Freddie was *not* living with Mary until 1980. That's the kind of revisionist stuff that happens when Queen fans downplay Freddie's gayness.
Listen--Michael Cunningham, gay writer. He's probably going to write from that point of view. I certainly give him loads more leeway than people who are rushing to judgment on this board who equate having gay sex and having that lifestyle, albeit in the closet--which makes it more interesting and compelling, now that I think of it, both to a non-Queenzone audience and to Cunningham as a writer--to taking craps and necrophilia.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Freddie *did* take drugs and go crazy with it. Haven't any of you seen the documentaries or read the sleazy biographies?
Christ. He was a major, major partier. It's just a fact. What do you think "Love of Life" is a euphemism for? His enthusiasm for cribbage?
Christ. He was a major, major partier. It's just a fact. What do you think "Love of Life" is a euphemism for? His enthusiasm for cribbage?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Under Pressure wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Freddie *did* take drugs and go crazy with it. Haven't any of you seen the documentaries or read the sleazy biographies?
Christ. He was a major, major partier. It's just a fact. What do you think "Love of Life" is a euphemism for? His enthusiasm for cribbage?[/QUOTE]
We never said he *didn't* take drugs, but I don't think many of us are convinced that he went crazy with it. I for one have seen the many documentaries and 'sleazy' biographies. I am still not convinced. Of course, however, he was a major partier, but does that really mean he handled it irresponsibly? Were any of us at one of his parties? Did we witness first hand? No. That being said, maybe you're right, maybe I'm kind of right, maybe you're completely wrong, maybe you're sort of right. But, I stand by what I said.
I see no evidence that he was obsessed with coke or any other drug. Of course, you could then say that I have no evidence that he was not obsessed with drugs. But, as usual, we all go by our gut instincts and whatever clues that are put in front of us. I have seen interviews of people, who went to his outragious parties, who said that, 'Yes, he did drugs, but he never pushed it on anyone.' And then, if we consider his attitude throughout his career, did he ever really change? Nope, the man really didn't change...he was always a crazy person -- that was his personality.
Christ. He was a major, major partier. It's just a fact. What do you think "Love of Life" is a euphemism for? His enthusiasm for cribbage?[/QUOTE]
We never said he *didn't* take drugs, but I don't think many of us are convinced that he went crazy with it. I for one have seen the many documentaries and 'sleazy' biographies. I am still not convinced. Of course, however, he was a major partier, but does that really mean he handled it irresponsibly? Were any of us at one of his parties? Did we witness first hand? No. That being said, maybe you're right, maybe I'm kind of right, maybe you're completely wrong, maybe you're sort of right. But, I stand by what I said.
I see no evidence that he was obsessed with coke or any other drug. Of course, you could then say that I have no evidence that he was not obsessed with drugs. But, as usual, we all go by our gut instincts and whatever clues that are put in front of us. I have seen interviews of people, who went to his outragious parties, who said that, 'Yes, he did drugs, but he never pushed it on anyone.' And then, if we consider his attitude throughout his career, did he ever really change? Nope, the man really didn't change...he was always a crazy person -- that was his personality.
Steven and others, I offer as evidence some quotes from Q magazine's Freddie story from a couple years ago [I think 2005], "The Queen of Cock."
Before the quote, the writer, Steve Lowe, outlines how Freddie "never tried to his his homosexual liaisons" from his friend Barbara Valentin during the Munich years. "[I]ndeed," Lowe recounts, Valentin "once recalled finding him naked on a balcony, singing We Are The Champions to some construction workers below shouting: 'Whoever has the biggest dick, come on up!"
Lowe then talks about the infamous Sid Vicious meeting and an incident in which Freddie asks a woman accompanying Roger whom he had taken a dislike to, "How big is your cunt, dear? Can you get it over your head dear?"
"Such behaviour," Lowe continues, "was presumably exacerbated by another affair he maintained into the late '80s: cocaine. Once, flying to America on [the] Concorde, he discovered a large stash in his bag and, in an attempt to avoid an awkward US customs bust, snorted the lot. "Freddie didn't need the plane," his personal manager Paul Prenter recounted. "He was so high on drugs he could have flown over the Atlantic by himself."
I point all this stuff out to add to the discussion about Freddie's gayness and drug use. And also because I find it thrilling and interesting. I think it's exciting that he was so in-your-face about his sexual liaisons and cocaine use--and on the Concord, no less!
