Bohemian Rhapsody” should be a film shown in classes for future filmmakers - about how difficult it is to make a good biographical film - even if you have all the necessary elements in your hand. There is no doubt that the director Bryan Singer had everything that the creator of the biographical cinema can dream about. A recognizable hero, with an interesting private life, a charismatic personality, a fame equal to the British Queen and a tragic death, which is always a good point of the biographical tale. The problem is that you have to choose something from this horn of plenty. Singer decided he would not choose anything. So he ruined everything.

If I were to mention the biggest mistake made by the filmmakers, it would not be a loose approach to facts, or some terrible fear of showing what the rock stars life really looked like in the seventies or eighties. What bothers the film the most is the fact that the creators are playing the same theme all the time. Well, there is a scene that has its own drama, for example, the band presents its producer Bohemian Rhapsody for the first time. The internal drama of the scene should be based on a dispute between artists who want to release a six-minute single and a producer who does not consider it a hit. The problem is that the director create a movie more in tension between what is happening (a quarrel about the single) and our knowledge (the single will turn out to be one of the biggest hits of entertainment music in history). When it's like this in one scene, you can bear it. But this is the theme that scrolls throughout the movie. The character appears and the whole meaning of it in the film is due to the fact that we know something that the heroes do not know. A scene appears and its dramaturgy is entirely due to the fact that we already know what a hit is just born. What makes basically the whole dramatic burden lies outside the film itself is based only on a certain tension between our knowledge and what will happen next. It's extremely annoying because it's a bit like telling a joke with the same punch line.

You could still forgive it if the movie had a good rhythm and tempo. Meanwhile, the history of Mercury gives the impression of quite loosely connected scenes, each of which theoretically should tell us something about the creator or his role in the band. Unfortunately, they have the naturalness of the television theater. In almost every scene I felt some strange tension and artificiality, as if the heroes of the film knew that this is an important moment in their lives. There are a lot of scenes that may sound good on paper, but in the movie they are simply embarrassingly rigid and so ... square. Seriously, watching a movie I had the impression more than once that I was on a show of a high-budget television film, in which each scene will be emotional or will be a fragment of a parable about the sad lonely life of rock musicians. Even the breakdown scene has to take place in the rain, and the hero's sign of a bad health will be coughing blood into a tissue which I read as a tribute to all operatic heroin going down to their lungs disease before the last aria.

It is no secret that after careful review of the script by all interested group, we received a polite version. I can bear the fact that we were shown a rockman's life in three kisses, five glasses and one close-up on cocaine on the table. Let it be - while we are going to produce a la Hallmark - I am able to survive. Because, in total, I do not come to Mercury's biography for sex or drug scenes. However, I am not able to experience that the creators have never been tempted to show the inferior side of the character of their hero. If someone watches a movie, they may conclude that the biggest problem with the character of the artist was notorious lateness and unreliable trust in anyone from Belfast. Again, not that I want the creators to go after anyone, but showing the good and bad sides of the characters makes them human. We can see people in them. Meanwhile, the film Mercury look like he is cut out of paper, or actually made of recycled material from which it is made in the popular films "The Great Artist".

Exactly - this is the problem that I think most troubles me. Queen is one of the best bands that has ever been. Freddie Mercury is one of the most charismatic performers seen. It's interesting. What kind of creators they were. What drives them. Why they were better than others. Where did they get strength, energy, ideas. As they saw their artistic vision. Where in all this was the magic element. The film can not quite catch it. We have a few fragments of recording sessions (besides the best parts of the film), we have two slogans thrown in here. But somewhere in all this is missing a story about the musicians. I really have a bit of a story about genius musicians, writers, painters, etc. in a way that indicates that the most important thing in their lives was who they fell in love with, whose phone they did not pick up and how lonely they felt in their huge home. These are such schemes that are easy to play and then you just need to add a tragic disease to the end and you can escape from the need to confront the question - what was in those genius people that differentiated them from the rest. The fact that the filmmakers are not interested in it means that despite many efforts, the film is flat and irritating from time to time. Because it plays out incredibly schematic scenes of manners and does not give a reward in the form of careful observation of the creative process.

One of the elements that is being talked about in the context of the film is the issue of showing Mercury's sexuality. I admit honestly - it turned out to be like a production to show why low age categories for movies are a complete mistake. And I will immediately point out - I am not talking about sex - although to tell the truth - at the moment when we are talking about rock stars without sex and drugs, it's as if we were talking about soldiers without tanks and guns. The bigger problem is that the movie is terribly afraid, and that's why things are not so cool. Why? For example, after many years of relationship with a woman, Mercury finally tells her, "I think I'm a bisexual," and she quickly respond ”No, you're gay." The film never comes back to this discussion, it does not make any corrections to the second statement. From that moment we only see Mercury in relation with others men. And so one of the most famous bisexual human in the history of popular culture (Mercury bisexuality is so well known that I have the impression that at least for me it was the first public figure that I found out he was bisexual) is in the biopic about herself "Improved" in terms of identification. And as far as I understand that a character in a film can be wrong - or speak the language and way of thinking of the era, a contemporary screenwriter can not leave a scene like this. Otherwise, the next bisexual character is considered as he is confused.

