MovieChat Forums > Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) Discussion > Should have been bolder and gayer

Should have been bolder and gayer


The movie is too safe and pg13 for story it covers (or should cover).
And it's too bad because it could have been truly great.

Doesn't really do justice to the source material by sterilizing everything, it's as hip as a mom trying to be cool with a son by buying him the clean version of his favorite rapper album.

I don't like to critique movies for what they should have been, but this one, based on this story and these people, really should have been different and dared more. It feels as authentic as times square today compared to what it was in the '70s.

I don't think Freddy would approve.

reply

I think it is a good thing that they did not get too accurate about Freddy. Did you want them to show the German scat clubs that he frequented? He was pretty wild.
I think it best to just let that stuff rest.

reply

I was talking in general about the tone of the movie, it was Disney safe, rather than daring.

About the details of Freddie's life, without being too graphic, they could have hinted at more stuff if it happened.
I have no idea what the real deal was, but in a movie about it, it should have been a good idea to try and include it, like Stone did in the doors movie (I think he even went overboard there).

reply

So you want his homosexuality more out there but want to hold back from the real debauchery he enjoyed?

Regardless of whether it was handled as it was or the way you want it to have been handled it would still not tell the whole story.

I do not hold Mercury's wilder side against him but if his true deviance were depicted on the big screen many people would.

reply

No, I'm not thinking of "holding back the debauchery" if it's important for the movie.
Personally, I would go full blast but that's my idea, it might not be the best for a movie about him necessarily. You could just hint at it, you know, like they did it in movies for 60 years: it's not necessary to show it, but I'm sure that pretending it didn't happen at all, like they paint it in this puritan tale, is not the way to go.

reply

I agree. The middle of the road approach they took was both obvious and un-engaging. By not going super gay, parts of the film as presented were confusing as to why certain things even mattered to people. This film definitely requires prerequisite knowledge to understand fully. The movie also couldn't decide if it was about Queen the band or a biopic on Freddie. I thought it was a mess.

reply

Yep, I think you are right about everything. I feel it's such a wasted opportunity because some bits are very good.

reply

Very good indeed. The movie is sitting pretty well in my head. Many of the scenes still lingering in my thoughts. I thought it was a mistake to focus on the Live Aid so much. Yeah, that was an epic moment in history. But damn. We got a shit ton of footage of that already, and Queen did a lot more amazing shit than that show. But i'm a Queen fan. Maybe the average movie goer found that very compelling. IDK

reply

Yes I agree. If anything, I think the live at Wembley in 86 would be "the" pinnacle moment in their history. But they wanted to rewrite history this way.

It kinda feels like the producers had an agenda to "fix" some aspect of Queen history that they didn't like, or maybe thought the public wouldn't like.
I think truth is always the best choice with biopics.

reply

A grittier warts ‘n all style film about Freddie falling victim to AIDS and him dealing with it in a time when there was a greater ignorance about AIDS and sense of shame attached to it would of have made a more dramatic film I feel but not such a bigger box office draw.

Plus Queen were infamous for their wild parties, I didn’t get that vibe at all from this film, I still enjoyed the film but a darker more serious tone dwelling on AIDS rather than wasting 15 mins on Live Aid would have been welcome.

reply

Wild parties?
See, I didn't know that about Queen and I certainly didn't get it from this movie.
Wild parties... in this movie Brian May looks like a total clerk from the boredom bureau. Roger Taylor is just a crazy little kid who wines a lot, but just wants to go home to his wife. John Deacon looks like a silly tool that the other three abuse, like Donny in The Big Lebowsky. And Freddy is portrayed as a very lonely and lonesome straight guy who turns gay despite himself, and is sorry to annoy everybody because of it but would prefer not to bother anybody.
That doesn't ring like "Led Zeppelin wild" to me.

reply

“[Freddie] could out-party me,” one-time fellow coke-fiend Elton John told Uncut in 2001, “which is saying something.” Queen were well-known in the industry for their outrageous shindigs. Most notable was the ‘Jazz’ launch party at New Orleans’ Fairmont Hotel in 1978, which featured wholesome delights including nude waiters and waitresses, a fellow biting heads off live chickens, naked models wrestling in a liver pit and dwarves swanning about with trays of cocaine strapped to their heads.
Read more at https://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/queens-freddie-mercury-the-maddest-stories-about-rocks-best-loved-hellraiser-769352#72lYsB7o23zlPamo.99

I was expecting to see or allure to crazy shit similar to The Wolf of Wall Street, but this movie decided to play it very safe instead.

reply

Wow, talk about revisionism...
It's also all very visual stuff, so it would have been fascinating to see it happen in front of our eyes, and an important evolution in the story and characters.
What a missed opportunity, that whole list of debaucheries sounds just awesome!

reply

Watch the music video of Living On My Own, it was shot during Freddie's 39th birthday celebration in 1985 in Munich, can give you a idea of the parties he had (without the illegal stuff). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DedaEVIbTkY

reply

Yep, great stuff! Could have/should have been in the movie.
We see one party where Freddie is having some fun, but all the other Queen members are downers. Why???

reply

Probably because the Queen members wanted it this way, showing how they were not as wild as Freddie was.

reply

Yeah, well. They couldnt make the movie without the approval of the surviving band members, who are now older and respectable and don't want the world to see them catering parties with trays of coke on the heads of dwarves.

Especially May, who's the chancellor of some university now.

reply

Indeed

reply

They did gloss over some of Queen's and Mercury's more decadent moments, but they didn't completely ignore that side of the band. They have a few scenes that acknowledge those times, even if they didn't get into graphic detail.

reply

To the people who agree with the way the movie was done; if Freddie was as safe and sterilized as this movie, there wouldn't have been a band called Queen. This movie should have been more raw like Sid and Nancy.

reply

Yes, my point exactly, it's sad that, because of this, many people just ignore the reality of their story.

reply

It should have been a lot rawer, but the surviving members of Queen wanted a hagiography.

That's why biopics usually suck.

--------------------------------------------
You can read all of my latest film reviews here: https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/about/Jake

reply

So true. Reminds me of the Chicago doc Now More Than Ever. A biased viewpoint dictated by the 'surviving' members.

reply

It's actually just Brian May and Roger Taylor, it's not even the whole surviving band.
I don't get what their agenda was here, I'm thinking they were ill advised by someone telling them "you cannot put that in a movie if you want it to be popular".

Kinda ironic considering their rebellious nature in the music business, but I guess they got old. I cannot believe that the rebels were just Freddie Mercury and John Deacon.

reply

Yes, that's why I put surviving in quotes. But I suppose they had to bring in the ticket sales. No one wants to see grit anymore. I miss the 70s.

reply

[deleted]