Bohemian Rhapsody – a review

The dramatization of the rock band Queen from the start all the way up to their legendary performance at Wembley stadium during Live aid: all this through the eyes of the extraordinary front man Freddy Mercury.

There you have it, the Queen-film as it is often called in casual conversation. I had my doubts about the movie (link) and, in the end I was partially right in my prediction. Bohemian Rhapsody is a slick, well acted biopic of Freddy Mercury that is at times uneven in the story it wants to tell and, above all, too polished to make a dent.

If you love the music from Queen and don’t care much about the drama this is the movie for you. I you wanted an insight in the legend that is Freddy Mercury you’d have to wait a few years until the real Mercury movie comes out.

You don’t fool me - Uneven story

Bohemian Rhapsody tells an uneven story. On the one hand it is the story of the band Queen but it only starts when Mercury joins the Roger Taylor and Brian May’s band Smile. On the other hand it is the story of Freddy Mercury but, then again, it shows nothing of his youth. Again it starts when he joins the band.

Bohemian Rhapsody is neither a biopic of a person nor is it a biopic of an organization or (in this case) band. The movie falls somewhere in-between not really knowing what story it is telling; Queen or Freddy.

Then there’s the polishing that truly harms the movie. The reason why I like Walk the line or Lawrence of Arabia is because the viewer gets to see these famous people for who they truly are. And yes; sometimes a person can be a bit of a bastard.

Or if you subvert it in the movie Monster; even the biggest monster can be friendly at times.

Bohemian Rhapsody does try to play with the notion that Freddy Mercury wasn’t perfect but never in a truly harmful way – like Lawrence and his god complex. It is obvious at times that Roger Taylor and Brian May had massive influence in the movie. That they vetoed out any possible harmful details of the Queen/Mercury-legacy. To give an example:

In a meta-sense it is rather telling that the Roger Taylor-character’s hatred for Paul Prenter in this movie turns out to be justified. The fact that Roger Taylor and Brian May has such influence in the movie-making-process suggests that they pinpointed this man to be the man for the audience to hate.

Anybody who knows Queen and read one or two books about the band knows that the truth is a bit more grey than portrayed in the movie. But, more importantly in a narrative sense: a biopic doesn’t need a villain. A biopic is all about being human and the mistakes we make. So just the fact that the movie included a cut-clear villain tells me that it is afraid to bring some darkness to Freddy Mercury – preferring him to be the messiah-character with the golden voice.

The second bit of proof for this statement is an obvious one: the movie only glances at the ‘happy debauchery’ (for want of a better word) Mercury enjoyed in the gay-scene. Now, obviously a PG-13 rated movie can’t show everything; but a bit more focus on Mercury’s lifestyle would’ve helped to flesh out the character.

That’s not to say that the script doesn’t touch upon real gems of storytelling. There is a glimmer here and there of the duality in Mercury’s character of the silent homebody and the extravagant stage performer. And then –my favourite scene in the entire movie even though it is corny as heck- the way Mercury accepts his ‘fate’ as an AIDS victim.

Walking out the hospital he is recognized by a young man who is obviously in the last stage of the illness. There is a moment of acceptance between the two, the star and the ordinary Joe, in which they both recognize that life is fickle.

The great pretender - Acting

The acting then is absolutely top notch. Of course this movie is ‘Freddy’s’ show and Rami Malek portrays him to a key. All the little mannerism and ways of speaking ‘The great pretender’ possessed, Malek mimics without overdoing it. At times you forget that you are watching an actor playing Mercury.

This is especially impressive when you imagine the actor performing the ‘live’ gigs in a studio against a green-screen.

With the Papillion-remake and now this one-man-show under his belt it is clear that we are dealing with a very capable actor who dares to take on a variety of difficult roles.

The same goes for the rest of the band Ben Hardy and Gwilym Lee as Taylor and May respectively (and, again, Taylor looks absolutely gorgeous in drag in the 'I want to break free' video) look and act their parts with all the little mannerisms that their real-life counterparts posses.

Me, as a life-long John Deacon AND Jurassic Park fan I especially enjoyed seeing Joe Mazzello in the part of the bassist. In Queen (or the Queen revival for that matter) Deacon was always a bit in the background, never taking the spotlight. The movie does the same thing, the man is there but hardly speaking. In the end he is just as mysterious as his real life counterpart. Whether this was intentional or just a happy accident I don’t know. But I like the fact that this fictional movie overlaps with reality when it comes to the bassist.

Breakthrough - Visual flair

Visually Bohemian Rhapsody is charming. Apart from the, always fun, design of those eighties clothing and sets it are the 80s-elements that give the movie its unique style. Relying heavily on the motive of those reflexive pilot glasses that Mercury was prone to wear the film is filled to the brim with reflexion shots.

Obviously one can ‘read’ this as a metaphor for Mercury hiding his sexuality. But even without this deeper possible meaning it just gives the movie a nice visual break from (what is basically) a dialogue film.

Halfway through the movie, when the band becomes successful, there are some nice montage sequences that show how much the movie relied on the editing process –like the movie only truly found its pacing in the post-production. A funny rooster gag and some neon-outline animation techniques are welcome additions to the visual style the movie tries to achieve. Unnecessary when you think about it but still a pleasant addition.

The only time this style could’ve truly worked in a completive manner is when the camera follows Mercury on his endeavours in the gay-scene. But, as noted, the scene itself only glimpses at this time in Mercury’s life. So the style used never gets the chance to do its job.

More interesting then are the occasional coercive camera-positions (low angle shots) that elevate Mercury from a man to a legend. These shots show that the people behind the movie truly love Queen and want to give the movie all the love the band deserves. But, as I wrote above, too much love will kill you hurts the movie.

I want it all – conclusion

Bohemian Rhapsody doesn’t know whether it is telling a story about Freddy Mercury or Queen. Moreover, the movie is afraid to show Freddy who he truly was. Still, in the end, it is a charming movie because the acting is flawless, the visual style well chosen and the music is –obviously- perfect. It’s just that the movie is too stuck on image-building for its own good.

In the next movie about Freddy Mercury I want to see who he was before (or outside) Queen and how he dealt with the hardships thrown at him. Bohemian Rhapsody is the first step in exploring this fascinating man, but only innuendo.