Last night, I got to see a movie that's apparently years and years in the making.
And that film, an epic of a film based on an epic of a song, was Bohemian Rhapsody.
Starring Rami Malek, Bohemian Rhapsody is supposedly a biographical film following the story of the band Queen. However, it serves more as a biopic about Freddie Mercury.
Disclaimer before I continue: never before have I felt such hesitancy in writing about a movie.
I feel that a lot of people have really strong feelings about this movie, Freddie, and Queen itself. However, I guess it's my job as a pretend movie critic to write my opinions without really worrying about the general public.
So here goes.
I enjoyed watching this film. It was colorful. It was a musical. I like those things.
I thought the film was brilliantly designed; there are sequences of breathtaking cinematography, gorgeous costumes (that fantastically, perfectly replicate costumes worn by the members of Queen in their heyday), and moments in the film- particularly performance sequences- exhibit rich, saturated, well-designed lighting.
I respect all the thought and skill that clearly went into this film.
However, the film doesn't quite meet my expectations.
When I'm watching a biopic, I expect to be drawn into the life of the person the film is about.
I want to begin to somewhat understand why they make the choices they do.
I want to be able to draw some conclusions about their character based on their experiences, childhood, relationships, etc.
I was able to do virtually none of the above in watching Bohemian Rhapsody.
Disregarding the fact that Freddie Mercury was a completely real human being, for a second-
I couldn't even get a read on the character of Freddie played by Malek in the movie.
Instead of humanizing Freddie Mercury, I feel that the film did a great job of doing a caricature of him. I'm not sure if that can be chalked up to the writing or to the acting, but I didn't feel connected to film Freddie whatsoever.
It's my understanding that the real life Freddie Mercury was a colorful bird anyway, but even the most extravagant stage persona only masks the person underneath it. I swear, it takes about two hours of sitting through the movie to see any sign of vulnerability in film Freddie.
Seriously. Malek spends about two hours strutting around, putting out cigarettes on contracts, putting on different outfits, and being a general diva before a sliver of real humanity was exhibited.
It pains me to say it, but film Freddie didn't do much for me, y'all.
Another thing that pains me about the film is the lack of exploration and thought given to some of the most important people in the movie.
The other members of Queen; (platonic?) love interest Mary, that weird manager guy that I guess Freddie had a relationship (forgot his name, that's how much of an impression he made on me), Mercury's parents and sister, and Jim.
Even though all these people have just about as much screen time as Malek, and are the most important players in Freddie's life and career, they just feel like background noise.
There are so many loose ends that are only haphazardly dealt with by the end of the film.
It's like Mercury's precarious relationship with his heritage and family isn't flashy enough to match the tone the production team is going for.
Mary is treated like a toy for Freddie to play around with and call up when needed, and from what I've read while researching the band and the film, she was much more than that to him.
Freddie's sexuality is downplayed throughout almost the entire run time, which irks me a fuck ton. I could go on.
And the plot itself feels slapped together.
There are some moments and story lines that were drawn out, and then suddenly the action jumps several years into the future.
And I get it, it's a lot of material to fit into two and a half hours.
But it wouldn't bother me nearly this much if the tempo of the plot were consistent.
Which it's not.
At all.
However, I think the biggest disservice that Bohemian Rhapsody does to its audience and to Freddie's memory is its treatment of his AIDS diagnosis.
It's a really touchy subject. And it's hard for me to write about, because I never had to live through the AIDS crisis, nor am I sure I even know anyone living with the condition.
But here's the thing. I'm not a psychic. And I don't have a time machine. But I'm going to guess that when Freddie went to the doctor and got tested, and got the results back, he felt some type of strong emotion. Sadness, maybe anger, something.
The movie completely skipped over that part, and went straight to treating Mercury like an indestructible commodity, someone who can completely ignore their own mortality or grief just to serve their audience.
And I wouldn't fault someone for carrying on like that. I've been a performer. I know when you're onstage, you put everything else aside and give to your audience.
But don't you dare fucking tell me that Freddie didn't cry, or punch something, or have some kind of emotional breakdown.
If something like that had been included in the movie (since the movie takes SUCH a lax attitude towards being historically accurate anyway), that would have gone a long way towards making me love Bohemian Rhapsody.
Or at least having a strong emotional response to Freddie's fate.
I can see the production team deciding to spare the audience seeing a hero like Freddie Mercury ill. It would probably have disturbed a lot of people. And, apparently, the studio/producers wanted to make a family-friendly film.
Ok, that's a valid choice. I don't agree with it, but I can see it being valid to them. For commercial reasons, probably.
But I think it takes a lot of the heart and the humanity out of the film and out of Freddie's character.
I couldn't help but compare the last, say, half an hour of the film to the part of Straight Outta Compton that features Eazy's diagnosis.
In S.O.C., the audience gets to watch Eazy spiral out of control of his health, his relationships, his musicianship, and ultimately, his life.
We, the viewers, get to see Eazy's pain, and we get to feel it.
For pulling those kinds of punches throughout the film, the production team behind Bohemian Rhapsody has lost a great deal of my respect.
Not everything in this world can be family-friendly. I can't think of a single legendary performer that didn't have really messy moments, really heartbreaking moments.
By shielding viewers from seeing the really negative sides of Freddie and his life (besides a bunch of lead singer cockiness), Bohemian Rhapsody manages to put Freddie Mercury on a pedestal.
And not in a way that's respectful; in way that sanitizes his image and shuts down, rather than opens up, greater conversations about the human experience, or the LGBT experience, or the experience of those living with serious, maybe terminal illness.
And that, my friends, fucking sucks.
