspiration and celebration, not exposé. In the case of Dhoni, leaving out tricky subjects actually kept the narrative focused and positive, which arguably strengthened its emotional impact (as one reviewer noted, the unwavering hero-worship gave the film a certain emotional clarity, even if it lost out on layers of complexity).
Political Biopics: Between Story and Spin
Moving from stadiums and battlefields to the corridors of power, Bollywood’s biopics on political and historical figures present a different set of challenges. Politicians’ lives are often fraught with controversy and sharply divided opinions, so any film depiction tends to invite scrutiny and debate about bias. In the 2015–2025 period, we saw biopics ranging from national leaders to regional icons, and even a few that courted serious controversy.
Leaders and Prime Ministers: Two high-profile releases in 2019 set the tone. The Accidental Prime Minister starred Anupam Kher as former PM Manmohan Singh, and was based on an insider memoir. The film portrayed Singh as a well-meaning but weak figure overshadowed by his party’s dynasty – a narrative that aligned conveniently with certain political viewpoints. Its release stirred debates; the ruling party promoted it while the opposition (Singh’s party) denounced it as propaganda. Critics panned the movie’s execution, finding it heavy-handed and shallow, and audiences largely stayed away. With lackluster box office, The Accidental Prime Minister ended up more talked-about in news studios than in cinema halls.
Soon after came PM Narendra Modi (2019), a biopic of the current Prime Minister, released around the time of national elections. This film took an unabashedly heroic tone, depicting Modi’s rise from humble beginnings to national leadership in a glowing light. It glossed over contentious episodes (such as the 2002 Gujarat riots during his tenure as Chief Minister) or presented them in a way favorable to his image. Many saw it as a blatant image-building exercise, attempting to capitalize on election fervor. In fact, the Indian Election Commission briefly delayed its release citing potential influence on voters. When it did come out, the reception was poor, reviews criticized its cloying tone and lack of nuance, and it failed to make a mark commercially. The Modi biopic exemplified how overtly one-sided storytelling can backfire: audiences sensed they were being sold a PR message more than a compelling story.
Historical and Regional Political Figures: Bollywood also tackled figures like Bal Thackeray and Jayalalithaa, iconic yet polarizing leaders in their regions. Thackeray (2019), with Nawazuddin Siddiqui in the title role, dramatized the Shiv Sena founder’s journey. The filmmakers (including writer-producer Sanjay Raut, a Sena politician) did include key incidents like Thackeray’s confrontations with South Indian communities and the Babri Masjid episode, but framed them largely from Thackeray’s perspective. The film at times justified or glossed over the more divisive aspects of his politics, maintaining a sympathetic lens.
While Nawazuddin’s performance was praised, the biopic received mixed reviews for its lack of objectivity. It also performed modestly at the box office. Essentially, Thackeray walked a tightrope: it showed some controversial events but carefully steered toward venerating its subject as a tough but righteous leader. This again highlights the inherent bias in many biopics, when the subject or their allies have a hand in the production, the story is unlikely to cast a harsh judgment on them.
In Thalaivii (2021), based on Tamil Nadu’s former Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa (and released in Hindi as well), actress Kangana Ranaut portrayed the actress-turned-politician. The film covered Jayalalithaa’s tumultuous career and her mentor-protégé relationship with MGR. It humanized her struggles in a male-dominated political world and largely presented her as a resilient, visionary figure. Any murky political dealings or allegations of corruption during her reign were either omitted or softened. Critics found Thalaivii entertaining and Kangana’s transformation impressive, but noted it felt more like a glossy homage than a deep exploration of a complex leader. Commercially, it had a limited theatrical run (due to pandemic restrictions) and did not see major success, though it garnered attention on streaming later.
You May Also Like to Read
Bollywood has also reached further back into history for biographical inspiration. For instance, Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi (2019) depicted the legendary Rani Laxmibai from the 1857 Rebellion. That film took the form of a broad patriotic epic, with plenty of creative dramatization, essentially a historical biopic blended with masala action. Though based on a real person, its style was closer to myth-making, turning Rani Laxmibai into a near-superhuman figure. It succeeded in evoking pride, but obviously wasn’t aiming for documentary accuracy (the line between history and folklore blurs in such cases).