Perhaps Cunningham, in his research, draws on these kind of stories for the screenplay? Go ahead and discount the story and the quotes, I suppose. But if you put these together with Phoebe's accounts and other stories I could find in my files, we have a portrait of a person fairly interested in his nose candy. And gay sex.
Before the quote, the writer, Steve Lowe, outlines how Freddie "never tried to his his homosexual liaisons" from his friend Barbara Valentin during the Munich years. "[I]ndeed," Lowe recounts, Valentin "once recalled finding him naked on a balcony, singing We Are The Champions to some construction workers below shouting: 'Whoever has the biggest dick, come on up!"
Lowe then talks about the infamous Sid Vicious meeting and an incident in which Freddie asks a woman accompanying Roger whom he had taken a dislike to, "How big is your cunt, dear? Can you get it over your head dear?"
"Such behaviour," Lowe continues, "was presumably exacerbated by another affair he maintained into the late '80s: cocaine. Once, flying to America on [the] Concorde, he discovered a large stash in his bag and, in an attempt to avoid an awkward US customs bust, snorted the lot. "Freddie didn't need the plane," his personal manager Paul Prenter recounted. "He was so high on drugs he could have flown over the Atlantic by himself."
I point all this stuff out to add to the discussion about Freddie's gayness and drug use. And also because I find it thrilling and interesting. I think it's exciting that he was so in-your-face about his sexual liaisons and cocaine use--and on the Concord, no less!
Perhaps Cunningham, in his research, draws on these kind of stories for the screenplay? Go ahead and discount the story and the quotes, I suppose. But if you put these together with Phoebe's accounts and other stories I could find in my files, we have a portrait of a person fairly interested in his nose candy. And gay sex.
And here's a quote from one of Paul Prenter's ex-boyfriends:
"I don’t think I’ll be causing any great scandal when I say that one of my main memories of Freddie is of the huge amounts of cocaine he took (and always shared), and which I, being 21 years old at the time, was happy to join in with (well I wouldn’t say no now either!).
"On a number of occasions I did go back to Freddie’s house off Kensington High Street, though my memories of this are also vague since this was always after a long night of drink and drugs, and the visits involved popping in, doing a few lines of coke (and his coke was always the best), then leaving to go home with Paul."
Source: http://hometown.aol.co.uk/glamrockbear2/page15.html
"I don’t think I’ll be causing any great scandal when I say that one of my main memories of Freddie is of the huge amounts of cocaine he took (and always shared), and which I, being 21 years old at the time, was happy to join in with (well I wouldn’t say no now either!).
"On a number of occasions I did go back to Freddie’s house off Kensington High Street, though my memories of this are also vague since this was always after a long night of drink and drugs, and the visits involved popping in, doing a few lines of coke (and his coke was always the best), then leaving to go home with Paul."
Source: http://hometown.aol.co.uk/glamrockbear2/page15.html
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Listen--Michael Cunningham, gay writer. He's probably going to write from that point of view. I certainly give him loads more leeway than people who are rushing to judgment on this board who equate having gay sex and having that lifestyle, albeit in the closet--which makes it more interesting and compelling, now that I think of it, both to a non-Queenzone audience and to Cunningham as a writer--to taking craps and necrophilia.
[/QUOTE]
Ironically on MC:
Although Cunningham is gay and has been partnered for 18 years, he dislikes being referred to as only a "gay writer", according to a PlanetOut article[1] because while being gay does greatly influence his work, he feels that it is not (and should not be) his defining characteristic.
Also, as to your quotes about his drug use, sure, he got high on a flight. But he's not stumbling around like Amy Winehouse, or wasting away on a liquid diet like Bowie did. Certainly something to think about.
ALSO, rereading Jim's article, I think it's totally true that MC relied very heavily on him for information, especially about Mary, whom Jim refers to merely as Freddie's "company secretary." Clearly there was antagonism there, but the way to solve that in a screenplay isn't to take one side over another, but to show that antagonism play out. Clearly Freddie didn't see Mary as such considering the vast, vast difference in what he left to Jim and what he left to Mary.
Listen--Michael Cunningham, gay writer. He's probably going to write from that point of view. I certainly give him loads more leeway than people who are rushing to judgment on this board who equate having gay sex and having that lifestyle, albeit in the closet--which makes it more interesting and compelling, now that I think of it, both to a non-Queenzone audience and to Cunningham as a writer--to taking craps and necrophilia.
