Katherina Schuttler As Mary Austin in Freddie Mercury Biopic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP_BHazq6Ow
ITWEMBLEY86
Thread
Posts in chronological order
ITWEMBLEY86
ITWEMBLEY86
& dont forget
snow means NO to sacha Baron Cohen
snow means NO to sacha Baron Cohen
ITWEMBLEY86
FREDDIE MERCURY BIOPIC -THE MIRACLE
LINK youtube.com/watch?v=paycLGq35Qo
LINK youtube.com/watch?v=paycLGq35Qo
TenementFunster91
How do you think their relationship should be depicted considering artistic license has to be used to fill the gaps? I started reading Jim Hutton's book (the italian translation from www.queentorrent.com/?n=10178&t=[ebook]-jim-hutton---i-miei-anni-con-freddie-mercury-[tntvillage]) and he was recalling that at the Kensington Roof Gardens party after Wembley, Freddie took Mary by his side to avoid inquiries by the press and when three people claimed his, Mary's and Peter Freestone's seats at the Maine Road concert in Manchester, she argued that she was Freddie's girlfriend. I had the impression he was more open by that time.
Queen fan
She should be treated with the same high respect Freddie held her in.
Queen fan
[QUOTE] [b]TenementFunster91 wrote:[/b]
How do you think their relationship should be depicted considering artistic license has to be used to fill the gaps? I started reading Jim Hutton's book (the italian translation from www.queentorrent.com/?n=10178&t=[ebook]-jim-hutton---i-miei-anni-con-freddie-mercury-[tntvillage]) and he was recalling that at the Kensington Roof Gardens party after Wembley, Freddie took Mary by his side to avoid inquiries by the press and when three people claimed his, Mary's and Peter Freestone's seats at the Maine Road concert in Manchester, she argued that she was Freddie's girlfriend. I had the impression he was more open by that time. [/QUOTE]
I like the picture of Mary,Jim and Freddie smiling together.
How do you think their relationship should be depicted considering artistic license has to be used to fill the gaps? I started reading Jim Hutton's book (the italian translation from www.queentorrent.com/?n=10178&t=[ebook]-jim-hutton---i-miei-anni-con-freddie-mercury-[tntvillage]) and he was recalling that at the Kensington Roof Gardens party after Wembley, Freddie took Mary by his side to avoid inquiries by the press and when three people claimed his, Mary's and Peter Freestone's seats at the Maine Road concert in Manchester, she argued that she was Freddie's girlfriend. I had the impression he was more open by that time. [/QUOTE]
I like the picture of Mary,Jim and Freddie smiling together.
Queen fan
[QUOTE] [b]ITWEMBLEY86 wrote:[/b]
[/QUOTE]
This picture is of Katherina Schuttler.
[/QUOTE]
This picture is of Katherina Schuttler.
Queen fan
[QUOTE] [b]TenementFunster91 wrote:[/b]
How do you think their relationship should be depicted considering artistic license has to be used to fill the gaps? I started reading Jim Hutton's book (the italian translation from www.queentorrent.com/?n=10178&t=[ebook]-jim-hutton---i-miei-anni-con-freddie-mercury-[tntvillage]) and he was recalling that at the Kensington Roof Gardens party after Wembley, Freddie took Mary by his side to avoid inquiries by the press and when three people claimed his, Mary's and Peter Freestone's seats at the Maine Road concert in Manchester, she argued that she was Freddie's girlfriend. I had the impression he was more open by that time. [/QUOTE]
The Freddie Mercury Biopic BELLE DEL LA D'ORME REVE
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bm_9TBCQ7U
And can you please translate it all into english.
No,This in the one
How do you think their relationship should be depicted considering artistic license has to be used to fill the gaps? I started reading Jim Hutton's book (the italian translation from www.queentorrent.com/?n=10178&t=[ebook]-jim-hutton---i-miei-anni-con-freddie-mercury-[tntvillage]) and he was recalling that at the Kensington Roof Gardens party after Wembley, Freddie took Mary by his side to avoid inquiries by the press and when three people claimed his, Mary's and Peter Freestone's seats at the Maine Road concert in Manchester, she argued that she was Freddie's girlfriend. I had the impression he was more open by that time. [/QUOTE]
The Freddie Mercury Biopic BELLE DEL LA D'ORME REVE
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Bm_9TBCQ7U
And can you please translate it all into english.
No,This in the one
TenementFunster91
What are you referring to?
Queen fan
[QUOTE] [b]TenementFunster91 wrote:[/b]
What are you referring to?[/QUOTE]
What are you referring to?[/QUOTE]
Queen fan
[QUOTE] [b]TenementFunster91 wrote:[/b]
What are you referring to?[/QUOTE]
What are you referring to?[/QUOTE]
Queen fan
[QUOTE] [b]TenementFunster91 wrote:[/b]
What are you referring to?[/QUOTE]
What are you referring to?[/QUOTE]
Queen fan
[QUOTE] [b]TenementFunster91 wrote:[/b]
What are you referring to?[/QUOTE]
A translation of the words in the video above into English.