Another thing - this paradox that the film is afraid to show us the sexual life of a main character but of course it includes AIDS. And here comes the problem. AIDS appears in Mercury’s life right after he left the band to create solo career. Narratively, the disease appears almost as a punishment for moving away from its proper family as a team. So we get a vision in which Mercury did not listen to colleagues, he went to Germany, surrounded himself with bad people and eventually got AIDS. This is a very bad cause and effect sequence. Especially since it makes AIDS which was a tragedy of many homosexual and bisexual men (and later also women) - turns into some punishment for the fact that the hero decided to be himself instead of doing what he has done so far. What is more stupid that Freddie Mercury's solo albums are not bad (there are some phenomenal songs on them) - that is, we are not talking about someone who just seemed to have anything to say. Besides - I have a serious problem with the fact that one of the central characters in the film about the icon of the queer creators is the woman with whom he was associated. That's how I understand the importance of long-term friendship, but I really have quite the thread of these faithful women who stand by the side of homosexual men and never raise their voices. Such a character that she plays must be much better written. Here, she is completely uncomfortable, like most women in films about genius men. I also have a problem with the parents thread, which is written like soap opera from early 60 's, so that Hallmark would not be angry. But maybe I will stop complaining.

Are there good elements in the film? Of course they are. The best part is the Live Aid concert. There, nobody adds anything, so you can feel the emotions that Queen music brings. In total, almost all the scenes where the heroes deal with music defend themselves. Although there are disputes inside the band, they sound like there are members of the group of steel and crossed out everything that makes us think of them differently than a group of fun-loving English musicians who are always a little sarcastic. Which does not change the fact that it's nice to hear the songs of one of the best bands that were. The very good characterization and reconstruction of the costumes from the era do not disturb that. The concert stages are really great and it's a bit of a pity that there are not much of them - you could easily cut out a little Mercury and his search for love.

Here we come to the issue probably the most discussed, that is how good Rami Malek is as Freddie Mercury. For the chronicler's order, I will say - most people on the Internet are really fascinating with acting skills and the way he played. A lot of people talk about Oscar for the best actor. There are many indications that he showed incredible energy. This is the majority opinion. I have a problem with the role of Rami because all the time watching the movie I had in my head "This is Rami Malek with artificial teeth that plays Freddie Mercury". It is difficult to tell me what it results from, but throughout the movie I had the feeling that I was watching an actor who plays the role, not necessarily the hero himself. Perhaps this is due to the fact that many costumes, poses, sentences and behaviors were transferred straight from the Mercury recordings - hence the actor can reproduce something and does not necessarily create from scratch. At the same time - it can not be concealed that because it is a very average film, the number of numbing dialogues is difficult to bear. I do not know if it is possible to make a big role out of such material. Maybe if I was able to forget myself and get carried away by history, the role would be great. Malek gives the impression of being completely free - freed from all dress up - only at the very end at the opening of the concert in Wembley. Maybe then he felt that he did not have to add anything, only to convey emotions. In any case, I had the impression that I was watching an actor reciting issues and trying to break through the prosthesis.

You see with biographical movies is that they do not really talk about who they are talking about. For example the biographical film tells about hero, who is called the same as in a real-life man, but in order for the movie to play - a well-written hero must be in it - for the film's needs. Such an approach takes into account some inaccuracies about what the history of someone's life looked like, or even adding scenes that were not there, but at the same time - requires creators not to rely only on the viewers knowledge and on such a fixed, somewhere beyond the film fact that if we're shooting biopic means that he was a great man in himself and we do not have to do anything more. This does not mean that the filmmakers must talk about someone's whole life - they can choose only one aspect of the artist activity - but it is necessary for them to be able to tell such a coherent story about their chosen plot and most importantly hero. Otherwise, we get something like in "Bohemian Rhapsody" where it's definitely a movie about someone, but we do not really know who.

Why did the movie fail? I think that many factors have played. On the one hand - certainly Queen members would not allow to tell a story that would put anyone in a bit worse light. On the other hand, the life of Freddie Mercury surprisingly poorly suited to such a mainstream cinema, which every artist or scientist must put in a drawer. And even when talking about people who have escaped stereotypes, they find a point of attachment to a quite melodramatic story. In the end, I have the impression that all of us have failed music. Not because it is weak, but because it is so fantastic. It is not difficult to watch the scenes with the musical background from Queen forget that they are, in total, weak and fine. We are happy because once again we can listen to some of the best entertainment songs that have been written. And perhaps it is Queen's greatest triumph, which escaped cinematography but proved that it was a band whose music will always be defended. Even if it has to fight with a very badly written scenario.

Ps: As you know the film was made not without controversy, including the release of the director, just before the end of the shooting. I am curious how different this film would be if it was created in a less tense atmosphere. I am also wondering if any other studio decides to create Mercury production regardless of the views of his teammates. Because there is still a lot to tell.

#review #movie #queen #blog