[/QUOTE]
Ironically on MC:
Although Cunningham is gay and has been partnered for 18 years, he dislikes being referred to as only a "gay writer", according to a PlanetOut article[1] because while being gay does greatly influence his work, he feels that it is not (and should not be) his defining characteristic.
Also, as to your quotes about his drug use, sure, he got high on a flight. But he's not stumbling around like Amy Winehouse, or wasting away on a liquid diet like Bowie did. Certainly something to think about.
ALSO, rereading Jim's article, I think it's totally true that MC relied very heavily on him for information, especially about Mary, whom Jim refers to merely as Freddie's "company secretary." Clearly there was antagonism there, but the way to solve that in a screenplay isn't to take one side over another, but to show that antagonism play out. Clearly Freddie didn't see Mary as such considering the vast, vast difference in what he left to Jim and what he left to Mary.
Also honestly focusing on sex takes away from being able to show a lot of the pivotal moments in Freddie's life, which for the most part didn't have to do with random sex and parties.
Especially as someone who felt he had no real friends (other than MA) the parties were all a sham attempt to find happiness anyway, happiness that ultimately only occurred onstage and with his few true friends and JH.
I also think it's quite compelling the way that he was so close with his bandmates at the beginning of his career, then they gradually drifted apart but by the end they were back to the friendship they once'd had. That's something very special, and something that many people don't get to recover once it's lost.
Especially as someone who felt he had no real friends (other than MA) the parties were all a sham attempt to find happiness anyway, happiness that ultimately only occurred onstage and with his few true friends and JH.
I also think it's quite compelling the way that he was so close with his bandmates at the beginning of his career, then they gradually drifted apart but by the end they were back to the friendship they once'd had. That's something very special, and something that many people don't get to recover once it's lost.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
1. No, Zebonka. References to feathers and the ruffling thereof has never, ever been used in reference to gay people or effeminate people, not ever. I am oh-so-wrong in sussing out that connotation.
That paragraph, by the way, was written in a mode of writing we call "sarcasm."
[/QUOTE]
Hah.
I've never been so childish as to make that connection before. Feathers = gay people?
Your words, not mine.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
2. So that it took just a little bit of time out of your day to make the "AIDS in Heaven" joke somehow justifies your doing so? How does that logic work? You had the AIDS jokes already at the ready? Does the fact that you wrote--and continued to write them--really fast makes them less offensive?
[/QUOTE]
Had them at the ready? Haha. Now there's a text file I'd love to see. "Jokes-for-Queenzone".
I don't think the length of time it took me to write the posts has anything to do with the offensiveness, now that you mention it.
A sentence does not contain any inherent 'offensiveness', though. People see what they want to see, they create their own interpretations. You've been doing it all through this thread, surely you're aware of this?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]A couple things here. How do you "make something else" out of an AIDS joke on a Queen fan club site? Do you go "wow, that AIDS joke is really funny; making song parody lyrics about Freddie Mercury dying of AIDS is hilarious"? How is anyone hyper-sensitive to take offense, when one of my all-time favorite artists died of the disease?
[/QUOTE]
I think I've already explained to you that I don't find the jokes sophisticated enough to be really 'amusing'. As I said; it's really your reaction that's been more entertaining, although even that is getting old. Heh.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I assume you're referring to the Rwanda genocide. Of course an AIDS joke on a Queen fan club site isn't the same. It's more like going to a fan club site for the movie Hotel Rwanda and making African genocide jokes. How do you think that would fly? I suppose there's an Andy Kaufman-like appeal or sensibility of seeing how you can piss off people who are seriously vested in a topic. But what exactly is your point? Is it to show how stupid you are? Or how angry you might get people? I think it might be. I really do. And so here, you are, my dear young man, with a person who is angered by your joke.
[/QUOTE]
"What is your point", you say... again, you're assuming there is one. No master plan here, I'm afraid. Aside from the momentary fascination that there's someone like you posting on Queenzone, I really don't have anything for you in that regard.
If your over-use of commas in the last sentence are some sort of sarcastic dig at me for over-using them myself, I apologise - I tend to throw them in subconsciously a bit.
Andy Kaufman comparisons! Woo.