Where can I start?
There is so much wrong I perceive accurately, with the attitude and angle those making this biopic are coming from.
Freddie Mercury was a character,he was not a real person, he was a character like bowie's characters.
And in the same way bowie extended his various creations beyond the stage shows, and into the interviews and real life public appearances, Faroohk did with Mercury.
The serious place bowie has in the history of English music goes beyond his music into all aspects of visual arts, most notably for the characters he created and their myth and visual look .
These character personalities and the atmosphere they evoked in people's imaginations was created, it was fiction and Freddie did just the same thing , but he took it a step further in that publicly he became Freddie Mercury totally in all public recognition and imagination.
But Freddie Mercury was a creation , a character, in just the same way ziggy stardust was.
The creator of the mythical messenger of rock, Faroohk Bulsara ,his creator, should get the just same amount of admiration and respect and acknowledgement for creating him , as Bowie gets for his creations.
This act was so well done,it truly escapes people's attention ,fully , even today, and I think it seems to have escaped the care of Brian and Roger , who want to carry on with the game of pretending the great pretender was in fact Freddie Mercury and not the genius artist and musician who created him.
This exploration of the real creator of Freddie Mercury is the most fascinating thing to explore, yet is the most risky thing to admit for Queen, who seem to be stuck in the idea that their is no separation between art and the artist, no difference between the fantasy and the reality, no real life in the meaning of the word biographical account.
Bowie rightly gets treated with great seriousness as a true artist full of creativity and one can only know the kind of serious gritty and atmospheric movie that will be made about his peak of artistic creativity in the upcoming biopic of his life story, yet Freddie is deemed worthy only of an inarticulate cartoon stereotype , based upon his 1980's artistically low image, which is in retrospect not his creative peak as a whole artist, but still a period where his vocal and stage skills shone.
This is not good enough , for if queen want the true acclaim as artists as a whole ,in English rock legacy and want serious right of place in rock's history in the heights they truly deserve, instead of being the meagre once giants with mentions and associations amongst the baser low culture popularity contests culture of the likes of the here the today gone tomorrow x factor pop idol associations they keep company with today, just for sake of present day relevance. If there their legacy is not to continue to be amongst, and I warn will be amongst continually if they dont address these things, they will be amongst the rest of the 70's glam rock brigade , who although much loved, now and again, are culturally pretty much seen as a fashionable irrelevance in a time warp of the lesser 70's groups to the British rock pantheon, and who's only credibility was jumping on a glitter bandwagon on the back of David bowie and making some popular music in the 80's.
I believe Queen is far more important than their present appraisal , yes more than is given.
It is imperative, Freddie deserves to be seen as the equal to bowie, but never will be studied with the same seriousness if his real story is never told .
If he is left to a cartoon character called Borat, who is very akin to the here today then gone, culturally speaking low cultured low art portrayal of this fashionable momentary name,who in the end can only hope to try to visually ape a fictional character called Freddie Mercury that was created by an artistic Genius both musically and visually, then Queen deserve as much.
This emphasis I am trying to shift them into, this careful thought in respect of their real significance ,takes into full account the actual existence of the creator of Freddie Mercury as a real man, as an artist who ends up being seen by history as not merely a victim of his own stardom.
A stardom which went beyond his great pretending into the prison of the publics perception of who he was as merely a very great performer enabling the same public who will now see and view him according to his true creative talents as one of the greatest artists of British rock.
And in full context, rather than in the limited light he is now portrayed, which is by his star persona , presented by his visual inventions and music, the creator still hidden , and the fact that he did create it all, still hidden.
If the artist is never seen as the creator he can never take credit for his creation fully.
That is fine for the art itself , as it speaks for itself and is appreciated for itself, yet for full acclaim and for biography to do its job, for history to give full credit to the artist, it has to be shown and made clear that the art was created from out of nothing by the brilliance of the man.
It is important to not just show the art itself which we have already seen.
(Equally important is to not show a bad fake recreation of the art, and so destroy the mask known as Freddie Mercury that was so perfectly fashioned by the artist behind it.
Which is another very important point I have made, which has to do with the very important need for acting ability and excellence.- if you do this wrong you do not give full due to the artist , as i am trying to explain , and then to top it all, you even go and destroy the masks the artist created ? !!)
Disastrous!!!