Given the politically charged nature of these subjects, the authenticity vs. agenda debate comes up frequently. Many political biopics in this era have been accused of being too partisan or worshipful. It’s perhaps telling that truly critical biopics of living political figures are rare, filmmakers might fear backlash or lack funding for projects that aren’t “approved” by someone. Thus, what we often see are authorized biopics that border on hagiography, or projects that pick “safe” angles. On the other hand, choosing a neutral or critical stance risks pleasing no one. This delicate balance may be one reason some of these films underperform: a biopic that is essentially propaganda won’t be embraced by the critical audience, and those already devoted to the leader might find a movie unnecessary if it doesn’t offer new insights.
The table below highlights a few political/historical biopics and how they fared on truthfulness, critiques, and business:
| Film (Year) | Subject | Fidelity & Perspective | Critical Reception | Commercial Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Accidental Prime Minister (2019) | Dr. Manmohan Singh (Ex-PM) | Based on insider memoir; events shown but with clear bias blaming rival politicians. | Largely negative; seen as shallow and agenda-driven. | Flop (Controversial but low audience interest). |
| PM Narendra Modi (2019) | Narendra Modi (PM) | Simplified and highly favorable life story; contentious issues glossed over. | Poor; criticized as propaganda and superficial. | Flop (Minimal box office impact). |
| Thackeray (2019) | Bal Thackeray (Mumbai leader) | Covers major events, but sympathetic lens and justifies his aggressive politics. | Mixed; lead actor praised, but film lacked depth or neutrality. | Average (Moderate collections, strong regional interest). |
| Thalaivii (2021) | J. Jayalalithaa (TN CM) | Largely faithful on known milestones; sanitized portrayal of political controversies. | Mixed-to-positive; engaging biopic but seen as reverent. | Limited (Theatrical run hampered; found life on OTT). |
| Sardar Udham (2021) | Sardar Udham Singh (freedom fighter) | High authenticity and detail; solemn, unsentimental retelling of a revolutionary’s story. | Critically acclaimed for realism and cinematography. | OTT Release (Intended for theaters; went to streaming, appreciated by niche audience). |
| Gangubai Kathiawadi (2022) | Gangubai (mafia figure turned activist) | Loosely based on a biography; dramatized heavily, blending fact and folklore. | Positive; praised for storytelling and Alia Bhatt’s performance. | Hit (Solid box office success). |
(Table 2: Biopics of Political and Historical Figures, and Other Public Personalities)
(Note: Gangubai Kathiawadi is an interesting case – while not a political leader, it biographises a woman from Mumbai’s 1960s underworld who later advocated for sex workers’ rights. The film fictionalized parts of her life as documented in a book. It succeeded by delivering a compelling narrative, though historians might quibble about what’s true or embellished.)
From the above, one can observe that fidelity in political biopics often bends to the filmmaker’s intent. When the intent is to celebrate or defend the subject, inconvenient truths may be left out. For instance, Thackeray largely skips the darker vigilante aspects of the Shiv Sena’s history, and Thalaivii omits the more controversial episodes of Jayalalithaa’s reign. On the flip side, when the intent is to criticize or expose, as arguably with The Accidental Prime Minister, the film can end up feeling one-sided in the other direction – essentially a dramatized critique rather than a balanced portrait. Neither extreme truly captures a full picture of a life.
One positive outcome of these biopics is that they have spurred conversations. Even if a film is biased, viewers and commentators often dissect the differences between what’s shown and the historical record. For example, after Thackeray, there were public debates and articles about scenes that portrayed certain riots, whether the film was justified in its depiction or conveniently lenient. Similarly, Thalaivii got people discussing Jayalalithaa’s actual political strategies versus the filmi version. So, in an indirect way, these movies have reintroduced historical and political topics to younger audiences, who may then seek out the real history.
Entrepreneurs, Innovators and Unsung Heroes on Film
Not all biopics bank on famous faces from sports or politics. Bollywood has also ventured into stories of business pioneers, scientists, social activists, and other unsung heroes in this period. These films sometimes fly under the radar compared to the big celebrity biopics, but they contribute to the diversity of real-life stories on screen. They also raise their own questions about accuracy and dramatic license.
