I almost didn’t go to see the new Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody. The DJ said on the radio at the time. “As for a Bohemian Rhapsody review … well, the reviews are mixed.” After watching it, and being thoroughly moved, especially by the second half of the movie, I went back. I re-read the iffy reviews. What could the real journalists out there have disliked?
How The Reviewers Chimed In
Steve Rose in his Bohemian Rhapsody review in The Guardian complains about Egyptian actor Rami Malek’s prosthetic teeth. They were a bit distracting. But most saliently he takes issue with the claim that Mercury’s break with the band had to do with him “getting with the wrong crowd.” That rhetorical line apparently isn’t okay because the crowd in question were certain gay men.
Meanwhile, A.O. Scott‘s Bohemian Rhapsody review at the New York Times called the film “A baroque blend of gibberish, mysticism and melodrama.” Also “a plodding, literal-minded, conventional affair.” “Freddie’s love affair with Paul Prenter is … a nightmare of debauchery, addiction and exploitation.” “Freddie (is) in the role of corrupted innocent.” I’m not sure, again, but it sounds like the script took the wrong angle in portraying its gay lead character? Perhaps Scott is afraid the viewer will assume that only gay men can lead their lovers into nightmares of debauchery? If so, I suggest that he give straight lovers more (or less) credit. Anyway, nightmares of debauchery are routine for rock stars.
According to Owen Glieberman‘s Bohemian Rhapsody review for Variety, the movie is “a conventional, middle-of-the-road, cut-and-dried, play-it-safe, rather fuddy-duddy old-school biopic.” It “treats Freddie’s personal life — his sexual-romantic identity, his loneliness, his reckless adventures in gay leather clubs — with kid-gloves reticence … “
Finally, Guy Lodge, also of Variety, wrote on Twitter. “If you’re not bothered by the de-queering of Freddie Mercury’s story for mass entertainment purposes, well, great … “
So They’re Saying Freddy Wasn’t Gay Enough in the Movie
In other words, according to some of the cognoscenti, the movie’s Mercury wasn’t “gay enough.”
I think this misses the point. We all know he was gay. Really openly gay. That yellow spandex suit he wore on stage kinda gave it away. But this movie is not for rock journalists, or people who want a Master’s and Johnson type dissection of someone’s sex life. It’s for people who love Queen’s music. I saw these people in the other seats at the theater today, watching a 3:40 matinee, thoroughly soaking in the story of a band and their art. This is our music heritage, this is music which enlivened and colored our childhood and young adult years.
Everyone who was alive back then remembers the story. Freddy was one of the gay men who contracted AIDS before much was known about it. He died before effective treatments could be discovered. He had a girlfriend he left for the gay life, he had a bunch of cats.
The Humanizing Touch Which Was Not Part of Our Childhood
But what we came to the theater for was the humanizing touch that had been denied Freddy, most importantly because of his strong desire for privacy during his life. Let’s be honest: even if he had been more open, his story might not have had a fair hearing much before now.
We already knew the band’s music, and we already knew that there was quite of bit of genius to go around. What we get from the movie is a view of a musician whose greatness and downfall has shades of Achilles, of Greek tragedy.
Rami Malek’s portrayal of Freddy gives us a closer view of the artist we have admired from afar. Honestly I don’t know how much more fair or more comprehensive this portrayal could have been without making the movie a miniseries. We are given a passionate young artist who finds collaborators and pursues his artistic vision while struggling with his own identify.
Freddy Had Our Same Parents
We find ourselves in the 70’s with conventional parents who wear suitcoats or dresses, in small British clubs with a bar stand in the corner, and then almost overnight we’re in huge sold out venues.
Isn’t that real life, though, when you’re in a superstar rock band? That was what *we* used to believe was the price of success.
There are moments that are so 70’s that if you weren’t there, you won’t understand. One white leather jacket of Freddy’s prompts the comment “you look like a Frilled Lizard,” and he does. The corrupt, artistically tone-deaf studio execs, the band members becoming a family without rules and without blood relationships ring true.
Freddy Faced the Same Social Pressures We Grew Up With
Freddy doesn’t want to disappoint anyone, least of all Mary, his girlfriend, but he’s unable to deny his attraction to men. This is an old story and a very 70’s story. But it’s presented honestly and earnestly and I think the movie makers deserve credit for putting this on record for a wide audience. Apparently it’s largely true to the characters and to the facts. If that’s “fuddy duddy old school” or “too much like Spinal Tap” I wonder what the reviewers would have preferred?
Meanwhile, if Freddy’s lover Paul Prentis became a stock caricature — the false friend who nearly costs you your integrity — that might not be a weakness in the movie. Archetypes are archetypes. We remember false friends, and cheer as Freddy leaves Prentis and walks off into the rain. At least I did. I rather felt I identified with Freddy — I too had relationships that I finally decided were parasitic.
An Artist of This Caliber
An artist of Freddy’s caliber deserves a biopic that emphasizes his gifts and his successes. They were monumental and beyond diminishing at this point. I’m sorry if in this movie he was not gay enough for you, Guy Lodge, but he was gay enough for me.
Most of us in the theater are just people who bought those vinyl records back when they came out. If you’re a Queen fan of any type, unless you’re a rock historian or an activist of some sort who can’t bear a somewhat soft edged and glamorized retelling of the story of a rock martyr, then go see the movie about Queen and Freddy Mercury.