These things are not that complicated to understand and the public is not dumb, they will appreciate giving Freddie his full due as the artist he was , Having it made clear to them for once to that he created what they admire, and that he was not just a caricature of the stage persona character he invented so brilliantly ,
but had a real personality as a human being , the emphasis being on not fake but real , and he invented what the public perceived as his true self to be, but he in truth was in fact a man with an incredible artistic Creative talent, that designed the image of himself as part of his act and so was a genius who created the character that became the star he became known for, by them as a real actual Mythical Legend.
And before anyway says, ha ,you didn't know Freddie, he was a vivacious person full of humour and was Mercury , you totally miss the point yet again, for isn't bowie the same ,as a real man?
Yet he gets credit for his creations as separate from himself, yet does Freddie? No, he doesn't , and that is exactly my point, because as Bowie said of him, "He took it further than us all",
So much so , people can't see it!
A biographical portrayal has to separate the artist from the art if we are to see the real man, to reveal the artist behind the art, such a thing is obvious is it not?
His creative mind and his place in English rock art by view of his creating his own irrefutable character MUST NOT go unseen, unacknowledged or dismissed.
Like Bowie, he was an visual entertainer who invented himself, and this aspect of Faroohk's creative mind, Is an equally important achievement and facet , of his contributions to british rock stage art .
His influence and contribution in this arena of the "execution of the invention of self "
- "you can be anything you want to be-" is truly amazing , as it is this aspect that is invisible , so much so , that it is not even noticed!
It is just as important as his amazing musical and vocal skill, because it is like what bowie did when by creating his own self
What are you referring to?[/QUOTE]
A translation of the words in the video above into English.
Where can I start?
There is so much wrong I perceive accurately, with the attitude and angle those making this biopic are coming from.
Freddie Mercury was a character,he was not a real person, he was a character like bowie's characters.
And in the same way bowie extended his various creations beyond the stage shows, and into the interviews and real life public appearances, Faroohk did with Mercury.
The serious place bowie has in the history of English music goes beyond his music into all aspects of visual arts, most notably for the characters he created and their myth and visual look .
These character personalities and the atmosphere they evoked in people's imaginations was created, it was fiction and Freddie did just the same thing , but he took it a step further in that publicly he became Freddie Mercury totally in all public recognition and imagination.
But Freddie Mercury was a creation , a character, in just the same way ziggy stardust was.
The creator of the mythical messenger of rock, Faroohk Bulsara ,his creator, should get the just same amount of admiration and respect and acknowledgement for creating him , as Bowie gets for his creations.
This act was so well done,it truly escapes people's attention ,fully , even today, and I think it seems to have escaped the care of Brian and Roger , who want to carry on with the game of pretending the great pretender was in fact Freddie Mercury and not the genius artist and musician who created him.
This exploration of the real creator of Freddie Mercury is the most fascinating thing to explore, yet is the most risky thing to admit for Queen, who seem to be stuck in the idea that their is no separation between art and the artist, no difference between the fantasy and the reality, no real life in the meaning of the word biographical account.
Bowie rightly gets treated with great seriousness as a true artist full of creativity and one can only know the kind of serious gritty and atmospheric movie that will be made about his peak of artistic creativity in the upcoming biopic of his life story, yet Freddie is deemed worthy only of an inarticulate cartoon stereotype , based upon his 1980's artistically low image, which is in retrospect not his creative peak as a whole artist, but still a period where his vocal and stage skills shone.
This is not good enough , for if queen want the true acclaim as artists as a whole ,in English rock legacy and want serious right of place in rock's history in the heights they truly deserve, instead of being the meagre once giants with mentions and associations amongst the baser low culture popularity contests culture of the likes of the here the today gone tomorrow x factor pop idol associations they keep company with today, just for sake of present day relevance. If there their legacy is not to continue to be amongst, and I warn will be amongst continually if they dont address these things, they will be amongst the rest of the 70's glam rock brigade , who although much loved, now and again, are culturally pretty much seen as a fashionable irrelevance in a time warp of the lesser 70's groups to the British rock pantheon, and who's only credibility was jumping on a glitter bandwagon on the back of David bowie and making some popular music in the 80's.
I believe Queen is far more important than their present appraisal , yes more than is given.
It is imperative, Freddie deserves to be seen as the equal to bowie, but never will be studied with the same seriousness if his real story is never told .
If he is left to a cartoon character called Borat, who is very akin to the here today then gone, culturally speaking low cultured low art portrayal of this fashionable momentary name,who in the end can only hope to try to visually ape a fictional character called Freddie Mercury that was created by an artistic Genius both musically and visually, then Queen deserve as much.
This emphasis I am trying to shift them into, this careful thought in respect of their real significance ,takes into full account the actual existence of the creator of Freddie Mercury as a real man, as an artist who ends up being seen by history as not merely a victim of his own stardom.
A stardom which went beyond his great pretending into the prison of the publics perception of who he was as merely a very great performer enabling the same public who will now see and view him according to his true creative talents as one of the greatest artists of British rock.