Business and Innovation: One notable example is Pad Man (2018), based on the life of Arunachalam Muruganantham – a social entrepreneur who invented a low-cost sanitary pad manufacturing process for rural women. Akshay Kumar starred in this biopic, which took a few creative detours: the setting was shifted and names changed (the protagonist is named Lakshmikant and set in North India rather than Muruganantham’s South Indian hometown) to appeal to a pan-Indian audience. Nonetheless, the core narrative stayed true to the real inspiring journey, highlighting how one man’s perseverance brought about a menstrual hygiene revolution. Pad Man balanced authenticity with some Bollywood flavor – a romantic track here, a dramatic speech there – but avoided over-the-top fiction.
Its fidelity was moderate; key incidents were depicted (like the stigma he faced, his use of self-testing the pads, etc.), even if some timeline compression occurred. Critics appreciated the message and Kumar’s earnest performance, though as a film it was sometimes labeled too preachy or simplistic. At the box office, Pad Man did reasonably well, though it wasn’t a blockbuster. It proved that audiences would invest in a biopic about a social issue innovator, especially with a bankable star leading it.
Another Akshay Kumar project, Mission Mangal (2019), though more of an ensemble drama, drew from the real scientists behind India’s Mars mission. It heavily fictionalized the characters (each scientist was a composite with personal subplots completely made-up for entertainment), so it’s not a true biographical film of one person, but it rides on the prestige of a real achievement. The film took broad creative liberties – introducing Bollywood-style drama and even song-and-dance into the narrative of a space mission – yet it marketed itself as “based on the incredible true story” of ISRO’s women scientists. This sort of approach blurs the line: it uses real events as a backdrop for largely fictional storytelling, which some purists criticize but many viewers enjoy as a digestible inspirational tale. The success of Mission Mangal showed that a dash of truth can be a strong selling point even if the product is mostly fiction.
Super 30 (2019) told the story of Anand Kumar, a Patna-based mathematician who coaches underprivileged students for the IIT entrance exam. Starring Hrithik Roshan (who darkened his skin and adopted a Bihari accent for the role), the film was an inspirational drama about overcoming social and economic barriers. It hewed to the broad strokes of Anand Kumar’s life and work, showcasing both his early struggles and the success of his “Super 30” coaching program that helped kids from poor families crack one of India’s toughest exams. However, post-release, there were discussions about how the film ignored some controversies – for instance, questions raised by journalists on whether Anand Kumar exaggerated aspects of his success rate or charged students money contrary to his public image.
The filmmakers steered clear of these debates, sticking to a narrative that lionized Kumar as a selfless teacher. From a fidelity standpoint, Super 30 presented events that certainly happened (students topping exams, Anand’s near-poverty, etc.), but perhaps not the full reality of all events. Critically, the film got mixed reviews: many found it uplifting and enjoyed Hrithik’s performance, while some found it formulaic and objected to the casting choice (arguing a darker-skinned, more age-appropriate actor could have been more authentic). Audiences, though, responded warmly and the movie turned out to be a solid box-office hit, reinforcing that a compelling underdog story, even if simplified, can win hearts.
Scientists and Tech Figures: Rocketry: The Nambi Effect (2022) is a standout entry in this category. It dramatizes the life of Nambi Narayanan, a former ISRO scientist who was falsely accused of espionage in 1994, subsequently exonerated and recognized as an innovator who contributed to India’s rocket technology. R. Madhavan directed and also starred as Nambi, showing his journey from brilliant young engineer to a man fighting to clear his name. The film was clearly a passion project aiming to set the record straight and honor an unsung hero. Nambi Narayanan himself was closely involved as a consultant, which should mean a high degree of factual accuracy, and indeed many incidents in the film (his work with NASA, the false case, custodial torture) align with recorded accounts.
However, Rocketry did not escape debate over authenticity either. While Narayanan endorsed the film’s truthfulness, a group of his former ISRO colleagues publicly claimed that Rocketry over-dramatized and even falsified certain aspects, for example, the movie’s implication that his arrest stalled India’s space progress, or scenes where Nambi is shown one-upping other scientists like A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. These colleagues felt the film unduly glorified Nambi at the expense of others, calling it “90% false” in its depiction of ISRO’s history. This is a reminder that even when a biopic strives for honesty, perspectives can differ, one person’s truth might be seen as exaggeration by another.
