Skip to main content

You look like an angry lizard!

Bohemian Rhapsody
(2018)

(SPOILERS) I can quite see a Queen fan begrudging this latest musical biopic for failing to adhere to the facts of their illustrious career – but then, what biopic does steer a straight and true course? – making it ironic that they're the main fuel for Bohemian Rhapsody's box office success. Most other criticisms – and they're legitimate, on the whole – fall away in the face of a hugely charismatic star turn from Rami Malek as the band's frontman. He's the difference between a standard-issue, episodic, join-the-dots narrative and one that occasionally touches greatness, and most importantly, carries emotional heft.


Which isn't to say the supporting players are slouches. I could have done without the indulgent cameo from Mike Myers, complete with Wayne's World reference, since it's a little too broad (and cutting back to him for no good reason during Live Aid is a bizarre decision – we last saw him a decade earlier – unless the director(s)'s under the assumption the entire audience recognises this as Mike Myers doing a comedy turn and that they want more of him), but his composite character of Ray Foster serves a useful function in emphasising the outré quality of Bohemian Rhapsody (the song). 


Freddie Mercury's band members are remarkably deft facsimiles, though. If they don't quite come alive the way he does, that's in part because they simply aren't even in the same arena of vitality and fascination, and because – as a consequence – they aren't afforded the same amount of screen time. Gwilym Lee is to be sympathised with for enduring an imitation of Brian May's massive perm, while Ben Hardy gets the closest to a defining presence with Roger Taylor's frequent clashes with Mercury. Joseph Mazzello, like John Deacon, slips by mostly unnoticed, as will this sentence. 


And if Aidan Gillen wheels out "dodgy Aidan Gillen" again as manager John Reid, minus his more outright Machiavellian aspects, Tom Hollander does his inimitably best Tom Hollander as personable Jim "Miami" Beach, the band's lawyer turned replacement manager. 


The biggest impressions are made by Allen Leech as Mercury’s personal manager and "bad influence" Paul Prenter, eventually telling all on the singer, and Lucy Boynton (Murder on the Orient Express, Apostle) as Freddie's one-time fiancée and lifelong best friend Mary Austin. If the picture effectively digs into the underlying bleakness and discontent of the period during which Mercury increasingly relied on Prenter, accelerating his gradual dissolution and isolation, it is equally adept at translating the warmth and genuineness of the bond between Austin and Mercury.

 
The picture particularly needs Prenter to provide some dramatic heft. There's little enough genuine conflict in the Queen story – I say this as an admitted ignoramus of lore, so I may be entirely wrong – such that Anthony McCarten and Peter Morgan have to diligently create some, along with various exaggerations of peak points along the way (McCarten is no stranger to such embroidery, having previously refashioned the lives of Winston Churchill and Stephen Hawking in Darkest Hour and The Theory of Everything respectively). 


Bohemian Rhapsody (the movie) invents everything from the future band's first meeting, to Mercury meeting later love Jim Hutton (Aaron McCusker), to the success of the first album (it wasn't that big), to the split with Reid (actually in 1977), to the reason Freddie finished with Prenter – he trashed Freddie’s house or told all, depending on which fact check you read – to the band breakup (apparently it was agreed by all that a break was appropriate after disco dud Hot Space, and they reunited for The Works in ’83 – which included Radio Ga Ga and I Want to Break Free), to songwriting credits (not actually shared until The Miracle), to the HIV diagnosis (it happened sometime after Live Aid, some suggesting he tested negative in '85 and then positive in '87). 


None of this is all together less or more than what you expect of a dramatisation (authenticity is what documentaries, ideally, are made for), but the structuring of the Live Aid grand climax – the band in tatters, no one talking to Freddie, their meet-up having not played in forever (they’d actually been on a World Tour with The Works that ended a couple of months before), the fractious relationship with his father resolved on the morning of the concert (his parents "went to most of Freddie Mercury's concerts"), Freddie being diagnosed with AIDS – is a multi-layering of artifice that rather underlines how little their story lends itself to a straightforward, peaks-and-troughs movie structure. That said, this assembly succeeds remarkably effectively, and poignantly, with due time given to the concert and triumphant, band-reinvigorating set. 