And in full context, rather than in the limited light he is now portrayed, which is by his star persona , presented by his visual inventions and music, the creator still hidden , and the fact that he did create it all, still hidden.
If the artist is never seen as the creator he can never take credit for his creation fully.
That is fine for the art itself , as it speaks for itself and is appreciated for itself, yet for full acclaim and for biography to do its job, for history to give full credit to the artist, it has to be shown and made clear that the art was created from out of nothing by the brilliance of the man.
It is important to not just show the art itself which we have already seen.
(Equally important is to not show a bad fake recreation of the art, and so destroy the mask known as Freddie Mercury that was so perfectly fashioned by the artist behind it.
Which is another very important point I have made, which has to do with the very important need for acting ability and excellence.- if you do this wrong you do not give full due to the artist , as i am trying to explain , and then to top it all, you even go and destroy the masks the artist created ? !!)
Disastrous!!!
These things are not that complicated to understand and the public is not dumb, they will appreciate giving Freddie his full due as the artist he was , Having it made clear to them for once to that he created what they admire, and that he was not just a caricature of the stage persona character he invented so brilliantly ,
but had a real personality as a human being , the emphasis being on not fake but real , and he invented what the public perceived as his true self to be, but he in truth was in fact a man with an incredible artistic Creative talent, that designed the image of himself as part of his act and so was a genius who created the character that became the star he became known for, by them as a real actual Mythical Legend.
And before anyway says, ha ,you didn't know Freddie, he was a vivacious person full of humour and was Mercury , you totally miss the point yet again, for isn't bowie the same ,as a real man?
Yet he gets credit for his creations as separate from himself, yet does Freddie? No, he doesn't , and that is exactly my point, because as Bowie said of him, "He took it further than us all",
So much so , people can't see it!
A biographical portrayal has to separate the artist from the art if we are to see the real man, to reveal the artist behind the art, such a thing is obvious is it not?
His creative mind and his place in English rock art by view of his creating his own irrefutable character MUST NOT go unseen, unacknowledged or dismissed.
Like Bowie, he was an visual entertainer who invented himself, and this aspect of Faroohk's creative mind, Is an equally important achievement and facet , of his contributions to british rock stage art .
His influence and contribution in this arena of the "execution of the invention of self "
- "you can be anything you want to be-" is truly amazing , as it is this aspect that is invisible , so much so , that it is not even noticed!
It is just as important as his amazing musical and vocal skill, because it is like what bowie did when by creating his own self
Queen fan
And for those who still refuse the truth of this;
Freddie himself ,again and again,made it very clear that he was not the same person in the real life.
I will cover all bases so they cannot trick us, I am not talking about. Gutter press portrait of the private mans life as a way to show some expansive portrayal beyond Borat trying to be him onstage which he will never hope to be in any case for that would take actual acting talent.
i am talking about some depth to the material showing his full creative talents which included his invention of Mr Mercury himself, and some contrast between his creation and the real man I expect to see portrayed as the real man.
and for those who are still confused, Freddie himself made It clear he was not the same person in the real life.
The outrageous aggressive character on stage that is ,
he was not that,
he was polite quiet and unassuming very sensitive and shy at his core.
so now you know that how on earth can you expect anything less?
we cannot is the answer and We won't.
you see I always knew that you would need an actor to act anything, that is why I picked them.
MY one regret being Brian May, who. Will have to be portrayed by a comedian, but for the sake of realism choosing a comedian to play a member of Queen where BRian May is concerned due to his very particular look ,height etc, is not too much of compromise, the situation as itis, in fact it is far more reasonable than the unreality of a six foot comedian who cannot act playing Freddie a decision that will soon be rectified.
Freddie himself ,again and again,made it very clear that he was not the same person in the real life.
I will cover all bases so they cannot trick us, I am not talking about. Gutter press portrait of the private mans life as a way to show some expansive portrayal beyond Borat trying to be him onstage which he will never hope to be in any case for that would take actual acting talent.
i am talking about some depth to the material showing his full creative talents which included his invention of Mr Mercury himself, and some contrast between his creation and the real man I expect to see portrayed as the real man.
and for those who are still confused, Freddie himself made It clear he was not the same person in the real life.
The outrageous aggressive character on stage that is ,
he was not that,
he was polite quiet and unassuming very sensitive and shy at his core.
so now you know that how on earth can you expect anything less?
we cannot is the answer and We won't.
you see I always knew that you would need an actor to act anything, that is why I picked them.
MY one regret being Brian May, who. Will have to be portrayed by a comedian, but for the sake of realism choosing a comedian to play a member of Queen where BRian May is concerned due to his very particular look ,height etc, is not too much of compromise, the situation as itis, in fact it is far more reasonable than the unreality of a six foot comedian who cannot act playing Freddie a decision that will soon be rectified.