I can honestly say that it doesn't bother me if you're angered by my 'joke'. It would've bothered me, but after a couple of pages of your illogic posts, non-sequitur references to nationality, utter hypocrisy and lack of ability to put things in their proper context... I can't waste empathy on somebody who's acting like a fool, no matter whether or not I actually think he 'is' a fool. It's a conscious decision on your part, an actual choice to see only what you feel like seeing, to ignore other ideas.
And here you are purporting to be someone who 'tries' to see two points of view during an argument, etcetera...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And, my dearest, dearest Zebonka, if you fail to make any connection with making AIDS death jokes with hatred and persecution of gays, then there's something amiss in your brain circuitry.
[/QUOTE]
Hahaha.
Here's an idea that might be too big for your brain, but I te
1. No, Zebonka. References to feathers and the ruffling thereof has never, ever been used in reference to gay people or effeminate people, not ever. I am oh-so-wrong in sussing out that connotation.
That paragraph, by the way, was written in a mode of writing we call "sarcasm."
[/QUOTE]
Hah.
I've never been so childish as to make that connection before. Feathers = gay people?
Your words, not mine.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
2. So that it took just a little bit of time out of your day to make the "AIDS in Heaven" joke somehow justifies your doing so? How does that logic work? You had the AIDS jokes already at the ready? Does the fact that you wrote--and continued to write them--really fast makes them less offensive?
[/QUOTE]
Had them at the ready? Haha. Now there's a text file I'd love to see. "Jokes-for-Queenzone".
I don't think the length of time it took me to write the posts has anything to do with the offensiveness, now that you mention it.
A sentence does not contain any inherent 'offensiveness', though. People see what they want to see, they create their own interpretations. You've been doing it all through this thread, surely you're aware of this?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]A couple things here. How do you "make something else" out of an AIDS joke on a Queen fan club site? Do you go "wow, that AIDS joke is really funny; making song parody lyrics about Freddie Mercury dying of AIDS is hilarious"? How is anyone hyper-sensitive to take offense, when one of my all-time favorite artists died of the disease?
[/QUOTE]
I think I've already explained to you that I don't find the jokes sophisticated enough to be really 'amusing'. As I said; it's really your reaction that's been more entertaining, although even that is getting old. Heh.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I assume you're referring to the Rwanda genocide. Of course an AIDS joke on a Queen fan club site isn't the same. It's more like going to a fan club site for the movie Hotel Rwanda and making African genocide jokes. How do you think that would fly? I suppose there's an Andy Kaufman-like appeal or sensibility of seeing how you can piss off people who are seriously vested in a topic. But what exactly is your point? Is it to show how stupid you are? Or how angry you might get people? I think it might be. I really do. And so here, you are, my dear young man, with a person who is angered by your joke.
[/QUOTE]
"What is your point", you say... again, you're assuming there is one. No master plan here, I'm afraid. Aside from the momentary fascination that there's someone like you posting on Queenzone, I really don't have anything for you in that regard.
If your over-use of commas in the last sentence are some sort of sarcastic dig at me for over-using them myself, I apologise - I tend to throw them in subconsciously a bit.
Andy Kaufman comparisons! Woo.
I can honestly say that it doesn't bother me if you're angered by my 'joke'. It would've bothered me, but after a couple of pages of your illogic posts, non-sequitur references to nationality, utter hypocrisy and lack of ability to put things in their proper context... I can't waste empathy on somebody who's acting like a fool, no matter whether or not I actually think he 'is' a fool. It's a conscious decision on your part, an actual choice to see only what you feel like seeing, to ignore other ideas.
And here you are purporting to be someone who 'tries' to see two points of view during an argument, etcetera...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And, my dearest, dearest Zebonka, if you fail to make any connection with making AIDS death jokes with hatred and persecution of gays, then there's something amiss in your brain circuitry.
[/QUOTE]
Hahaha.
Here's an idea that might be too big for your brain, but I te
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And a homophobe. And prejudiced against gays (Here's just a random idiocy from you in the past: "Freddie liked arse sex. And Michael Jackson. Let's not go using his tastes in life as an irrefutable yardstick of sorts" http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=1091801)
[/QUOTE]
Random idiocy, huh?
HIV likely got into America as early as 1969, so it's unfair to place todays standards on people who were having unprotected sex or sharing needles from that time onward.. they simply didn't know any better.
The thing about Freddie is; once he knew there was a risk, he kept going anyway. That didn't just affect him. It affected anyone he exchanged bodily fluids with.