The consequence is that the back end of the movie is the more proficient. There's a big gap between 1975 and 1980 where you'd think nothing of note happened, and consequently we re-join Freddie, expanded tache, house full of cats (with their own rooms), increasingly secluded and yet paradoxically enjoying the gay club scene like a fugitive from Cruising, in a manner that has been lent insufficient prelude (no dwarves carrying trays of cocaine on their heads, though, which will only reconfirm all Sacha Baron Cohen's reasons for departing the project). 


Malek is genuinely eye-opening in the lead role. He isn't as big as Mercury, but he makes up for it in presence and by inhabiting his subject's persona (admittedly, it's not very much of his voice singing the songs, mixed as it is with Mercury and Canadian singer Marc Matel); an irrepressibly camp, sensitive, preening peacock with a quick tongue and a devil-may-care courting of risk, his performance is one of warmth, self-destructiveness and indomitable self-belief. If you need to ask what the point of making a movie playing not just fast and loose with but observing wanton disregard for the facts was, look no further than Malik. It's a performance deserving of a Best Actor Oscar nod, whether or not he gets one.


So yeah, as someone largely indifferent to Queen (which means, I like any number of their songs, but I don't actually own any of their albums), Bohemian Rhapsody (the movie) worked just fine for me. I don't think it's a great musical biopic – very few biopics are great, let alone musical biopics; it's a genre that, by its nature, tends to be reductive, over-reverent and literal, unless made by a director with a clear vision – but it's an enjoyable, often amusing and affecting one, accompanied by an inevitably rousing soundtrack (although, I'd have steered clear of using their songs in the opening sections, until they're an established band). Iconic scenes focus on the inspirations for Bohemian Rhapsody (the song) and We Will Rock You (not the musical), and they elicit a clockwork, breezy enjoyment value given the hindsight of their stature, but for me the standout sequence might be Mercury, loaded, sweatily spinning out during an impertinently probing press conference.


And in terms of what might have been, I'm not convinced Sacha Baron Cohen would have been a great Mercury – who knows, perhaps he could have pulled it off, but you'd need to see a track record in dramatic roles before taking the risk – and until Dexter Fletcher gives an interview there's no way of ascertain how much persona non grata Bryan Singer (at least, it seems, outside of a Red Sonja set) contributed to the final film. Bohemian Rhapsody, the movie, on a scale of Queen tracks, might not entirely rock you and doesn't quite break free into greatness, but in its own way (not least at the box office), it's definitely a champion.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

  1. Excuse my biased opinion (being a massive queen fan) but this cast portray the band and Mary Austin superbly. I understand the movie took ten years to make, something to do with disagreements between the director and Brian May/roger taylor!!!

    Well let me tell you this, it was well worth the wait. The amount of studying and research these young actors must have did is clearly testament to their performance in this phenomenal story of the greatest band ever to grace the earth.

    Without spoiling the film, all I can say is that a certain record producer must be gutted or certainly would have been. Definitely two and a quarter hours of your life you will never forget. By far the best film containing music about a life story I've ever seen.

    An absolute must watch folks

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Basically, you’re saying marriage is just a way of getting out of an embarrassing pause in conversation?

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
(SPOILERS) There can be a cumulative effect from revisiting a movie where one glaring element does not fit, however well-judged or integrated everything else is; the error is only magnified, and seems even more of a miscalculation. With Groundhog Day, there’s a workaround to the romance not working, which is that the central conceit of reliving your day works like a charm and the love story is ultimately inessential to the picture’s success. In the case of Four Weddings and a Funeral, if the romance doesn’t work… Well, you’ve still got three other weddings, and you’ve got a funeral. But our hero’s entire purpose is to find that perfect match, and what he winds up with is Andie McDowell. One can’t help thinking he’d have been better off with Duck Face (Anna Chancellor).

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.