jozef
Good job, Saint Jiub, that film is a fairy tale for prepubescent audience or for idiots ....
Thread
Posts in chronological order
spiralstatic
You've read an awful lot of reviews of a film you don't wish to see! It's interesting, because I think after reading so many reviews, it would be hard to take the film for what it is even if you ever did decide to watch it on the TV some day now. But if you ever do, I'd be curious to know if these sort of comments play in your head as you watch!? And if you could get anything positive from any of the film.
As I say, I agree with many of the criticisms levelled at the film, particularly in terms of weakness of script/dialogue, depth of characterisation & obviously factual inaccuracies in terms of Queen's history and musical catalogue. The part where Freddie announces his diagnosis to the rest of the band is such terrible writing it made my skin crawl with the cringiness of the dialogue.
I don't understand what critics want when they level criticisms of either homophobia and/or not including enough wild partying though. Such comments sometimes contradict each other, but I also disagree with what some reviewers suggest in this area.
I'll say it again: Although Paul Prenter is portrayed as a “predatory gay villain”, he is NOT portrayed as making/corrupting Freddie into becoming gay. To me, to read reviews seems to suggest you shouldn't have any gay characters unless they are portrayed as nice people.
Freddie is not portrayed as "choosing" to be gay and this therefore causing all of his and all of the band's problems. Surely having his love for Mary so evident in the film completely contradicts that idea. If it was a choice on Freddie's part, Mary was there to marry and have kids with and pretend to be straight with had he wanted to. To not include her in the film would surely imply something closer to this criticism? It also is not like the film is inventing any of the stuff with Mary. Freddie did actually propose to her once, he lived with her for several years and she remained important to him his whole life and inherited his home and 50% of his royalties. Where is the invention in all of this?!
I don't understand quite what representation of Queer culture critics of this area would like the film to have. Some reviews think the 12-rated film is not extreme enough to depict Queen/Freddie's lifestyle. Other reviews say "The movie reduces queer identity to a series of promiscuous sexual encounters, which it consistently frames as sordid, shameful, illicit, and corrupting." but the truth was that Freddie's ilife WAS pretty wild for a time in the 80's and unfortunately, when his life did eventually become romantically more stable, really it was in the time period after the film (the film does say this - it ends by saying Freddie was happy with Jim for the rest of his days. Maybe an oversimplification, but not homophobic, I think.) Freddie wasn't exactly having loving relationships and deep intellectual and spiritual connections with men who loved him deeply and caringly from all I can ascertain in the period of I dunno '78-84....? I mean, maybe I'm wrong. I don't know entirely. Though I'm pretty sure he had quite a lot of fun. Now I think it would be very interesting for a film to analyse Freddie's psychology, drives and desires, especially in the time period '75-'85, say - although I imagine you'd have to use a great deal of conjecture as Freddie was a complex and in many ways contradictory man, like we all have many contradictions in us. He was also very private & I doubt engaged in self analysis or spoke of anything in this area to many/any people. I imagine most conclusions would upset some critics though. And it would be difficult to be truthful. I think there are some aspects of Freddie that will remain always somewhat a mystery.
I don't think for a moment the film reduced Freddie's sexual identity to something sordid though. It shows connection with other men from the very start of the film, it clearly shows Freddie attracted to men pre-Paul Prenter. It clearly shows Freddie has zero desire for a sexual relationship with Mary once they have broken up. Jim isn't in the film much (partly as the film ends in 1985!) but he is portrayed as someone who cares about and loves Freddie. And I’d say despite less screen time, he has as much if not more characterisation to him as for example any of the other members of Queen! While in terms of Queen's music and the band's relationships to each other there are many factual errors, I don't personally feel like the film lies as much in the area of Freddie's sexuality in this way. In fact the most untrue area to me is when they have Freddie take Jim to his parents and have his parents accept essentially his coming out, happy as pie. To fictionalise that kind of scenario is to 2018-up a story to make it acceptable to current 2018 correctness, when in fact as I see it you can't discuss Freddie's sexual identity without acknowledging that 1946-1995 was a very different time to now.
I also find comments such as "It strips Mercury of a part of his identity that was as vital to his success as his four-octave vocal range." quite insulting. I hope nobody is defined in terms fo their creativity or skill by their sexual identity and I'm sure Mercury himself would have been not too amused if people had suggested to him his creativity was due in "vital" amounts to his sexuality. But at the same time, the film is very clear that Freddie is gay.
It's a similar thing to how I can't understand how some people have to desire either Mary or Jim. Freddie loved them both! Not in the same way. To acknowledge that Freddie loved Mary does not diminish the truth of his love for Jim or negate the truth of his homosexuality.