I'm sure you find his "Fuck it" attitude terribly romantic, but I reckon it's irresponsible and stupid. I don't understand how you people can idolise him in such a fashion.
I don't deny it makes him one hell of an interesting human being, but if you think I'm prejudiced against gays for thinking he should've taken a bit more care from 1984 onwards, then you're just deluded.
As for Michael Jackson.... he screwed over Paul McCartney and paid Vincent Price an absolute pittance for the dialogue which was the only saving grace of his terribly juvenile song, "Thriller".
Besides, you've quoted me up there as saying "Freddie liked arse sex". This might come as a surprise to you, but it's hardly one of my favourite passtimes. So I disagree with Freddie; big whoop. That isn't prejudiced. It just means I don't like having a chunky man-log in my backdoor.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And an idiot. There, I said it. And hey, listen, if I am on a high horse because I take offense at your jokes, Zebonka, then so be it.
[/QUOTE]
"There, I said it". Haha. The 6 year old's equivalent of 'QED', no doubt.
Just because you say something doesn't actually make it right, in case you've forgotten. You can attempt to reinforce the idea and keep repeating the word 'idiot' but it doesn't really change anything.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Is all this an over-reaction? Sure. I should just ignore you and all other idiots, and take your own advice. But I don't feel like ignoring you. So deal with it.[/QUOTE]
*ahem*
'Deal with it'? I don't think anyone should utter that phrase unless they're prepared to do so in kind.
Not to be an ass about this, but I 'dealt' with it after your first post. I said something to myself like "uh oh, another person is mad on the internet!".
I did not give you 'advice'. I just pointed something simple out, probably something you knew already. I don't mind you over-reacting; it's still a little amusing, though as I'm sure I've said already, it's wearing off.
Take care!
And a homophobe. And prejudiced against gays (Here's just a random idiocy from you in the past: "Freddie liked arse sex. And Michael Jackson. Let's not go using his tastes in life as an irrefutable yardstick of sorts" http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=1091801)
[/QUOTE]
Random idiocy, huh?
HIV likely got into America as early as 1969, so it's unfair to place todays standards on people who were having unprotected sex or sharing needles from that time onward.. they simply didn't know any better.
The thing about Freddie is; once he knew there was a risk, he kept going anyway. That didn't just affect him. It affected anyone he exchanged bodily fluids with.
I'm sure you find his "Fuck it" attitude terribly romantic, but I reckon it's irresponsible and stupid. I don't understand how you people can idolise him in such a fashion.
I don't deny it makes him one hell of an interesting human being, but if you think I'm prejudiced against gays for thinking he should've taken a bit more care from 1984 onwards, then you're just deluded.
As for Michael Jackson.... he screwed over Paul McCartney and paid Vincent Price an absolute pittance for the dialogue which was the only saving grace of his terribly juvenile song, "Thriller".
Besides, you've quoted me up there as saying "Freddie liked arse sex". This might come as a surprise to you, but it's hardly one of my favourite passtimes. So I disagree with Freddie; big whoop. That isn't prejudiced. It just means I don't like having a chunky man-log in my backdoor.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
And an idiot. There, I said it. And hey, listen, if I am on a high horse because I take offense at your jokes, Zebonka, then so be it.
[/QUOTE]
"There, I said it". Haha. The 6 year old's equivalent of 'QED', no doubt.
Just because you say something doesn't actually make it right, in case you've forgotten. You can attempt to reinforce the idea and keep repeating the word 'idiot' but it doesn't really change anything.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Daniel Nester wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Is all this an over-reaction? Sure. I should just ignore you and all other idiots, and take your own advice. But I don't feel like ignoring you. So deal with it.[/QUOTE]
*ahem*
'Deal with it'? I don't think anyone should utter that phrase unless they're prepared to do so in kind.
Not to be an ass about this, but I 'dealt' with it after your first post. I said something to myself like "uh oh, another person is mad on the internet!".
I did not give you 'advice'. I just pointed something simple out, probably something you knew already. I don't mind you over-reacting; it's still a little amusing, though as I'm sure I've said already, it's wearing off.
Take care!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Under Pressure wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I also think it's quite compelling the way that he was so close with his bandmates at the beginning of his career, then they gradually drifted apart but by the end they were back to the friendship they once'd had. That's something very special, and something that many people don't get to recover once it's lost.[/QUOTE]
Amen to that.
