Review of Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) by Kerijin C — 04 Nov 2018

Saw it. Love love love it. Can say more. Just busy fawning over this right now.

*UPDATE*.

I LOVE THIS film. I CAME OUT WITH A DEEP APPRECIATION OF FREDDIE MERCURY.

As stated elsewhere, it seems many critics are judging the film based on what they wanted, rather than accepting any other presentation as viable/ worthy. I am by no means an authority on QUEEN, Freddie mercury, or the craft of film critique. Nor was I a "super-fan" prior to this film. My exposure was limited to hearing the hits by happenstance from other sources. So, the foundation from which I assess the merits of this film are based on the history of public record, logic, and my opinion as an avid movie-goer. This is story, as told by surviving bandmates, friends and family.

If I am to believe some of the loudest critics, the band exercised a heavy hand in the film, crushing what "would have been, could have been", in favor of ulterior motives guided predominantly by financial considerations. Accordingly, this explains the accusations of "whitewashed cliché' in order to "preserve the brand". From my vantage point, if this view and the charge of "riddled with cliché" is to be accepted, it is at the very least, accomplished in a most technically skilled, lovingly EMOTIVE and effective way. In other words, I really do not care motives. I care about the content and end product. Yes, this is a celebratory tribute. However, it is so much more than mere fluff. An accepted consensus of Freddie mercury, by all accounts (including those critical of this film) is that he was a private person. This is conveyed both explicitly and implicitly throughout the film. For example, there is a scene in which well-defined terms in the lyrics of Bohemian Rhapsody are deemed "gibberish, repeatedly. At one point, Freddie Mercury is gazing out of a window, smirking, not once attempting to define or explain any of those terms , let alone interject that the current term under ridicule, "Bismill?h", means "In the name of God". Some wish to attribute nefarious reasons to wanting privacy, such small-minded interpretation lacks authenticity. It is possible to maintain privacy, while sharing things that are personally meaningful to us.

If I am to consider the themes of the film, a predominant one is that the man Freddie mercury above all else demanded ownership of defining himself. I am not sure if others can relate to this concept, but I sure as shit can and do. Is it better to present the man in the way HE explicitly defined himself? Or do you prefer to ignore his confessions, and all he professed about himself, in favor of your/others' interpretations of his descriptions of self and significant moments? Is this really even a question? From what I see this movie celebrates EXACTLY WHO HE WAS, based on what he shared of himself with those closest to him, that he most trusted; and HONORS his OWN TERMS, rather than imposing their interpretations onto him. Jfc, that is LOVE. That is Acceptance. That is Trust. I would hope those that love and know me best would do the same, in my life and death. His death is NOT an opportunity for you, me, or critics to impose our desired ideas of who he was onto this biopic.

The other main point of contention with this film (as expressed by critics), appears to be a claim that it is just not 'smart enough'. As one example, a series of tweets from an esteemed critic, cited anti-intellectualism as the crime committed by those of us with positive reviews of this film. Translation: she is ascribing a limited self-serving definition of "intellectualism" as if universally accepted, and forcing that upon us -the audience, and this film.

Want an intellectual pursuit? Examine what chords this film is striking in its audience. Perhaps instead of dismissing those of us that love this film, ask us why? From what I read, some critics have predetermined answers, without ever having asked relevant questions of themselves or others. I have read, we that have positive reviews are the "simplistic" easily manipulated masses. Such trite superficial reduction of the film, and its audience, appears to me to be the very antithesis of thoughtful, intellectual pursuit and exercise. Might I further suggest that such weighty intellectual analysis include artist impact? Speak with actual artists, including musicians. I am unclear how anyone can consider themselves a credible authority on the subject matter of the film without also taking into consideration the fact that this is about artists, musicians, and happens to focus on one more heavily. In terms of a biopic, and the subsequent focus on Freddie mercury, the audience is exposed to just how much he was immersed in the arts throughout his life. He was a design student. He lived and breathed all varieties of artistic endeavor. As depicted on film, the headboard of his bed was a piano. There are countless examples and scenes from which to delve in and examine this crucial aspect. It doesn't take anything beyond willingness, to accompany the movie as it digs beneath the surface. Which is why I am baffled by those critics that refuse to do so. Instead, clinging to the surface and exerting no effort beyond the superficial. Critics seek to define this movie yet somehow find it reasonable and acceptable to exclude such source content from their authoritative "analysis"? The recording studio scenes are deceptively simple in presentation, yet resoundingly insightful. For example, research the swinging amp scene. Ask musicians that have spent time in recording studios, what impression if any, the movie imparted on them. I didn't ask, this type of information was volunteered and imparted with enthusiasm. An unanticipated effect of this film is the creative inspiration it evoked in me and many other artists. Some that I have known yet had never spoken with of Mercury or QUEEN. Others I have met since watching this film, that like me feel inspired. Some, with a long-held appreciation of Freddie Mercury and QUEEN and others, like me, that are undergoing our first "dive". I'm not a musician, nor do I aspire to be. My art is of the visual variety. However, I have musician friends that have long held a reverence for Freddie mercury, and I can now finally place in context the details about how and why. Yes, for the non-musicians among us, we can glean that the band was experimenting in those scenes and having a damn good time. In talking with musicians that have been in a recording studio, there is much more there to unravel. It's substantial. More importantly, I didn't need to be a musician, or understand the technical minutia to comprehend the significance and fact that there was much to unpack in those scenes. Funny, I haven't heard or read one critic attempt to do so.