In terms of reception, Rocketry was applauded for telling a bold story and Madhavan’s dedication, but as a film it got a lukewarm critical response (the narrative was seen as earnest but a bit technical and draggy for general audiences). Commercially, it had a modest run, it did better in South India (Madhavan’s home turf and where Nambi’s story is well-known) than in Hindi markets. Despite not being a blockbuster, Rocketry succeeded in bringing a lesser-known true story to the public and sparked conversations about scientific integrity and injustice.
Unsung Heroes and Social Crusaders: Bollywood also paid tribute to everyday heroes who made a difference. Neerja (2016) recounted the bravery of Neerja Bhanot, a 23-year-old flight attendant who saved many lives during a plane hijack. The film, led by Sonam Kapoor, was both a critical and commercial success, praised for its tight storytelling and heartfelt portrayal. It largely stayed factual, based on interviews with survivors and Neerja’s family, though like any film it compressed events for pace. Interestingly, some crew members of the actual hijacked flight later commented that Neerja did take a few dramatic liberties (for instance, building certain side characters or sequences that heightened tension). But in essence, it captured the truth of Neerja’s heroism and sacrifice. Audiences and critics didn’t mind minor fictionalization because the tribute felt genuine and respectfully done.
You May Also Like to Read
Another unique example is Chhapaak (2020), inspired by the true story of an acid attack survivor, Laxmi Agarwal. Deepika Padukone both produced and starred in this film, which aimed for a very realistic, hard-hitting tone. It wasn’t a box-office juggernaut, but it was noted for sticking closely to real issues, even using the real-life court case outcomes and campaigning for legal changes that Laxmi was involved in. The names were changed (Deepika’s character is Malti instead of Laxmi), possibly for legal reasons, but it’s essentially a biopic of a social survivor/activist. Chhapaak won acclaim for shedding light on a harsh reality without Bollywood glamorization, although some viewers felt it was too slow or documentary-like in parts. Its moderate reception showed that audiences appreciate truth-telling, but stark realism can limit a film’s mass appeal in a market used to more melodrama.
From the above instances, biopics of innovators and everyday heroes seem to face a double challenge: attracting viewers to stories that may not have a pre-existing fanbase, and doing justice to often sensitive, lesser-known narratives. Filmmakers in this space tread carefully between being factually thorough and dramatically engaging. Sometimes they err on the side of creative storytelling to hook the audience (as in Mission Mangal, which took great artistic liberty). Other times they stay largely truthful and accept a niche appeal (as Chhapaak or Sardar Udham did). The commercial results vary widely, a few break out (like Pad Man or Super 30), while others remain modest.
Bollywood’s Self-Portrait: Biopics on Film Stars
In a meta turn, Bollywood has also made biographical films about figures from the film industry itself. The most prominent example is Sanju (2018), based on the tumultuous life of actor Sanjay Dutt. Directed by Rajkumar Hirani and starring Ranbir Kapoor in an uncanny transformation, Sanju garnered immense attention. It was marketed not just as a biopic but almost as an event, given Dutt’s star status and the controversies attached to his life (drug addiction, weapons charges linked to the 1993 Bombay blasts, jail time, etc.). The film became one of the highest-grossing Bollywood films of its time, proving that audiences were very keen on seeing a dramatised version of Bollywood’s own bad boy.
However, Sanju also became a case study in the debate over biopic authenticity. While it covered many chapters of Sanjay Dutt’s life, his early career, his struggle with drugs, the trauma of his legal troubles, and his relationship with his father Sunil Dutt, it was widely observed that the film skated over or softened the most damning aspects. For instance, Sanju almost entirely ignored certain personal episodes (like Sanjay’s first marriage and daughter, which were never mentioned). It also presented a narrative in which Sanjay is shown as a victim of circumstances and media vilification, rather than someone accountable for his own mistakes. The tone is sympathetic throughout: even his involvement with dangerous arms is downplayed to a naïve blunder, and blame is shifted onto a scheming friend and sensationalist journalists.
Critics pointed out that Sanju felt like an image-cleansing exercise for Sanjay Dutt, not coincidentally, Dutt was a close friend of the director and had given full access to his story, implying a level of authorization. There were disclaimers at the start that some characters and events were fictionalized, and indeed the film introduced composite characters (like a writer friend and a comic relief drug buddy) to make its point. Despite these issues, Sanju received largely positive reviews for its engaging narrative and top-notch performances (Ranbir Kapoor and Vicky Kaushal notably).
