Bohemian Rhapsody-- yes or no?

[bobyoung53]

Just saw it tonight! I enjoyed it. It was a tale of sex, drugs and rock & roll, though it was mostly about the rock & roll. The antagonist of the movie was supposed to be Freddie's personal demons, but it seems like the antagonist hardly had a speaking role.

One historical error they made: They played Rick James' "Super Freak" during the 1980 party scene in Mercury's mansion, but that song didn't even come out until 1981.



He looks fairly like John Deacon. Good casting on the bandmembers.

During the "Another One Bites The Dust" scene, I actually yelled out, "STINGRAY!" in the theatre
I'll give them credit for featuring an actual Stingray (albeit a more modern EB model), especially since Deacon's character is portrayed playing P-Basses in every other scene.

He did play P basses almost exclusively, go to YouTube and watch some live videos, very hard to find a video with a Stingray and there are a million live videos of them. I saw them in 77 and he had both a fretless and a fretted P bass.

 

[bobyoung53]

I watched the movie three more times so I could pick up things I missed and because I enjoyed it, even watching it one of those times with captions on.
I did some reading the last couple days, and I have to say I am deeply disappointed how inaccurate the movie is, and on major details.
Here I was believing the movie was mostly accurate, only to find out many of the scenes I really enjoyed, like when he met Mary at Biba, were just all made up. Bummer.
Regardless, I have a renewed like for the band Queen, listening to them all the time now on our Alexa and I built a Queen playlist on a thumb drive for the stereo in my truck.
I think Freddie was someone I would have liked to meet. Not because I am also gay or bisexual, but there are other aspects to his life I can relate to.

-Mike

Excellent movie, I saw it three times also and want to see it again, it does make you feel like you know the characters afterward, very talented band and Freddie was amazing. I looked up some online rock singer front man polls afterward and Freddie came in either best of all time or second best in almost any poll i found, Bruce Springsteen placed number 1 in one poll in which Freddie came in second and I was thinking, no way Jose. I saw them in MA in 1977.

 

[MJ5150]

If you've not heard the entire Night At The Opera album, I highly recommend it.


It's all over the place stylistically.

I just bought and downloaded it from Amazon. I'm fixin' to start listening in a few minutes.

-Mike

 

[bobyoung53]

I just bought and downloaded it from Amazon. I'm fixin' to start listening in a few minutes.

-Mike

That's how I saw it the 2nd and third times, now I've got Brain Wilson's movie Love and Mercy waiting I'll watch it tomorrow but might just watch Queen again it was so good. Listening to them right now, I've been on a big Queen kick since I saw it a few weeks ago.

 

[MJ5150]

I've been on a big Queen kick since I saw it a few weeks ago.

Same here.
I ask Alexa to play Queen all the time, then I loaded the thumb drives for my truck stereo with 20-25 Queen songs.
If you have Amazon Prime, there are a handful of documentaries about Freddie and Queen. I'm watching them as I have time this week.
The first one I watched, Mercury Rising, was quite interesting. Although the guy from EMI (Eric Hall) who said Freddie was infatuated with him and the song Killer Queen referred to him I think is full of baloney.

-Mike

 

[5StringBlues]

A bit off topic......................


I do a blues jam every Wednesday. 4 piece drum set, Fender Deluxe Reverb ( 22 watts ) and a Genz Benz Shuttle 9 into a Markbass 210 cab.




At the end of the night last week, a girl in he early 20's became very persistent in requesting that we "plug back in and play KILLER QUEEN! COME ON, I KNOW YOU GUYS KNOW KILLER QUEEN!"


So I'm supposed to play a song that has piano, 4 part vocal harmonies, and a multi-tracked harmony guitar solo, with a 3 piece blues band..........ok!



I go and talk to the girl just to get her to stop yelling for KILLER QUEEN.


She then asks me for my card and tells me "I'm gonna give it to my dad,he does the music for Aerosmith".


I laugh and say "I thought Aerosmith did the music for Aerosmith".



She punches me in the arm and walks off. Good times.

 

[jeff7bass]

I saw the movie, I liked it, but what really kills me is how much literary license Hollywood took with this film.