And that film, an epic of a film based on an epic of a song, was Bohemian Rhapsody.
Starring Rami Malek, Bohemian Rhapsody is supposedly a biographical film following the story of the band Queen. However, it serves more as a biopic about Freddie Mercury.
Disclaimer before I continue: never before have I felt such hesitancy in writing about a movie.
I feel that a lot of people have really strong feelings about this movie, Freddie, and Queen itself. However, I guess it's my job as a pretend movie critic to write my opinions without really worrying about the general public.
So here goes.
I enjoyed watching this film. It was colorful. It was a musical. I like those things.
I thought the film was brilliantly designed; there are sequences of breathtaking cinematography, gorgeous costumes (that fantastically, perfectly replicate costumes worn by the members of Queen in their heyday), and moments in the film- particularly performance sequences- exhibit rich, saturated, well-designed lighting.
I respect all the thought and skill that clearly went into this film.
However, the film doesn't quite meet my expectations.
When I'm watching a biopic, I expect to be drawn into the life of the person the film is about.
I want to begin to somewhat understand why they make the choices they do.
I want to be able to draw some conclusions about their character based on their experiences, childhood, relationships, etc.
I was able to do virtually none of the above in watching Bohemian Rhapsody.
Disregarding the fact that Freddie Mercury was a completely real human being, for a second-
I couldn't even get a read on the character of Freddie played by Malek in the movie.
Instead of humanizing Freddie Mercury, I feel that the film did a great job of doing a caricature of him. I'm not sure if that can be chalked up to the writing or to the acting, but I didn't feel connected to film Freddie whatsoever.
It's my understanding that the real life Freddie Mercury was a colorful bird anyway, but even the most extravagant stage persona only masks the person underneath it. I swear, it takes about two hours of sitting through the movie to see any sign of vulnerability in film Freddie.
Seriously. Malek spends about two hours strutting around, putting out cigarettes on contracts, putting on different outfits, and being a general diva before a sliver of real humanity was exhibited.
It pains me to say it, but film Freddie didn't do much for me, y'all.
Another thing that pains me about the film is the lack of exploration and thought given to some of the most important people in the movie.
The other members of Queen; (platonic?) love interest Mary, that weird manager guy that I guess Freddie had a relationship (forgot his name, that's how much of an impression he made on me), Mercury's parents and sister, and Jim.
Even though all these people have just about as much screen time as Malek, and are the most important players in Freddie's life and career, they just feel like background noise.
There are so many loose ends that are only haphazardly dealt with by the end of the film.
It's like Mercury's precarious relationship with his heritage and family isn't flashy enough to match the tone the production team is going for.
Mary is treated like a toy for Freddie to play around with and call up when needed, and from what I've read while researching the band and the film, she was much more than that to him.
Freddie's sexuality is downplayed throughout almost the entire run time, which irks me a fuck ton. I could go on.
And the plot itself feels slapped together.
There are some moments and story lines that were drawn out, and then suddenly the action jumps several years into the future.
And I get it, it's a lot of material to fit into two and a half hours.
But it wouldn't bother me nearly this much if the tempo of the plot were consistent.
Which it's not.
At all.
However, I think the biggest disservice that Bohemian Rhapsody does to its audience and to Freddie's memory is its treatment of his AIDS diagnosis.
It's a really touchy subject. And it's hard for me to write about, because I never had to live through the AIDS crisis, nor am I sure I even know anyone living with the condition.
But here's the thing. I'm not a psychic. And I don't have a time machine. But I'm going to guess that when Freddie went to the doctor and got tested, and got the results back, he felt some type of strong emotion. Sadness, maybe anger, something.
The movie completely skipped over that part, and went straight to treating Mercury like an indestructible commodity, someone who can completely ignore their own mortality or grief just to serve their audience.
And I wouldn't fault someone for carrying on like that. I've been a performer. I know when you're onstage, you put everything else aside and give to your audience.
But don't you dare fucking tell me that Freddie didn't cry, or punch something, or have some kind of emotional breakdown.
If something like that had been included in the movie (since the movie takes SUCH a lax attitude towards being historically accurate anyway), that would have gone a long way towards making me love Bohemian Rhapsody.
Or at least having a strong emotional response to Freddie's fate.
I can see the production team deciding to spare the audience seeing a hero like Freddie Mercury ill. It would probably have disturbed a lot of people. And, apparently, the studio/producers wanted to make a family-friendly film.
Ok, that's a valid choice. I don't agree with it, but I can see it being valid to them. For commercial reasons, probably.
But I think it takes a lot of the heart and the humanity out of the film and out of Freddie's character.
I couldn't help but compare the last, say, half an hour of the film to the part of Straight Outta Compton that features Eazy's diagnosis.
In S.O.C., the audience gets to watch Eazy spiral out of control of his health, his relationships, his musicianship, and ultimately, his life.
We, the viewers, get to see Eazy's pain, and we get to feel it.
For pulling those kinds of punches throughout the film, the production team behind Bohemian Rhapsody has lost a great deal of my respect.
Not everything in this world can be family-friendly. I can't think of a single legendary performer that didn't have really messy moments, really heartbreaking moments.
By shielding viewers from seeing the really negative sides of Freddie and his life (besides a bunch of lead singer cockiness), Bohemian Rhapsody manages to put Freddie Mercury on a pedestal.
And not in a way that's respectful; in way that sanitizes his image and shuts down, rather than opens up, greater conversations about the human experience, or the LGBT experience, or the experience of those living with serious, maybe terminal illness.
And that, my friends, fucking sucks.
Comments
Post a Comment