People suggest those who would enjoy or be happy with Bohemian Rhapsody must be simple minded, but I feel certainly in this area, to be unable to accept something more nuanced and complicated than simply "Freddie was gay & that's FANTASTIC and WONDROUS in every way." suggests some limit in the imaginative capacity and ability to place oneself in the time period this all took place on the part of the critic...
Oh and the film does tell rather than show. For me, something more poetic would quite clearly make a better film. But for all of Bohemian Rhapsody's flaws, I enjoyed it - found it respectful, enjoyable and to contain something true about Freddie's nature. (Of course not everything true - very basically, Freddie had far more wit for starters!!). But it's fair enough to criticise the film - there are plenty of flaws it genuinely DOES have. I don't understand why some (most?) critics seem so keen on inventing/taking offence at other flaws it (as I experienced it) doesn't have and putting them out there like they're truths....???
I don't get it.
As I say, I agree with many of the criticisms levelled at the film, particularly in terms of weakness of script/dialogue, depth of characterisation & obviously factual inaccuracies in terms of Queen's history and musical catalogue. The part where Freddie announces his diagnosis to the rest of the band is such terrible writing it made my skin crawl with the cringiness of the dialogue.
I don't understand what critics want when they level criticisms of either homophobia and/or not including enough wild partying though. Such comments sometimes contradict each other, but I also disagree with what some reviewers suggest in this area.
I'll say it again: Although Paul Prenter is portrayed as a “predatory gay villain”, he is NOT portrayed as making/corrupting Freddie into becoming gay. To me, to read reviews seems to suggest you shouldn't have any gay characters unless they are portrayed as nice people.
Freddie is not portrayed as "choosing" to be gay and this therefore causing all of his and all of the band's problems. Surely having his love for Mary so evident in the film completely contradicts that idea. If it was a choice on Freddie's part, Mary was there to marry and have kids with and pretend to be straight with had he wanted to. To not include her in the film would surely imply something closer to this criticism? It also is not like the film is inventing any of the stuff with Mary. Freddie did actually propose to her once, he lived with her for several years and she remained important to him his whole life and inherited his home and 50% of his royalties. Where is the invention in all of this?!
I don't understand quite what representation of Queer culture critics of this area would like the film to have. Some reviews think the 12-rated film is not extreme enough to depict Queen/Freddie's lifestyle. Other reviews say "The movie reduces queer identity to a series of promiscuous sexual encounters, which it consistently frames as sordid, shameful, illicit, and corrupting." but the truth was that Freddie's ilife WAS pretty wild for a time in the 80's and unfortunately, when his life did eventually become romantically more stable, really it was in the time period after the film (the film does say this - it ends by saying Freddie was happy with Jim for the rest of his days. Maybe an oversimplification, but not homophobic, I think.) Freddie wasn't exactly having loving relationships and deep intellectual and spiritual connections with men who loved him deeply and caringly from all I can ascertain in the period of I dunno '78-84....? I mean, maybe I'm wrong. I don't know entirely. Though I'm pretty sure he had quite a lot of fun. Now I think it would be very interesting for a film to analyse Freddie's psychology, drives and desires, especially in the time period '75-'85, say - although I imagine you'd have to use a great deal of conjecture as Freddie was a complex and in many ways contradictory man, like we all have many contradictions in us. He was also very private & I doubt engaged in self analysis or spoke of anything in this area to many/any people. I imagine most conclusions would upset some critics though. And it would be difficult to be truthful. I think there are some aspects of Freddie that will remain always somewhat a mystery.
I don't think for a moment the film reduced Freddie's sexual identity to something sordid though. It shows connection with other men from the very start of the film, it clearly shows Freddie attracted to men pre-Paul Prenter. It clearly shows Freddie has zero desire for a sexual relationship with Mary once they have broken up. Jim isn't in the film much (partly as the film ends in 1985!) but he is portrayed as someone who cares about and loves Freddie. And I’d say despite less screen time, he has as much if not more characterisation to him as for example any of the other members of Queen! While in terms of Queen's music and the band's relationships to each other there are many factual errors, I don't personally feel like the film lies as much in the area of Freddie's sexuality in this way. In fact the most untrue area to me is when they have Freddie take Jim to his parents and have his parents accept essentially his coming out, happy as pie. To fictionalise that kind of scenario is to 2018-up a story to make it acceptable to current 2018 correctness, when in fact as I see it you can't discuss Freddie's sexual identity without acknowledging that 1946-1995 was a very different time to now.