Seriously???? Freddie's life story wasn't interesting enough as it is that you have to make stuff up for the movie?

Like what for instance? I see people repeating that, who have read it from others, but remember that Brian May was a producer and I doubt he would allow too much nonsense.

 

[MJ5150]

Like what for instance? I see people repeating that, who have read it from others, but remember that Brian May was a producer and I doubt he would allow too much nonsense.

The EMI scene with Ray Foster was made up.
Freddie telling his bandmates he has AIDS before Live Aid was made up.
Freddie meeting Mary moments before he met the band was made up.
Meeting Roger and Brian for the first time after the Smile show was made up.
Deacon on bass for the initial show with Mercury was made up.
The band breaking up and not talking anymore then reuniting weeks before Live Aid was made up.

-Mike

 

[MJ5150]

I see that Queen is on tour with Adam Lambert. What are others opinions of this?
The tour is coming to a venue 25 minutes from my house, but I won't be going.
I think Queen is the sum of Brian, Freddie, Roger, and John. Queen without Freddie is not something I would want to see.

-Mike

 

[MonetBass]

If you've not heard the entire Night At The Opera album, I highly recommend it.


It's all over the place stylistically.

Night at the Opera is one of the best rock albums ever made. And yes, stylistically it's wacky. Straight-ahead rock, folk, vaudeville, prog-rock... it's all there.

 

[MJ5150]

Like what for instance? I see people repeating that, who have read it from others, but remember that Brian May was a producer and I doubt he would allow too much nonsense.

I just finished watching an interview with the band regarding Live Aid.
That whole bit with Paul deflecting phone calls to Freddie about Live Aid and Freddie calling Jim Beach later to try and get Queen added to the show was made up as well.
Wow, the more I learn about Queen, the more the movie is way off.

-Mike

 

[MonetBass]

The 'right' and the 'wrong', according to Billboard:
Right: Freddie Mercury was very inspired by actress Marlene Dietrich
In the film, a quick moment shows Freddie standing in his brand-new home at Garden Lodge with a large, iconic photo of German actress Marlene Dietrich behind him. In reality, Mercury expressed his true admiration for the artist, and she is widely cited as the main inspiration behind the now-iconic cover art of Queen’s second album, Queen II.

Wrong: It took much longer in real life for Freddie to join Queen
One of the more stunning ways the movie mishandles a truth about the group is when it shows how Freddie came to be Queen’s new frontman. The scene sees a young Freddie approaching Brian May and Roger Taylor after the show where their frontman and bassist Tim Staffell had just quit, singing a few bars of their song “Doin’ Alright” and joining the band after. In reality, Freddie had been good friends with Staffell, met and got to know Brian and Roger through Staffell, and even lived with the two before Staffell quit and he joined in.

Right: Freddie really did own at least 10 cats throughout his life
Outside of Rami Malek’s portrayal of Freddie Mercury, some of the brightest shining stars of the film are the various cats who appear as Freddie’s beloved pets. The portrayal of Freddie’s love for his animals rings true -- he would often ask to speak to his cats on the phone while he was away touring, and he did have different rooms in his Garden Lodge home for each of his cats.

Wrong: Jim Hutton never worked as a servant for Freddie
The film introduces the audience to Jim Hutton when, after a particularly long party, Freddie makes a drunken pass at him. After a conversation about the singer being “lost,” the two part ways only for Freddie to look him up and find him at home years later. But Jim Hutton never worked as a waiter or server for Freddie -- he was a hairdresser at the Savoy Hotel, and the two met at a club near the singer’s home in 1983.

Right: Freddie did credit his teeth for his singing voice
Upon meeting Brian May and Roger Taylor in the film, Freddie remarks that while his teeth may look funny, it’s because he has four extra incisors that he has such dramatic vocal range. This is something that the singer truly believed -- while he was insecure about his teeth for much of his life, he always denied those who said he could have them fixed, saying he was concerned surgery or too much dentistry could affect his singing voice.