Many viewers who were less familiar with Dutt’s history took the film at face value as a moving tale of a flawed man redeemed. Meanwhile, those aware of the omissions accused the makers of deliberately whitewashing Sanjay Dutt’s image for the sake of delivering a neat redemption arc. In terms of our central question, tribute or commercial tool, Sanju can be seen as a bit of both: a tribute by friends to rehabilitate a star’s legacy, and certainly a commercial masterstroke given its huge earnings.
Apart from Sanju, Bollywood attempted a few other biopics about people from the entertainment world, though none as high-profile. Manto (2018) portrayed the life of Urdu author Saadat Hasan Manto, who was deeply involved in Bombay’s film and literary circles in the 1940s. Directed by Nandita Das and starring Nawazuddin Siddiqui, Manto was an artistic venture that strived for authenticity in depicting the era, the partition time, and the struggles of a radical writer. It blended real episodes from Manto’s life with dramatizations of scenes from his short stories, which was a creative way to present his state of mind. Manto won critical acclaim internationally but remained a niche film with limited commercial success, perhaps because Manto, as a literary figure, didn’t have mass appeal, and the film eschewed typical Bollywood tropes.
Nevertheless, it stands as an example of a credible biopic that did not whitewash its subject: the film openly shows Manto’s vices (his temper, alcoholism) and principled stubbornness, painting a humanizing and somewhat melancholic portrait. Though not many saw it, those who did would say they got a genuine glimpse into the man’s life and milieu.
Another notable mention is The Dirty Picture (2011), slightly before our time frame but influential in this trend, which was inspired by the life of Silk Smitha, a South Indian erotic actress. While names and certain details were fictionalized to avoid legal trouble, it was essentially a biopic highlighting the exploitation and tragedy behind a glamour figure’s life. The film was entertaining but also bold in exposing the sexist double standards of the industry. Its critical and commercial success possibly encouraged filmmakers that audiences would embrace even the darker stories of showbiz if told well. It’s worth noting that The Dirty Picture did not shy away from the less flattering sides of its subject (her desperation, societal judgment, eventual downfall), making it a more balanced narrative than many later biopics. Perhaps because Silk Smitha wasn’t a mainstream A-list star, the makers felt freer to explore the murky truth, whereas Sanju, about an active and connected star, trod far more carefully.
Bollywood-on-Bollywood biopics can be fascinating for the insider peek they promise, but they often raise trust issues. Fans enjoy seeing an actor portray another famous actor (the curiosity factor is huge), yet the storytelling might be biased to protect the industry’s own. Sanju succeeded by leaning into emotional drama and humor, but it sparked a conversation: do such biopics genuinely illuminate a star’s life or just mythologize it further? The answer seems to depend on how forthright the filmmakers dare to be.
Fact vs. Fiction: Balancing Authenticity and Drama
Looking across all these categories, a clear tension emerges at the heart of biopic filmmaking: the push-and-pull between remaining truthful and crafting a compelling narrative. Real life stories are rarely as tidy or dramatic as a three-act screenplay demands. So filmmakers inevitably have to take some creative liberties. The crucial question is, how much is too much? And does the scale tip towards respecting facts or ensuring audience entertainment (and by extension, commercial viability)?
Common ways Bollywood biopics exercise creative license include:
- Omitting inconvenient facts: As we’ve seen, many biopics simply leave out incidents that don’t fit the heroic storyline or that might paint the subject in a negative light. Dhoni’s biopic dropped any mention of controversies; Sanju left out entire relationships; Super 30 skipped questions about Anand Kumar’s later career. This omission can simplify the narrative and avoid distractions, but it also means the film might present a one-sided, sanitized story. For viewers, it raises the issue that they may not be getting the full truth, just the “authorized biography” version.
- Altering timelines and characters: To heighten drama, filmmakers often compress timelines (making events seem closer together or causal even if they weren’t) and create composite characters. For example, instead of showing five different coaches or friends who influenced the protagonist, a biopic might roll them into one supportive friend character for clarity. This helps the story flow, but it’s technically fictionalization. In Gunjan Saxena, a male colleague character was created to personify the sexism she faced; in Sanju, a writer character embodied the judgmental media. These represent real issues or multiple people through a single figure, a storytelling technique that carries the “essence” of truth but not factual accuracy.