I also find comments such as "It strips Mercury of a part of his identity that was as vital to his success as his four-octave vocal range." quite insulting. I hope nobody is defined in terms fo their creativity or skill by their sexual identity and I'm sure Mercury himself would have been not too amused if people had suggested to him his creativity was due in "vital" amounts to his sexuality. But at the same time, the film is very clear that Freddie is gay.
It's a similar thing to how I can't understand how some people have to desire either Mary or Jim. Freddie loved them both! Not in the same way. To acknowledge that Freddie loved Mary does not diminish the truth of his love for Jim or negate the truth of his homosexuality.
People suggest those who would enjoy or be happy with Bohemian Rhapsody must be simple minded, but I feel certainly in this area, to be unable to accept something more nuanced and complicated than simply "Freddie was gay & that's FANTASTIC and WONDROUS in every way." suggests some limit in the imaginative capacity and ability to place oneself in the time period this all took place on the part of the critic...
Oh and the film does tell rather than show. For me, something more poetic would quite clearly make a better film. But for all of Bohemian Rhapsody's flaws, I enjoyed it - found it respectful, enjoyable and to contain something true about Freddie's nature. (Of course not everything true - very basically, Freddie had far more wit for starters!!). But it's fair enough to criticise the film - there are plenty of flaws it genuinely DOES have. I don't understand why some (most?) critics seem so keen on inventing/taking offence at other flaws it (as I experienced it) doesn't have and putting them out there like they're truths....???
I don't get it.
bucsateflon
All those critics you cited never knew to name three Queen albums, so their opinions are nullified.
They can only be objective regarding acting stuff and screenplay structure and production but not on the story itself.
They can only be objective regarding acting stuff and screenplay structure and production but not on the story itself.
Saint Jiub
[QUOTE] [b]spiralstatic wrote:[/b]
You've read an awful lot of reviews of a film you don't wish to see! It's interesting, because I think after reading so many reviews, it would be hard to take the film for what it is even if you ever did decide to watch it on the TV some day now. But if you ever do, I'd be curious to know if these sort of comments play in your head as you watch!? And if you could get anything positive from any of the film.
VERY TRUE. I WOULD LIKELY BE VERY IRRITATED WITH BRIAN'S APPARENT REVISIONIST HISTORY, AND BE UNABLE TO ENJOY THIS FILM CASUALLY.
....
I don't think for a moment the film reduced Freddie's sexual identity to something sordid though. It shows connection with other men from the very start of the film, it clearly shows Freddie attracted to men pre-Paul Prenter. It clearly shows Freddie has zero desire for a sexual relationship with Mary once they have broken up.
I THINK THAT YOU OVERLOOKED OR IGNORED A FEW STATEMENTS FROM THE WEB ARTICLES THAT I QUOTED.
THE CONSTANT DISAPPROVING HEAD SHAKING BY THE OTHER 3 BAND MEMBERS APPEARS TO IMPLY THAT FREDDIE'S BEHAVIOR IS VERY SORDID.
FURTHERMORE, THE FALSE PORTRAYAL OF FREDDIE LIVING ALONE IN THE GARDEN LODGE SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT FREDDIE IS SOLELY LIVING A LONELY SORDID LIFE VOID OF FRIENDS OR FAMILY.
FINALLY, THE MOVIE APPEARS TO MISTAKENLY SHOW THAT FREDDIE IS VERY JEALOUS OF MARY'S "COMPETING" ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS.
...
THE BELOW ARE THE QUOTES THAT SUSPECT THAT YOU ARE OVERLOOKING:
Look, there’s Freddie, doing drugs and hanging out with all his gay friends, while the rest of the band – those squeaky clean choir boys – tell Freddie how they can’t stay and party because they all have to get home to their wives and kids. You see, Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon are wholesome people who would never partake in the rockstar lifestyle like Freddie Mercury does. The whole movie is basically those three shaking their heads at Freddie’s behavior.
...
After they break up — because Mercury is gay — Mercury pines for Austin. He longs for her to keep wearing her wedding ring. He’s jealous of her boyfriend. At one point, he begs her to come live with him again, only to be informed that she’s pregnant. This moment is portrayed as a catastrophe that will keep them apart forever — as if it’s unfortunate timing that’s at issue, rather than Mercury’s queer identity.
...
More troubling is the way the movie addresses Mercury’s affairs off-stage. The singer’s sex life is portrayed less as a personal choice than an illicit descent into a sinister underworld. He is lured there by a back-stabbing lover, band manager Paul Prenter, a convenient villain for all of the problems endured by Mercury and, by extension, his band. It reduces his story to a moral accounting – the “deviant” punished for his sins but allowed one last chance at redemption.
