As someone who was born in the late 90s it would be remiss to omit the fact that my knowledge of Queen is minimal. Their music of course was familiar but their story was something I had completely missed.
Because I was so devastated that A Star Is Born didn't win Best Motion Picture at the Golden Globes, I thought it was only fair that I checked Bohemian Rhapsody out to see what all the fuss was about.
Bohemian Rhapsody's Best Motion Picture win at the Golden Globes was a bit of a shocking one when you take into account its first week reviews. A litany of one and two star reviews plagued the film, yet audience response was in complete contrast to what the critics had to say. People were raving about the movie on social media and encouraging their friends to see it.
With this in mind, I decided to give the epic 2 hour and 13 minute movie a chance. The movie's tagline- 'the only thing more extraordinary than their music is his story'- sets the viewer up to believe that while the movie will feature Queen's music, the guiding force will be lead singer, Freddie Mercury.
Bohemian Rhapsody has earned actor Rami Malek much industry acclaim for his near flawless impersonation of Queen frontman, Freddie Mercury.
Source: Minster FM
Fraught with disaster from the beginning, the fact that Bohemian Rhapsody was rushed to theatres is a surprise in itself. In 2010 Sacha Baron Cohen signed on to play Freddie, but departed the film in 2013 due to ongoing disputes with Queen's guitarist and consultant on the movie, Brian May. Baron Cohen, realising that the charm and intrigue behind Mercury rested firmly in his sexual promiscuity and the way his personality exuded sex, wanted the film to dive more in to what it meant for Mercury to be a gay man. May, thinking about the brand that Queen has cultivated over the years was in direct opposition to this. Which, upon reflection, seems to account for why a huge part of Freddie's life in the film was dealt with in PG terms.
It took a further three years before Rami Malek signed on to the project as the new Freddie Mercury. In September of 2017, the first scenes of the movie were being filmed, however more drama was to hit mere months later. In December, director Brian Singer was accused of sexual assault and was promptly fired from the film and a new director had to be chosen in the midst of filming.
Thinking about all of the behind the scenes chaos and drama, it seems only fitting since Mercury exuded flamboyance and drama.
Freddie during a performance with Queen, with his one of a kind passion for performing on show.
Source: History Online
Despite all the odds, Bohemian Rhapsody hits theatres ahead of schedule, and doesn't the behind the scenes mess play out on screen (read: it sure does).
Granted, there have been many biopics about bands and musicians, but that doesn't mean they all have to follow the same principles. The story arc that comprises of the film opening with an event that happens in the present, before flashing back to the past to show how the person (or band) ends up there is so played out it is almost fatigue inducing.
Another major issue with the film is the fact that a lot of the knowledge is either implied or left out. The movie catered to super fans who knew the dates of the albums and the tours, rather than people who enjoyed their music but didn't know the band's origin story. The passage of time was indicated by different hairstyles and fashion choices and it left the viewer wondering how much time had actually passed.
The film does explore some interesting facts (however fleetingly), namely, that the idea behind dressing in drag for the I Want To Break Free film clip was not actually Freddie's idea.
Source: imbd
In scenes where Queen were creating their iconic songs, the process of artistry was dwindled down to cliches with the guys professing that their music is for outcasts created by outcasts- how very rock n roll of them. Another big issue is the fact that while the physical aspect of creating Bohemian Rhapsody (the song) was played out to the audience, the film glossed over the reasoning and motivation behind Freddie's musical creation. The main drawcard of biopics is the promise of revealing new information and taking a peak behind the famous facade, a fact that was seemingly nonexistent in Bohemian Rhapsody.
The film tells the story of Queen with the band members as consultants, yet quite often the viewer is subjected to revisionist history. Namely, the fact that Freddie told his band mates about his AIDS diagnosis before Live Aid, when in fact, they didn't know until long after the performance. Freddie's fretting over his vocal chords and the exchanging of grim looks between bandmates was simply fiction put into the movie to create tension before building up into a dramatic crescendo. So, in effect, what was set up as the film ending on a dramatic triumph as Freddie seemed to overcome the odds and give the performance of a life time at Live Aid, was entirely false.
While not Live Aid's biggest drawcard, when Queen graced the stage, the audience screamed the house down.
Source: The Edge
There were periods during the film where it seemed that Queen were going to lose their album deal but the arrogance of Malek's Freddie made it seem like the fact that Queen would achieve great stardom was a fait accompli. Subsequently the viewer wasn't ever really on the edge of their seats because they had nothing to root for.
Fans and movie goers knew the ending, Freddie was to succumb to AIDS in 1991. In fact the ending almost seemed built in, yet the film decided to end on a 15 minute concert. While that makes for a great story, it neglects the fact that the film was portraying real life and sometimes life is sad rather than triumphant. Sometimes a movie is better for ending at an emotional climax. Never underestimate the power of the truth.
The film's decision to end the picture with a 15 minute concert when faced with so much material from the lives of the band members remains questionable.
Source: Vanity Fair
The picture is riddled with holes and falsities and there are few saving graces other than Rami Malek. He breathes new life into Freddie Mercury and is able to portray him effortlessly in both private and public circumstances during the film. While Rami himself is essentially lip syncing, he did put a lot of work into his impersonation of Mercury. But the fact remains that perhaps impersonation is far easier than bringing a character to life based solely on words on a page- like other nominated actors have done this Awards Season.
The true saving grace of the film is undoubtedly the music. In fact, it is understandable why fans love this movie- because it plays into the nostalgia factor. Hearing those songs again, played loudly on the screen would have been like a trip down memory lane. Getting to hear your favourite songs like that has a goose bump effect that is missing when you play songs through earphones. However, if the film was going to rely so heavily on the music, perhaps it should have been a documentary rather than a feature film.
Rami Malek as Freddie is almost the perfect depiction of the fallen rockstar. Yet, some online are unsure how an act of impersonation lands you a Best Actor Golden Globe.
Source: Daily Express
Once again I return back to the film's tagline, "the only thing more extraordinary than their music is his story". If his story was so extraordinary why was it twisted to allow for more drama? If his story was so extraordinary why was it told in half truths? And finally, if Freddie Mercury's story was so extraordinary, why did the film's official ending choose to ignore his fate?
Yes Freddie's passing was acknowledged in writing at the end of the film, but cinematically the film finished with Queen on the Live Aid stage.
Bohemian Rhapsody may have made for a great documentary. The band could have sat down in front of the camera and spoken about their time and creative process. In that setting the omnipresent use of music would have been a better fit than it was in a film that marketed itself as illuminating Mercury's life. However, it's not worthy of a Best Picture award because at the end of the day, it not only fails to deliver what was promised, it's also fake.
For a film that had so much material and unique creative artistry to draw from, notable omissions from Bohemian Rhapsody seem to be a repercussion of the chaos surrounding pre-production stages.
Source: Consequence of Sound
If the surviving members of Queen were conscious of tarnishing their legacy with the raw story of their band days, perhaps the story would have been better left untold.
I think my biggest issue with the film is the fact that Freddie was fearless and unique and the film seemed to skirt around the issue. He was the gay son of Parsis parents who while never explicitly telling them he was gay, continued to live his life exactly the way he wanted. In response to his AIDS diagnosis he pens the song The Show Must Go On. Wouldn't that have been a more poignant ending to the film? That despite all the success Queen were mortals but the very nature of their profession demanded that the show must continue forever.
Watching Bohemian Rhapsody without knowing the back story and the filming hurdles would have allowed the music and the intricacies of life in Queen to be quite enjoyable, but even then, it's far from award worthy.
Comments