- Dramatized dialogues and scenes: Real people likely didn’t deliver the neatly scripted speeches that biopics feature in crucial moments. Writers inevitably invent dialogue, and sometimes entire scenes, to convey emotions or messages that might otherwise be hard to film. 83 added interactions between players that we can’t know happened verbatim; Pad Man concocted a dramatic public speech by its hero that was more cinematic than real; Neerja built tension with sequences of passengers that may not have happened exactly as shown. These embellishments are accepted as part of filmmaking, as long as they don’t distort the known outcomes.
- Explicit disclaimers: A trend has emerged where biopics open with disclaimers acknowledging that liberties have been taken. Sanju did this, warning that some portions are fictionalized. This is a way to preempt criticism and remind audiences that they’re watching a film, not a documentary. However, not all viewers register the fine print; many come away believing the majority of what they see as truth, especially if they are not intimately familiar with the real story.
- Tone and emphasis: Beyond factual content, filmmakers influence perception through tone. A biopic can be an unabashed celebration (e.g., Mary Kom ending with a triumphant montage) or a more critical examination (e.g., Manto showing the protagonist’s struggles unflinchingly). Most Bollywood biopics in this period chose a celebratory, reverential tone. The background music swells heroically, the narrative highlights victories over defeats, and even failures are stepping stones to ultimate success. This approach leaves audiences feeling inspired but arguably short-changes them of complexity. Life’s ambiguities, moral grey areas, and unresolved conflicts are often swept aside. It’s entertainment, yes, but is it honest?
- Involvement of the subject/family: Many biopics are made with the direct cooperation of the person or their family. While this ensures access to authentic details and personal anecdotes, it can also mean the filmmakers tread lightly around anything the subjects are uncomfortable revealing. Authorized biopics can turn into authorized biographies, only what the subject consents to is shown. For instance, Dhoni reportedly had script approval on his film, and it’s hard to imagine he would approve scenes delving into controversies that he has publicly avoided talking about. Similarly, Sanjay Dutt likely had informal influence on Sanju given his closeness to the director. On the other hand, when subjects are not involved, filmmakers have more freedom to critique, but they may face legal challenges or public backlash (the family of a late person might object to a negative portrayal, etc.). So, many producers play it safe by getting rights and cooperation, which implicitly entails some self-censorship for a smoother production.
The balance between authenticity and creative liberty thus varies case by case. Some films lean 90% towards creative liberty (essentially fiction “inspired by” a true story), and others stick 90% to known facts, with just the edges smoothed out for storytelling. The risk of veering too far from truth is that the film loses credibility, today’s viewers, armed with Google and social media, often fact-check movies and call out inaccuracies. For example, when Gunjan Saxena was released, many veterans and analysts publicly corrected the record on how women were treated in the Air Force at that time, leading to a perception that the film was unfair to the institution even if it had a valid point about sexism. This shows that straying from facts can invite reputational issues and distract from the film’s message.
Conversely, the risk of being too faithful is that real life can be meandering or anticlimactic, which might not satisfy viewers. A perfectly accurate biopic might end up being slow or lacking a conventional dramatic arc, reducing its mass appeal. Sardar Udham (2021) faced such feedback, it was meticulously authentic in depicting the life of revolutionary Udham Singh and the horrors of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, but its narrative was nonlinear and somber, which some found less engaging than a more dramatized version might have been. The filmmakers deliberately avoided cliché and patriotism tropes, but that also meant it wasn’t a crowd-pleaser in the vein of, say, Lagaan or Rang De Basanti.
You May Also Like to Read
For Bollywood, where the commercial stakes are high, entertainment often edges out strict authenticity. The industry’s default is to not offend public sentiment or the figure in question, and to ensure the audience leaves on an uplifting note. That’s why we see an idolizing tendency in many biopics, the subject is a hero, full stop. As a critique in one publication quipped, “the lens of a biopic [here] lacks objectivity; most of these films have the emotional complexity of a nursery rhyme, idolising their protagonists as demigods.” This might be an exaggeration, but it captures the formulaic nature of a lot of biopics: present the highlights, ignore the lowlights, wrap it in emotional music and motivational dialogue, and roll end credits with real footage for that extra dose of “this actually happened!” sentiment.