[/QUOTE]
My comments regarding some of your statements are shown above in "ALL CAPS" after each paragraph.
You've read an awful lot of reviews of a film you don't wish to see! It's interesting, because I think after reading so many reviews, it would be hard to take the film for what it is even if you ever did decide to watch it on the TV some day now. But if you ever do, I'd be curious to know if these sort of comments play in your head as you watch!? And if you could get anything positive from any of the film.
VERY TRUE. I WOULD LIKELY BE VERY IRRITATED WITH BRIAN'S APPARENT REVISIONIST HISTORY, AND BE UNABLE TO ENJOY THIS FILM CASUALLY.
....
I don't think for a moment the film reduced Freddie's sexual identity to something sordid though. It shows connection with other men from the very start of the film, it clearly shows Freddie attracted to men pre-Paul Prenter. It clearly shows Freddie has zero desire for a sexual relationship with Mary once they have broken up.
I THINK THAT YOU OVERLOOKED OR IGNORED A FEW STATEMENTS FROM THE WEB ARTICLES THAT I QUOTED.
THE CONSTANT DISAPPROVING HEAD SHAKING BY THE OTHER 3 BAND MEMBERS APPEARS TO IMPLY THAT FREDDIE'S BEHAVIOR IS VERY SORDID.
FURTHERMORE, THE FALSE PORTRAYAL OF FREDDIE LIVING ALONE IN THE GARDEN LODGE SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT FREDDIE IS SOLELY LIVING A LONELY SORDID LIFE VOID OF FRIENDS OR FAMILY.
FINALLY, THE MOVIE APPEARS TO MISTAKENLY SHOW THAT FREDDIE IS VERY JEALOUS OF MARY'S "COMPETING" ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS.
...
THE BELOW ARE THE QUOTES THAT SUSPECT THAT YOU ARE OVERLOOKING:
Look, there’s Freddie, doing drugs and hanging out with all his gay friends, while the rest of the band – those squeaky clean choir boys – tell Freddie how they can’t stay and party because they all have to get home to their wives and kids. You see, Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon are wholesome people who would never partake in the rockstar lifestyle like Freddie Mercury does. The whole movie is basically those three shaking their heads at Freddie’s behavior.
...
After they break up — because Mercury is gay — Mercury pines for Austin. He longs for her to keep wearing her wedding ring. He’s jealous of her boyfriend. At one point, he begs her to come live with him again, only to be informed that she’s pregnant. This moment is portrayed as a catastrophe that will keep them apart forever — as if it’s unfortunate timing that’s at issue, rather than Mercury’s queer identity.
...
More troubling is the way the movie addresses Mercury’s affairs off-stage. The singer’s sex life is portrayed less as a personal choice than an illicit descent into a sinister underworld. He is lured there by a back-stabbing lover, band manager Paul Prenter, a convenient villain for all of the problems endured by Mercury and, by extension, his band. It reduces his story to a moral accounting – the “deviant” punished for his sins but allowed one last chance at redemption.
[/QUOTE]
My comments regarding some of your statements are shown above in "ALL CAPS" after each paragraph.
runner_70
[QUOTE] [b]Saint Jiub wrote:[/b]
I generally agree with the above soapbox statements in my local newspaper
Although I have refused to see this mediocre movie, I still have negative opinions based on what I have seen and heard:
* The portrayal of Freddie breaking up the band for several years because of his solo album.
* The portrayal of the other three band members as saints who went home to their families.
* The stereotypical depiction of the gay lifestyle as epitomized by Paul Prenter.
* The insinuation that Freddie would have been better off denying his sexual identity and marrying Saint Mary.
* The portrayal of John Deacon as a loser.[/QUOTE]
Amen - for that alone Maylor should rot in hell. A clear insult to Freddie and JOhn
I generally agree with the above soapbox statements in my local newspaper
Although I have refused to see this mediocre movie, I still have negative opinions based on what I have seen and heard:
* The portrayal of Freddie breaking up the band for several years because of his solo album.
* The portrayal of the other three band members as saints who went home to their families.
* The stereotypical depiction of the gay lifestyle as epitomized by Paul Prenter.
* The insinuation that Freddie would have been better off denying his sexual identity and marrying Saint Mary.
* The portrayal of John Deacon as a loser.[/QUOTE]
Amen - for that alone Maylor should rot in hell. A clear insult to Freddie and JOhn