I also think it's quite compelling the way that he was so close with his bandmates at the beginning of his career, then they gradually drifted apart but by the end they were back to the friendship they once'd had. That's something very special, and something that many people don't get to recover once it's lost.[/QUOTE]
Amen to that.
Very interesting thread. As long time fans we are all interested in the lives of the band members but we should keep in mind that it's truly none of our business.
Freddie did not live with Mary Austin until 1980, he moved in with his first live-in boyfriend David Minns around 1976. Please read "Freddie Mercury - The Real Life" by David Evans (writer and long time friend of FM) and David Minns. Why Freddie never "came out" - we can only speculate. Some say it was because he did not want to hurt his parents, some think he did not want to hurt his business. In the 1980s Freddie was known as openly gay in Germany, everybody knew it. The general (probably wrong)idea was that he lived in Germany to avoid discrimination in England which was very conservative and anti-gay at the time. It was not so easy to "come out" at the time - Elton John even got married in 1988 to avoid the gay-hunting.
About his drug use: there is not a single interview after 1979 where we do not see/hear Freddie "sniffing" - he must have taken huge amounts of cocaine. Watch him at Live Aid and Wembley 86 - he was sweating like mad and it was not the lights, it was the coke. Certainly the drugs must have had an affect on his personality. However, it's true that Freddie managed to control his public image, he was never perceived as a junkie and he never was in court for drug use like numerous other musicians. Therefore I think it's correct to say that he was "in control" of his drug use. If I understood UP's post correctly, the movie script portrays Brian as a coke user, too, which would definitely be a legal issue.
About the friendship with the other band members: we really do not know this. They often said that they are just working colleagues and do not spend any time together but Roger was obviously a close friend of Freddie. Jim Hutton wrote in his book that John Deacon never visited Freddie at home in his last weeks and Roger blamed Brian for releasing his solo stuff so soon after Freddie's death in an interview from the 90s that recently was posted on Queenzone. The band always closed ranks and did not say too much about personal issues in public in order not to hurt their band image. Mainly Freddie was very good in joking the issues away ("four cocks fighting"). We can be sure that we have no idea about the true relationships or friendships within the band. We can say that they were very good in creating legends, though.
Freddie did not live with Mary Austin until 1980, he moved in with his first live-in boyfriend David Minns around 1976. Please read "Freddie Mercury - The Real Life" by David Evans (writer and long time friend of FM) and David Minns. Why Freddie never "came out" - we can only speculate. Some say it was because he did not want to hurt his parents, some think he did not want to hurt his business. In the 1980s Freddie was known as openly gay in Germany, everybody knew it. The general (probably wrong)idea was that he lived in Germany to avoid discrimination in England which was very conservative and anti-gay at the time. It was not so easy to "come out" at the time - Elton John even got married in 1988 to avoid the gay-hunting.
About his drug use: there is not a single interview after 1979 where we do not see/hear Freddie "sniffing" - he must have taken huge amounts of cocaine. Watch him at Live Aid and Wembley 86 - he was sweating like mad and it was not the lights, it was the coke. Certainly the drugs must have had an affect on his personality. However, it's true that Freddie managed to control his public image, he was never perceived as a junkie and he never was in court for drug use like numerous other musicians. Therefore I think it's correct to say that he was "in control" of his drug use. If I understood UP's post correctly, the movie script portrays Brian as a coke user, too, which would definitely be a legal issue.
About the friendship with the other band members: we really do not know this. They often said that they are just working colleagues and do not spend any time together but Roger was obviously a close friend of Freddie. Jim Hutton wrote in his book that John Deacon never visited Freddie at home in his last weeks and Roger blamed Brian for releasing his solo stuff so soon after Freddie's death in an interview from the 90s that recently was posted on Queenzone. The band always closed ranks and did not say too much about personal issues in public in order not to hurt their band image. Mainly Freddie was very good in joking the issues away ("four cocks fighting"). We can be sure that we have no idea about the true relationships or friendships within the band. We can say that they were very good in creating legends, though.
Well... they always were a fairly private band. Truth be told; you don't always have to get along with someone to love them, and I suspect that's how Queen worked.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Very interesting thread. As long time fans we are all interested in the lives of the band members but we should keep in mind that it's truly none of our business.