Wrong: Neither Freddie nor Queen knew about his AIDS diagnosis before Live Aid
Fans and critics were concerned that Bohemian Rhapsody would fail to mention Mercury’s AIDS diagnosis, yet the film did -- though not very accurately. In the film, Freddie informs his bandmates of his diagnosis during a rehearsal one week before their famous Live Aid performance in 1985. But by almost all accounts, including one from Jim Hutton himself, Freddie didn’t even know he had the disease until April 1987.

Right: Freddie Mercury and Mary Austin really were as close as the movie shows
Throughout the film, after the fallout of their relationship, Freddie and Mary Austin maintain a friendship that lasted for the rest of the singer’s life, with Austin comforting him and telling him how she feels about what he’s doing on a regular basis. This is true to life, and may even be an understatement of how close the two truly were -- at the end of his life, Mercury even went as far as to leave half of his wealth and estate to Austin.

Wrong: Queen’s Live Aid performance wasn’t a “reunion”
The film makes a number of mistakes when it comes to the “breakup” of the band that happens in its third act. Not only Freddie wanted to make solo music; both Roger Taylor and Brian May put out solo records during the same period. But most importantly, the band’s reunion in the film is characterized as them seizing the opportunity to perform at Live Aid. Really, the band had already been back together when the benefit came around -- they even recorded and released their album The Works after their reunion but before Live Aid.

 

[jeff7bass]

The 'right' and the 'wrong', according to Billboard:
Right: Freddie Mercury was very inspired by actress Marlene Dietrich
In the film, a quick moment shows Freddie standing in his brand-new home at Garden Lodge with a large, iconic photo of German actress Marlene Dietrich behind him. In reality, Mercury expressed his true admiration for the artist, and she is widely cited as the main inspiration behind the now-iconic cover art of Queen’s second album, Queen II.

Wrong: It took much longer in real life for Freddie to join Queen
One of the more stunning ways the movie mishandles a truth about the group is when it shows how Freddie came to be Queen’s new frontman. The scene sees a young Freddie approaching Brian May and Roger Taylor after the show where their frontman and bassist Tim Staffell had just quit, singing a few bars of their song “Doin’ Alright” and joining the band after. In reality, Freddie had been good friends with Staffell, met and got to know Brian and Roger through Staffell, and even lived with the two before Staffell quit and he joined in.

Right: Freddie really did own at least 10 cats throughout his life
Outside of Rami Malek’s portrayal of Freddie Mercury, some of the brightest shining stars of the film are the various cats who appear as Freddie’s beloved pets. The portrayal of Freddie’s love for his animals rings true -- he would often ask to speak to his cats on the phone while he was away touring, and he did have different rooms in his Garden Lodge home for each of his cats.

Wrong: Jim Hutton never worked as a servant for Freddie
The film introduces the audience to Jim Hutton when, after a particularly long party, Freddie makes a drunken pass at him. After a conversation about the singer being “lost,” the two part ways only for Freddie to look him up and find him at home years later. But Jim Hutton never worked as a waiter or server for Freddie -- he was a hairdresser at the Savoy Hotel, and the two met at a club near the singer’s home in 1983.

Right: Freddie did credit his teeth for his singing voice
Upon meeting Brian May and Roger Taylor in the film, Freddie remarks that while his teeth may look funny, it’s because he has four extra incisors that he has such dramatic vocal range. This is something that the singer truly believed -- while he was insecure about his teeth for much of his life, he always denied those who said he could have them fixed, saying he was concerned surgery or too much dentistry could affect his singing voice.

Wrong: Neither Freddie nor Queen knew about his AIDS diagnosis before Live Aid
Fans and critics were concerned that Bohemian Rhapsody would fail to mention Mercury’s AIDS diagnosis, yet the film did -- though not very accurately. In the film, Freddie informs his bandmates of his diagnosis during a rehearsal one week before their famous Live Aid performance in 1985. But by almost all accounts, including one from Jim Hutton himself, Freddie didn’t even know he had the disease until April 1987.