However, the best biopics manage some middle ground. They engage and entertain without completely betraying reality. They may take license but in service of a greater truth about the person. When we watch Dangal, even if the final match didn’t exactly happen as shown, we still understand the genuine struggle and triumph of the Phogat family. That truth shines through, and that is why the film is satisfying. Similarly, Neerja may not depict every moment accurately, but it leaves us with a real admiration for Neerja Bhanot’s courage, an emotion entirely grounded in reality. In contrast, a biopic that drifts too far into fiction runs the danger of misleading the audience or undermining the very point of telling a “true” story.
Global Comparison: How Do Others Do It?
The boom in biographical films is not unique to Bollywood, Hollywood and other global cinemas have long indulged in biopics, often with similar creative dilemmas. A brief comparison reveals that worldwide practices share common threads with what we see in India, though there are some differences in approach and reception.
In Hollywood, biopics are frequently award season darlings, with actors vying to play real people (preferably famous or historically significant figures) as a shot at critical acclaim. These films, too, range from slavishly accurate to heavily fictionalized. For example, The Social Network (2010), about Facebook’s founding, was praised as a film but took liberties that drew the ire of Mark Zuckerberg, who said the movie was inaccurate in its portrayal of him (it certainly amplified personal conflicts for drama). Bohemian Rhapsody (2018), the biopic of Queen’s lead singer Freddie Mercury, was a global hit and even won Oscars, yet some fans and critics noted it sanitized Mercury’s life, likely because the surviving band members had producing control.
It glossed over certain aspects of his sexuality and relationships, and rearranged historical facts (the timing of his AIDS diagnosis, for instance) to create a more emotional finale. This is quite akin to Bollywood’s approach: protect the legacy, maximize the emotional payoff, even if that means bending truth a bit.
On the other hand, Hollywood has also produced biopics that are gritty and unflattering. Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) portrayed Jordan Belfort’s life of crime and debauchery with little attempt to make him likable, it was almost a cautionary tale dripping in excess. It still played loose with some facts and omitted parts of Belfort’s story, but it certainly didn’t whitewash his image. Then there are films like Lincoln (2012) or Darkest Hour (2017) that stick quite close to historical record, taking just enough license to imagine private conversations or composite minor characters, but fundamentally aiming to be authentic portraits of famous leaders. They were critically hailed for their attention to detail and strong performances, showing that audiences will appreciate a largely faithful retelling if it’s well-crafted (though one might argue these were also somewhat reverent, rarely will a mainstream film completely tear down a beloved historical figure).
What Hollywood perhaps does more often is tackle controversial figures or topics with a sharper edge. For instance, Vice (2018) was a satirical, critical biopic of US Vice President Dick Cheney, unafraid to vilify its subject. It polarized viewers but garnered respect for not pulling punches. Bollywood, by contrast, seldom makes a big film to openly criticize a living public figure in biopic form, the cultural and political environment in India can make that a risky proposition. A lot of Bollywood biopics prefer subjects who are either universally admired or those whose negative sides can be downplayed.
Another global angle is the handling of music and art legends. Hollywood’s Rocketman (2019) about Elton John was quite candid about his struggles with addiction and personal issues, perhaps because Elton John himself, while involved, wanted an honest portrayal (in fact, he allowed the film to have an R-rating and show the dark periods). Compare that to, say, Sanju where the involvement of the star arguably led to a softer approach. It suggests that whether a biopic becomes an authentic tribute or a glossy promo can depend on the subject’s own attitude toward their legacy. Some are open to self-critique, others perhaps not as much.
Globally, there is also a trend of unauthorized biopics or independent projects that try to present alternative viewpoints. For example, multiple films can be made about the same person with different angles (there have been two Hollywood films on Truman Capote released around the same time, each focusing on different facets). In India, this is less common due to rights issues, typically one big project gets made and it is seen as the definitive take, at least for a while.
The balance of truth vs dramatization is a universal tightrope in biopic production. Every film industry deals with the ethical and creative challenge of depicting real lives. Bollywood’s approach in 2015–2025 has mirrored global practices in many ways, though perhaps with an extra dose of caution and reverence owing to cultural norms. As audiences become more discerning worldwide, there’s a growing call for biopics to be more honest and layered, rather than simplistic hero-worship. Some international films and series (The Crown on Netflix, albeit not a film, comes to mind) have shown you can captivate viewers even while showing famous figures in a critical light, but they also attract their share of controversy for doing so.