Freddie did not live with Mary Austin until 1980, he moved in with his first live-in boyfriend David Minns around 1976. Please read "Freddie Mercury - The Real Life" by David Evans (writer and long time friend of FM) and David Minns. Why Freddie never "came out" - we can only speculate. Some say it was because he did not want to hurt his parents, some think he did not want to hurt his business. In the 1980s Freddie was known as openly gay in Germany, everybody knew it. The general (probably wrong)idea was that he lived in Germany to avoid discrimination in England which was very conservative and anti-gay at the time. It was not so easy to "come out" at the time - Elton John even got married in 1988 to avoid the gay-hunting.
About his drug use: there is not a single interview after 1979 where we do not see/hear Freddie "sniffing" - he must have taken huge amounts of cocaine. Watch him at Live Aid and Wembley 86 - he was sweating like mad and it was not the lights, it was the coke. Certainly the drugs must have had an affect on his personality. However, it's true that Freddie managed to control his public image, he was never perceived as a junkie and he never was in court for drug use like numerous other musicians. Therefore I think it's correct to say that he was "in control" of his drug use. If I understood UP's post correctly, the movie script portrays Brian as a coke user, too, which would definitely be a legal issue.
About the friendship with the other band members: we really do not know this. They often said that they are just working colleagues and do not spend any time together but Roger was obviously a close friend of Freddie. Jim Hutton wrote in his book that John Deacon never visited Freddie at home in his last weeks and Roger blamed Brian for releasing his solo stuff so soon after Freddie's death in an interview from the 90s that recently was posted on Queenzone. The band always closed ranks and did not say too much about personal issues in public in order not to hurt their band image. Mainly Freddie was very good in joking the issues away ("four cocks fighting"). We can be sure that we have no idea about the true relationships or friendships within the band. We can say that they were very good in creating legends, though.[/QUOTE]
i think that's probably very astute. Which makes me think any movie about his life should focus on how, as a young immigrant to the UK of Indian descent, he felt he had to hide his heritage in order to achieve and then sustain his success. Similarly, as you point out, he felt he had to hide his gay lifestyle from the British public in order to stay popular. Not very flattering for British viewers but probably accurate.
Freddie did not live with Mary Austin until 1980, he moved in with his first live-in boyfriend David Minns around 1976. Please read "Freddie Mercury - The Real Life" by David Evans (writer and long time friend of FM) and David Minns. Why Freddie never "came out" - we can only speculate. Some say it was because he did not want to hurt his parents, some think he did not want to hurt his business. In the 1980s Freddie was known as openly gay in Germany, everybody knew it. The general (probably wrong)idea was that he lived in Germany to avoid discrimination in England which was very conservative and anti-gay at the time. It was not so easy to "come out" at the time - Elton John even got married in 1988 to avoid the gay-hunting.
About his drug use: there is not a single interview after 1979 where we do not see/hear Freddie "sniffing" - he must have taken huge amounts of cocaine. Watch him at Live Aid and Wembley 86 - he was sweating like mad and it was not the lights, it was the coke. Certainly the drugs must have had an affect on his personality. However, it's true that Freddie managed to control his public image, he was never perceived as a junkie and he never was in court for drug use like numerous other musicians. Therefore I think it's correct to say that he was "in control" of his drug use. If I understood UP's post correctly, the movie script portrays Brian as a coke user, too, which would definitely be a legal issue.
About the friendship with the other band members: we really do not know this. They often said that they are just working colleagues and do not spend any time together but Roger was obviously a close friend of Freddie. Jim Hutton wrote in his book that John Deacon never visited Freddie at home in his last weeks and Roger blamed Brian for releasing his solo stuff so soon after Freddie's death in an interview from the 90s that recently was posted on Queenzone. The band always closed ranks and did not say too much about personal issues in public in order not to hurt their band image. Mainly Freddie was very good in joking the issues away ("four cocks fighting"). We can be sure that we have no idea about the true relationships or friendships within the band. We can say that they were very good in creating legends, though.[/QUOTE]
i think that's probably very astute. Which makes me think any movie about his life should focus on how, as a young immigrant to the UK of Indian descent, he felt he had to hide his heritage in order to achieve and then sustain his success. Similarly, as you point out, he felt he had to hide his gay lifestyle from the British public in order to stay popular. Not very flattering for British viewers but probably accurate.
Two of my posts were lost or taken down--they were up here last night.
One a response to the increasingly idiotic Zebonka, and another couple having to do with Freddie, sex, and coke.
One a response to the increasingly idiotic Zebonka, and another couple having to do with Freddie, sex, and coke.