Right: Freddie Mercury and Mary Austin really were as close as the movie shows
Throughout the film, after the fallout of their relationship, Freddie and Mary Austin maintain a friendship that lasted for the rest of the singer’s life, with Austin comforting him and telling him how she feels about what he’s doing on a regular basis. This is true to life, and may even be an understatement of how close the two truly were -- at the end of his life, Mercury even went as far as to leave half of his wealth and estate to Austin.

Wrong: Queen’s Live Aid performance wasn’t a “reunion”
The film makes a number of mistakes when it comes to the “breakup” of the band that happens in its third act. Not only Freddie wanted to make solo music; both Roger Taylor and Brian May put out solo records during the same period. But most importantly, the band’s reunion in the film is characterized as them seizing the opportunity to perform at Live Aid. Really, the band had already been back together when the benefit came around -- they even recorded and released their album The Works after their reunion but before Live Aid.

Wrong: Neither Freddie nor Queen knew about his AIDS diagnosis before Live Aid:
I think there's a possibility he mentioned it to the band, despite what Hutton believes. Surely he had reason to believe he had it because of the way he felt, and the band may have noticed he was suffering since they were back together. Not saying either way but it would make sense that Freddie and the band kind of knew. Some of the stuff in the movie was no doubt done for dramatic effect but also time constraints. It's what Hollywood does. Even true documentaries have people disagreeing on stuff.

 

[LBS-bass]

Some of the stuff in the movie was no doubt done for dramatic effect but also time constraints. It's what Hollywood does. Even true documentaries have people disagreeing on stuff.

I expect much of it can be chalked up to this. The scene of how they all met, for example, is flawed on many levels. John Deacon was not part of the band at this time, but in the movie they're all a fully-formed unit just waiting for someone like Freddy to come and whisk them to stardom with his frontman prowess.

I'm sure the guys in the band, who were heavily consulted on this, are aware that this isn't how it actually went but someone figured out that devoting enough time to the embryonic stages to tell the story accurately would mean losing something else down the line.

I enjoyed the movie but view it as entertainment with some grains of truth to it. What I didn't understand was the criticism of it as homophobic. Some felt that the portrayal of his party lifestyle in the gay underground was a homophobic cliche. But what I saw was a film that showed him struggling with 1) his sexuality, 2) the scene as it existed in the days when AIDS was running rampant and 3) finally settling in with a partner who cared for him (Hutton). In particular, how is number 3 part of a homophobic narrative? Seems most of the criticism was around the depiction of the party scene but, as I remember those days, the party scene in the late 70's and early 80's was very, very real, and a lot of people succumbed to it.

 

[MJ5150]

If you've not heard the entire Night At The Opera album, I highly recommend it.


It's all over the place stylistically.

I listened to the album four times now uninterrupted in order of the tracks. For one of them, I had it cranked to 11. One time with headphones on.
It doesn't necessarily have a flow to it like other albums meant to tell a story, but it does have a nice flow to it musically.
This was a great suggestion, thank you @5StringBlues.

-Mike

 

[MJ5150]

I expect much of it can be chalked up to this. The scene of how they all met, for example, is flawed on many levels. John Deacon was not part of the band at this time, but in the movie they're all a fully-formed unit just waiting for someone like Freddy to come and whisk them to stardom with his frontman prowess.

I'm sure the guys in the band, who were heavily consulted on this, are aware that this isn't how it actually went but someone figured out that devoting enough time to the embryonic stages to tell the story accurately would mean losing something else down the line.

I enjoyed the movie but view it as entertainment with some grains of truth to it. What I didn't understand was the criticism of it as homophobic. Some felt that the portrayal of his party lifestyle in the gay underground was a homophobic cliche. But what I saw was a film that showed him struggling with 1) his sexuality, 2) the scene as it existed in the days when AIDS was running rampant and 3) finally settling in with a partner who cared for him (Hutton). In particular, how is number 3 part of a homophobic narrative? Seems most of the criticism was around the depiction of the party scenes but, as I remember those days, the party scene in the late 70's and early 80's was very, very real, and a lot of people succumbed to it.