Between Reverence and Reality: The Way Forward
The biopic boom in Bollywood between 2015 and 2025 leaves us with a mixed legacy. On one hand, it has given us inspiring, entertaining films that introduced a new generation to important figures and stories from real life. Audiences who might never pick up a biography or watch a documentary have learned about the likes of Milkha Singh, Geeta Phogat, M.S. Dhoni, Neerja Bhanot, and more through mainstream cinema. The genre has provided actors a canvas to showcase their versatility, from Aamir Khan aging decades as Mahavir Phogat, to Ranbir Kapoor mimicking Sanjay Dutt’s every mannerism, to smaller gems like Alia Bhatt embodying a brothel madam turned activist in Gangubai. These performances and the emotional weight of true stories have enriched Bollywood’s repertoire beyond the usual masala fare.
On the other hand, one can’t ignore that many of these films functioned as carefully packaged tributes or outright commercial strategies. The timing and choice of some biopics hint at calculated moves, for instance, releasing a Modi biopic at election time, or back-to-back sports biopics when that trend was seen as a safe bet. The artistic courage to present a flawed or deeply probing character study has been rare. For the most part, Bollywood chose to mythologize rather than humanize its biographical subjects during this boom. We got heroes, legends, and role models on screen, but only occasionally did we get the messy, conflicted human being behind the public image.
Is that a bad thing? Not entirely, cinema has its own language and purpose. If a movie motivated a young girl to take up sports or highlighted an injustice that needed attention, perhaps it did its job despite taking liberties. Many would argue that a film is first a film, not a history lesson, and some glamor and compression are forgivable in service of an engaging story. For example, Sanju’s supporters might say it captured the father-son bond and the pain of a man in the throes of addiction and legal trouble, and that emotional truth matters more than cataloguing every fact of Dutt’s life. Similarly, MS Dhoni succeeded in conveying Dhoni’s perseverance and cool-headedness under pressure, qualities that define him, even if it skipped a few chapters. In those senses, the films were authentic tributes to the spirit of their subjects.
However, the flip side is the risk of distorting public memory and legacy. In India, where films have a profound influence, a biopic can easily become the definitive narrative of a person. When nuances are shaved off, people might never know the whole story. If a biopic overtly whitewashes someone with a troubled past, it could be seen as manipulating public sentiment. There’s also the ethical consideration towards history and real individuals (especially those no longer alive to defend themselves). Filmmakers carry a responsibility when declaring a film “based on a true story,” and striking a balance between respect and honesty is key.
Going forward, the biopic trend in Bollywood is expected to continue, upcoming projects on athletes, military officers, and historical icons are already in the works. Perhaps the maturing audience taste will push these films to be more daring. With social media, any factual inaccuracies or sugar-coating are quickly spotlighted, which could encourage creators to either be upfront about fictionalization or avoid too much deviation. We might also see more biopics of unsung heroes (who don’t come with a PR machinery attached), allowing more creative freedom to tell the story as it was.
One promising sign is the success of more nuanced storytelling in the web/OTT space, which might spill into biopic films. Audiences have given thumbs-up to series and movies that have a grittier, more realistic tone, proving that you can still achieve popularity without gloss. If Bollywood can integrate that authenticity with its knack for emotional engagement, the biopic genre could evolve into something that is both truthful and thrilling.
In conclusion, the Bollywood biopic boom has been a double-edged sword. It has undoubtedly been a commercial tool, capitalizing on public fascination with real figures, a trend that producers banked on to fill theaters. Yet, in many cases, it has also been a sincere if sometimes simplistic tribute to heroes and icons, ensuring their stories are not forgotten. Authentic tribute or commercial tool? More often than not, it has been a bit of both. Each film finds its place somewhere on the spectrum between reverence and reality. The most successful ones typically offer a heartfelt homage with just enough truth to earn credibility and just enough drama to entertain.
For discerning viewers, the key is to enjoy these movies as starting points, to be inspired, but also to remain curious and seek out the full context beyond the film. Bollywood, for its part, thrives on giving the audience what they love. And clearly, audiences love a good true story. If filmmakers can inch closer to authenticity without losing the magic of cinema, the biopic boom can yield not just ticket sales, but lasting cultural value. In the final scene of this ongoing story, one hopes the industry finds that golden mean where legacy and truth co-exist, offering films that are both honest portraits and compelling cinema.