Bohemian Rhapsody is...Weird.
/With the Bohemian Rhapsody movie coming out earlier this April, it’s about time we take a closer look at the film and how it fits into the whole grand scope of things.
Well...A more accurate description might be how it doesn't.
This film is just kind of bizarre, if you take more than a minute to think about it.
Well...A more accurate description might be how it doesn't.
This film is just kind of bizarre, if you take more than a minute to think about it.
How did we get here?
In a Vox Article by Aja Romano, she gives us a pretty good rundown of the whole sitch, looking a bit more into the...greater issues that the film has in a social context.
I’m not going to rehash what she has to say here, since it’s a pretty good argument, but totally recommend giving it a read.
But she does bring up a good point...How did we manage something like this.
Imagine in 2019, a movie about Freddie Mercury that depicts homosexuality as the primary antagonist.
And the conflict not resolved until he leaves his abusive relationship, which is depicted only as abusive due to it being queer.
His ex-fiance has twice as many lines as his non-abusive relationship, who appears ONCE and is otherwise ONLY mentioned in a pre-credits slide show.
His FEMALE ex-fiance, who was leaving him due to his queerness (Which is not QUITE true.)
And the conflict not resolved until he leaves his abusive relationship, which is depicted only as abusive due to it being queer.
His ex-fiance has twice as many lines as his non-abusive relationship, who appears ONCE and is otherwise ONLY mentioned in a pre-credits slide show.
His FEMALE ex-fiance, who was leaving him due to his queerness (Which is not QUITE true.)
Here's the problem with Bohemian Rhapsody and biopics in general: lives don't make very good narratives. One could honestly argue that there's no central conflict anywhere in the movie without this reading, but that does not a good narrative make. So, either you argue that the movie has no hard and fast plot, or the one that it does have is the big struggle of the main character...which means....
That's right, a huge portion of the movie is dedicated towards AIDS. Not that it shouldn't have been included, it was but they even adjusted the timeline to make it seem like the whole "Mercury's life of degeneracy cost him dearly and afterwards his life was spent atoning for it" narrative hold more water. For example, Mercury didn't even know he had AIDS until AFTER the Live Aid concert, which the movie shows as him performing as a strong, personal conflict. Yeah. The emotional climax of the movie didn't even really play out that way. Thanks, Hollywood.
Speaking of which, movie prides itself on more or less historical accuracy, but historical accuracy through the rest of the band who worked on the narrative really only gives them room for conflict as they saw it.
Which about that...
Yup. The living members of the bad worked on this. They decided it was a good idea to let living people decide how they'd be depicted in a biopic. Who needs neutrality, I guess?
People are still alive that knew Freddie Mercury PERSONALLY. The Live-Aid concert was the most-watched televised event at the time. Most of the living population was alive to see it.
You can’t fudge something that recent. People will notice.
You can’t fudge something that recent. People will notice.
Maybe not the millenials that were born shortly after the AIDS crisis, but is that really the target audience here?
Hint: It's not. They make that super-clear.
All the concerts are functionally shot-for-shot remakes of the concerts on which they are based. Which kinda makes the viewing experience very strange?
It's basically Queen: The HD Remake.
Hint: It's not. They make that super-clear.
All the concerts are functionally shot-for-shot remakes of the concerts on which they are based. Which kinda makes the viewing experience very strange?
It's basically Queen: The HD Remake.
Anyway, being so recent, the movie tries a bit...TOO hard to be respectful to...basically everyone? Nobody really has too many real issues, until Freddie goes off on his own. So....here’s really no other room for conflict, other than the “fall from grace” narrative.
This "plot weird" is probably due to the fact that there's barely any sort of direction in the film. It only had a director for most of it, due to Director Bryan Singer's firing mid-production . As it turns out, having someone with a long-history of violence towards actors is probably not the best person to work on your actor-heavy biopic.
Is he dropping the mic or dropping the ball? Both.
This most clear in the editing, which clearly had no oversight, and instead blares loud rock music over peaceful, emotionally-charged rain scenes.
Honestly, the whole film is kind of a beautiful disaster?
There's not really a plot, and the editing is bad, the pacing just sucks, and yet it somehow works? Even though it's super problematic?
Even though the whole movie might leave you scratching your head, you'll definitely enjoy yourself.
There's not really a plot, and the editing is bad, the pacing just sucks, and yet it somehow works? Even though it's super problematic?
Even though the whole movie might leave you scratching your head, you'll definitely enjoy yourself.
That being said, being functional doesn't really excuse it from the issues it as...ESPECIALLY concerning gays in the nineties.
How did we make a movie where entering the gay community is depicted as a fall from grace narrative.
Everything is just....WHAT?
This won Oscars. This Movie won Oscars.
How did we, nearly forty years after the AIDS crisis, create a moralizing biopic demonizing the gay community…and then PRAISE it?
How did we make a movie where entering the gay community is depicted as a fall from grace narrative.
Everything is just....WHAT?
This won Oscars. This Movie won Oscars.
How did we, nearly forty years after the AIDS crisis, create a moralizing biopic demonizing the gay community…and then PRAISE it?
Not to say that the film is wholly bad! It's just...fairly problematic in a bunch of different ways. It's probably in line with what Mercury would have wanted of his biopic, but it's almost as though it's a product of the times....that just happens to be...not these times. Maybe if we can use this as a learning experience. A cautionary tale against movies without directors? I'd definitely like to see a more inside-out look at Mercury's life rather than this really, really sterile approach, though.
I still recommend seeing the movie, if only for Rami Malek's performance (which is IMMACULATE, BTW), and the fact that they've got frame for-frame Queen conferences...though I'm not sure how well they're going to sound on your home screen as opposed to the theater.
Oh well. At least it gives everyone an excuse to buy albums and listen to the entire soundtrack again.
Oh well. At least it gives everyone an excuse to buy albums and listen to the entire soundtrack again.
Reflective Letter can be found HERE