When I was watching that interview with the band about Live Aid, the interviewer asked them how they would select songs (she called them numbers) for the 20 minute set. Brian and Roger both commented about how difficult it would be to pick just a few songs to play in 20 minutes.
I imagine some of the same difficult decisions were made when condensing 15-20 years of the bands history into 130 minutes.
I'm with you on the homophobic comments. It felt more to me like coming 'home' to the safety of the family he knew rather than being used by others who were taking advantage of him. I was so glad when he kicked Paul to the curb after Paul betrayed John in the limo (which was also a made up scene). The moment he finds Jim Hutton, that got me all emotional. I felt that was well done and took any homophobic feeling away from the movie.

-Mike

 

[LBS-bass]

When I was watching that interview with the band about Live Aid, the interviewer asked them how they would select songs (she called them numbers) for the 20 minute set. Brian and Roger both commented about how difficult it would be to pick just a few songs to play in 20 minutes.
I imagine some of the same difficult decisions were made when condensing 15-20 years of the bands history into 130 minutes.
I'm with you on the homophobic comments. It felt more to me like coming 'home' to the safety of the family he knew rather than being used by others who were taking advantage of him. I was so glad when he kicked Paul to the curb after Paul betrayed John in the limo (which was also a made up scene). The moment he finds Jim Hutton, that got me all emotional. I felt that was well done and took any homophobic feeling away from the movie.

-Mike

Yes, I think if there's a cliche to be had here it's more about how people ride coattails of the wealthy, famous and powerful, and the Paul story certainly seems to fit into that box. Doesn't mean it isn't true, however. People do use others in this way.

 

[jeff7bass]

I expect much of it can be chalked up to this. The scene of how they all met, for example, is flawed on many levels. John Deacon was not part of the band at this time, but in the movie they're all a fully-formed unit just waiting for someone like Freddy to come and whisk them to stardom with his frontman prowess.

I'm sure the guys in the band, who were heavily consulted on this, are aware that this isn't how it actually went but someone figured out that devoting enough time to the embryonic stages to tell the story accurately would mean losing something else down the line.

I enjoyed the movie but view it as entertainment with some grains of truth to it. What I didn't understand was the criticism of it as homophobic. Some felt that the portrayal of his party lifestyle in the gay underground was a homophobic cliche. But what I saw was a film that showed him struggling with 1) his sexuality, 2) the scene as it existed in the days when AIDS was running rampant and 3) finally settling in with a partner who cared for him (Hutton). In particular, how is number 3 part of a homophobic narrative? Seems most of the criticism was around the depiction of the party scene but, as I remember those days, the party scene in the late 70's and early 80's was very, very real, and a lot of people succumbed to it.

Good analysis. I agree, and I was moved by the movie like many others. On that level, it was very successful.

 

[MonetBass]

I expect much of it can be chalked up to this. The scene of how they all met, for example, is flawed on many levels. John Deacon was not part of the band at this time, but in the movie they're all a fully-formed unit just waiting for someone like Freddy to come and whisk them to stardom with his frontman prowess.

I'm sure the guys in the band, who were heavily consulted on this, are aware that this isn't how it actually went but someone figured out that devoting enough time to the embryonic stages to tell the story accurately would mean losing something else down the line.

I enjoyed the movie but view it as entertainment with some grains of truth to it. What I didn't understand was the criticism of it as homophobic. Some felt that the portrayal of his party lifestyle in the gay underground was a homophobic cliche. But what I saw was a film that showed him struggling with 1) his sexuality, 2) the scene as it existed in the days when AIDS was running rampant and 3) finally settling in with a partner who cared for him (Hutton). In particular, how is number 3 part of a homophobic narrative? Seems most of the criticism was around the depiction of the party scene but, as I remember those days, the party scene in the late 70's and early 80's was very, very real, and a lot of people succumbed to it.

When me and my family (wife and 15-year-old son) left the theater, I commented about how I was glad they didn't make the movie about Freddie's sexuality. That element was there, obviously, as it was part of who Freddie was as a person and personality. But they made it more about the band and the music for the most part, and I believe Roger and Brian had a lot to do with that.

 

[bholder]

If you've not heard the entire Night At The Opera album, I highly recommend it.


It's all over the place stylistically.

Has the world's best (probably only) spacetime-traveling sci-fi skiffle tune.