I have heard it said repeatedly that Freddie mercury was a musician's musician. What I have learned as a direct result of watching the film is that he is an artist's artist. More than that, he was human. We, the audience are companions of this beautiful, conflicted imperfect fellow traveler in life.

Art tells a story, the interpretation is left up to the observer for a reason. Be it of the visual variety, through song, words, or any number of mediums, for many it can be a sort of "spiritual" experience. Regardless, the point is that it is meant to be personal for the observer. This does not mean that observer is granted authority to also speak for the artist, as if representing the "true" meaning. Refined expertise of technique elevates the artistic creation, and subsequent experience for patrons. Skillful craft and emotive provocations are NOT mutually exclusive, but rather when combined, evoke a visceral, poignant and contemplative experience. In my opinion, the most profound artistic creations commandingly possess all such characteristics. This film, for me reaches in and hits all these points. What I appreciate the most about this film, is the ride, the melancholy uplift. Upon the intro, I am swept into forgetting that I was supposed to be "disappointed", as immediately the façade of anticipatory let-down FALLS AWAY. THIS IS A FEELING MOVIE AND I LOVE THE FREEING FEELING it imparts. If I had to summarize this film in one sentence, "Buy the ticket, take the ride" - is a quote that comes to mind.

There were plenty of practical successes in this film. From the first chords of the opening scene, through the rolling credits, my attention was focused on the story. I have yet to hear from anyone that came away less than fully vested, captivated and entertained all the way through. The cinematography was stellar, the acting from all the cast, superb. Rami in the lead ... well, every accolade I have read is accurate. No amount of additional words can possibly contain enough praise for his performance. This film was as an immersive experience. For those better acquainted with the band and front-man, Freddie, there are meaningful threads interwoven throughout. For those not as versed in the history of the man and band, such as myself, these threads become not so subtle fountains of knowledge and insight. It's true that the audience is not bludgeoned with overt and drawn-out pontifications of a complicated human's humanness, the not so little, dirty secrets, the dark underbelly etc. It is unnecessary to dwell via extended scenes in the dizzying abyss of life and drawn out intricacies of his life in-particular to comprehend the meaningful, impactful positive, negative and whatever other lasting imprints on him. These points were made quite explicitly, often in a manner which we can all relate to on some level, and most significantly relevant (from what I am learning of Freddie mercury) very much in-line with his "chosen way" and personality. Worth noting, it would have been a much easier endeavor to simply plop all the controversial content critics so desire to exhaustively dwell upon on-screen, as opposed to artfully weaving it in as was accomplished in the film.

It makes sense that not everyone is going to like the same art, including films, songs etc. That is understandable and to be expected. There are fair points of critique as well of course, as is the case in any artistic endeavor. However, in reading the negative reviews, I am stuck by the observation that many convey a near identical tone of rote obligatory, pretentiousness, pseudo-intellectualism and hollow sounding sentiments. They appear to embody the very accusations they level. For all the cliched complaints - I must say the trope of such protests, are the only thing ringing hollow to my ears. Mundanely empty platitudes and diatribes, echo what comes off as a monotonously contrived, routine checklist of what constitutes "award worthiness" (lol - whatever that means or matters). In effect, lifelessly prosaic lines, as if delivered from tedious clones chanting the same mantra in repetition, provide regurgitated "talking points" much like (akin to) the apparently negative "professional critic" reviews OF THE SONG 'BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY' at the time of its release (as flashed across the screen during the movie). Such lazily superficial criticisms are EQUALLY MISSING their mark in this case as well, so many years later. Though, it seems to me, to be fitting (in the best way). Much like the deriding of the band and Bohemian Rhapsody by music critics of the past, the reviews of film critics today will live in perpetuity. Based on audience reception, we are watching a repeat of history in the making. Once again, it is EPIC.