"It's interesting how we are reading from the grave how Freddie would react to the documentaries made about him."
I agree - we don't know. But we do know what happened to Paul Prenter after he gave a tabloid interview . His name was erased from the band history. Now we can guess how Freddie would have liked his private bathroom video on a TV programme.
There are other ways not to ignore the artist than to pry into his privacy in such a shameless manner.
You are perfectly right about the "re-interpretation" of song lyrics using biographical details. We have had many discussions about that in the past.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I am still not sure how showing a private moment in a bubble bath -- where Freddie is happy and in love and is singing "I Wanne Be Loved By You" to Jim Hutton -- is a bad thing.
Questions:
-- Is it because *any* private moment shouldn't be aired because of Freddie's intimation when he was alive that his private life is private?
-- Is it an issue of copyright--whoever took this movie doesn't own it, since it was taken in Freddie's house, his estate owns it?
-- YourValentine, is airing a copy of this bubble bath footage the same as selling a story of AIDS (as Prenter did back in 1988 or so) the same? Do you know something we don't know -- that is, did whoever owns this footage -- Jim Hutton, Paul Straker, Phoebe -- make money off of this? More often than not, TV stations do not pay for this kind footage.
-- Finally: Is it because this footage and the airing of it reinforces the fact that Freddie was gay and loved being gay, loved taking bubble baths and singing show tunes, and blowing bubbles at his male lovers?
I genuinely want to know where this Freddie's Privacy is Sacrosanct mindset comes from.
Questions:
-- Is it because *any* private moment shouldn't be aired because of Freddie's intimation when he was alive that his private life is private?
-- Is it an issue of copyright--whoever took this movie doesn't own it, since it was taken in Freddie's house, his estate owns it?
-- YourValentine, is airing a copy of this bubble bath footage the same as selling a story of AIDS (as Prenter did back in 1988 or so) the same? Do you know something we don't know -- that is, did whoever owns this footage -- Jim Hutton, Paul Straker, Phoebe -- make money off of this? More often than not, TV stations do not pay for this kind footage.
-- Finally: Is it because this footage and the airing of it reinforces the fact that Freddie was gay and loved being gay, loved taking bubble baths and singing show tunes, and blowing bubbles at his male lovers?
I genuinely want to know where this Freddie's Privacy is Sacrosanct mindset comes from.
Daniel - it's just my opinion. I just think a private home video showing someone in his bathroom should not be aired on TV. I think it's intrusion of privacy. I think it does not matter if the person is gay or straight - or dead.
Just ask yourself: if a friend of you would film in your bathroom - would you want him to give it to a TV station? It does not matter if he gets money for it. It does not matter if it's funny or not. It does not matter if you are gay or straight. He publishes material of you in your most private surrounding for everyone to watch. If you are gay it's not the job of your friend to illustrate this fact by showing private home video on TV. If you are straight it's not the job of your friends to publish any private video to prove your straight-ness, either.
I don't know if selling the AIDS story to a tabloid and showing the victim in his bathroom is the "same". I only brought it up as an example that Freddie was apparently not too fond of friends who "dished". The difference is that Freddie was still alive in the first case and now he isn't. For me, it does not make a difference. His private life is still not subject to public interest and his privacy should still be respected, mainly by his friends - in my opinion.
Funny how we only discuss the few seconds of this film.
Just ask yourself: if a friend of you would film in your bathroom - would you want him to give it to a TV station? It does not matter if he gets money for it. It does not matter if it's funny or not. It does not matter if you are gay or straight. He publishes material of you in your most private surrounding for everyone to watch. If you are gay it's not the job of your friend to illustrate this fact by showing private home video on TV. If you are straight it's not the job of your friends to publish any private video to prove your straight-ness, either.
I don't know if selling the AIDS story to a tabloid and showing the victim in his bathroom is the "same". I only brought it up as an example that Freddie was apparently not too fond of friends who "dished". The difference is that Freddie was still alive in the first case and now he isn't. For me, it does not make a difference. His private life is still not subject to public interest and his privacy should still be respected, mainly by his friends - in my opinion.
Funny how we only discuss the few seconds of this film.
"and if he were alive I doubt that Peter Freestone would say "he had a huge cock" on TV."
I respect your dedication to privacy, but - it's not rocket science.... he DID have a huge cock. What are we to do, blur out all the live performances where it's obvious? :P
I respect your dedication to privacy, but - it's not rocket science.... he DID have a huge cock. What are we to do, blur out all the live performances where it's obvious? :P
It is a certain kind of rock science, in a way. (Bad dum-bu,.)