Before I start I’d like to
clarify something. I’m a 70’s rock fan hence a Queen fan. I also place Mercury
as one of the top 3 lead singers of all time and I have no doubt he’s the best
front man I’ve ever seen.
Given the above, I was excited to
see the movie as soon as it was premiered in Melbourne. Just from the trailers
you could see that Rami Malek would be perfect for the role (something that
landed on him after Sasha Baron-Cohen quit the role)
The movie was your typical biopic
of a well know personality. It was not about Queen, it was about Freddie
Mercury itself.
Even though I enjoyed the movie I
didn’t find anything extraordinary about it other than Malek’s performance as
Mercury. In fact the rest of the cast was somewhat bland, probably not because
of the actors by because of the script itself. It seemed like Roger Taylor and
Brian May got together with Bryan Singer (the Director) and Anthony McCarten
(screen writer) and said: “OK let’s get someone who can play Freddie,” and once
they found him they said: “OK now we need to write a story around it”.
This is a formula for success
that has always worked in Hollywood. You find someone to portray a well known personality and you will sell tickets. It worked with Jamie Foxx
(Ray Charles); Ben Kingsley (Ghandi); Eddie Redmayne (Stephen Hawking); Daniel
Day Lewis (Lincoln) and so on. And don’t get me wrong, all of these guys did
tremendous jobs but sometimes movies lose focus when they only revolve around
one specific character.
As I said above, I liked the
movie, but I feel it lacked depth. I was expecting the script would probe deep
into Mercury’s troubled personal life; his difficulty to accept his sexual
condition; his fight against addiction; his feelings of loneliness and more
importantly his battle with AIDS and the relationship with his fellow band
members. I think all those things were mentioned in a rush, barely scratching
the surface of each one of these personal dramas.
Other movies like “Ray” went deep
into the psyche of the main character, exploring the origin of their traumas
and how they battled against them. I couldn’t find much of this in here. I felt
like watching a documentary with a very good actor.
So, besides the superb
performance by Rami Malek, who has deserved every one of the awards he’s
received this season, and the sound, I couldn’t find anything else to like in
particular.
And there’s the issue of the
historical inaccuracies. All biopics slightly modify facts for dramatic reasons
or to enhance aspects of the life of the characters but in this case they
changed many facts that were relevant to the story. In the movie, Mercury
confesses to the band that he has AIDS just before the Live Aid Concert in
1985. This isn’t correct. Mercury was diagnosed with AIDS in 1987, two years
after Live Aid. In the movie they make it look like Mercury approached Taylor
and May by chance after a concert when their lead singer had left and
offered to sing for their band. In reality Mercury had been a roommate of May
for quite a while and knew them well before this incident. In another scene
Mercury announces that he will be recording solo albums away from Queen to
which Taylor and May take offense. In real life Roger Taylor had already
recorded solo albums before Mercury as they had an arrangement to do
solo work while still with the band.
In summary, an entertaining movie
with a master performance, but it left me wanting more. I think it was a lost
opportunity to dissect the personality of one of the greatest entertainers of the 20th Century.
This is, at least, my opinion.
And I might be wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment