In its dramatization of history, Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti struggled to strike a balance between fact and fiction due to the film’s narrative approach. While it provides an accurate historical context to help viewers understand the events and period, it does not clearly distinguish between historical facts and fictional elements. The biopic starts with a dramatization of the controversial event where Ransome-Kuti was thrown down from a window by the police. It then jumps to a scene where a Spanish journalist visits her on her hospital bed to interview and, possibly, profile her. It is from this point that events of the biopic are narrated in flashbacks. The obscurity of this approach is that it gives a feeling that an interview actually existed where Ransome-Kuti was interviewed and she gave an account of her life which the director relied on, providing a tingling feeling that she used a verifiable source to support factual claims. However, this dramatized interview between the older Ransome-Kuti, who serves as the narrator, and the journalist does not appear to have a basis in recorded history. This indicates that the film takes creative liberties in constructing its narrative, compromising authenticity. 

For a story inspired by historical events, lucid narration that aligns with historical details is crucial. Austen-Peters’ attempt to revive Ransome-Kuti as a narrator and life-witnesser, rather than simply dramatizing her experiences, raises questions about her narrative choice. By employing the dead protagonist as a narrator, recounting her story from the days leading up to her death, the film blurs the lines between fact and fiction. This approach is troubling, as it distorts historical accuracy despite the director’s claim that the film is largely inspired by true events. This narrative perspective creates an absurdity, as the deceased protagonist is presented as a life-witnesser, recounting her ordeal while nearing death. It undermines the film’s historical credibility and raises concerns about the director’s creative liberties. By prioritizing a refreshing narrative approach over historical fidelity, Austen-Peters compromises the authenticity of Ransome-Kuti’s story, leaving the audience to question the accuracy of the events portrayed. 

Biopics typically narrate a person’s story, focusing on a pivotal event and exploring the events leading up to it. A biopic transcends its true essence when it takes a deeply personal angle, using factual elements to tell the story. However, few biopics achieve this potential. Austen-Peters’ Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti attempts to provide this personal angle but faces significant challenges due to the scarcity of primary sources, such as recorded interviews, diaries, letters, or documents written by the titular character. Although the directorial approach tries to overcome this limitation, it risks being mistaken for an auto-biopic, where the protagonist narrates their own story. However, Funmilayo Ransome-Kuti relies solely on research and historical documents, lacking the personal touch of an auto-biopic. A more plausible approach would have been a third-person omniscient narration or a retelling by someone close to the character. Instead, Austen-Peters’ narrative choice raises concerns about the film’s faithfulness to the truth and the person who lived it. 

The primary concern for any film attempting a biographical representation is to avoid inventing events or characters that distort the historical record or misrepresent the person being portrayed. While historical or biographical films provide valuable insights into the period and its significance, accuracy is paramount. A biopic or historical film must strike a balance between factual truth and engaging storytelling. Since biopics have the power to emotionally resonate with the audience and shape their understanding of history, filmmakers have a responsibility to ensure that their depiction is as accurate as possible. This is crucial, as these films often spark important questions and reflections on history. Therefore, representation and narrative choices are critical, as they impact not only the audience but also the legacy of the individuals being portrayed. 

The biopic of Ransome-Kuti sparks crucial questions about the blurred lines between historical authenticity and narrativity. The film’s blend of fact and fiction, while enhancing storytelling and characters, raises concerns about creative liberties taken with historical events. The key question is: where should filmmakers draw the line between fact and fiction when dramatizing history, particularly the personal story of a revered figure? The most critical aspect of this dilemma is narration and representation, and it is here that Austen-Peters’ biopic, despite its strengths, falls short⎈