Crazy Little Things Called Historical Facts.

Rating: 7/10 (7 January 2019)

When someone says the name "Freddie Mercury", people shuts up and pays attention. The man earned an immortal legacy on Rock & Roll, music as a whole history for himself, turning him one of pop culture's household names. His extravagance, his courage building his art and especially his powerful voice, have made his name a cultural treasure. There is no doubt, Mr. Fahrenheit is an absolute must when going through the history of entertainment. With that said, there was no question about how lucrative could be to make a biopic of this man, knowing Hollywood's usual M.O. So, "Bohemian Rhapsody" is the answer to the great area of opportunity that represents the story of Queen. Did the producers of this film fulfilled this great responsibility? Let' just say it is complicated...
I am an absolute Rock & Roll music fan in almost any of its presentations and sub genres. With that said, people that can say the same about themselves have to agree with me when I say that Queen is a must, being one of the greatest rock bands ever. Because of that, I eventually ran across the legacy of Freddie, Roger, Brian and John when I was very young. As expected, Freddie was the one that attracted my attention the most: His performances, his songwriting skills and his overall bravery playing the role of the "Stage Mercury" invited me to admire him ever since I was 12. That feeling made me want to know more and more. So I watched a whole lot of documentaries and read some books about Queens quest to success and international recognition. It is for this reason that the day I went to the cinema to see "Bohemian Rhapsody", I did it with a deep enthusiasm, but also with the hope that the pieces would fall into place in terms of historical accuracy. I left there with mixed feelings: On the one hand singing to the rhythm of Don't Stop Me Now, song that marks the conclusion of the film. But on the other wanting to say a thing or two to the writers and adapters of the story for having taken so many licenses.
Bohemian Rhapsody struggles with the difficulty of making a quality biopic. The concepts of the introduction, the climax and the ending are understood and compressed, turning this story into a well-founded film leaving the facts aside. The screen shows an inspiring story about a young prodigy who uses his talents to manifest the transgression that is born in response to the limitations that his family background, place of origin, sexual orientation and even his appearance impose. The film portrays in a moving way the passage of a group of musicians to world stardom, and the debauchery that fame implies, sentencing our protagonist to death, who still manages to conclude the film through a masterful and epic live performance. His conflicts, his humanity, his qualities and such quirky things that make up his personality are just some of the attributes that this admirable character shows. And, as if that wasn't enough, almost all the characters are very well developed, giving us an antagonist that, in my opinion, is good for its potential to cause a feeling of hatred in the viewer, represented by the figure of the controversial Paul Prenter. So, what is the problem? In many parts of the film the studied spectator begins to question himself if what he is seeing is actually the story of Queen that he paid to see, or at least something very similar happened to me.
It seems that this production had at hand all the key moments in Queen's career, such as their first meeting, Freddie's relationship with Mary Austin, the tours, Live Aid and the day Freddie discovers he has AIDS (only to mention a few examples) and completely arbitrarily modified and revolved to give the viewer a story that is endearing and inspiring, but not what actually happened. I would even dare to say that, to be a story largely invented and based on an event that did not happen how it is portrayed, has a script quite conservative and even common, relying in some funny and one or two remarkable phrases that are usually said for Freddie by Rami Malek. Even the title of the film falls into a common place and the desire to attract people to see the film before the real interest to portray the life of "The Great Pretender". It is a clear sign of the seriousness of the sin that is giving the Hollywood treatment in an excessive way to a movie based on real events. I do not know, maybe I had very high expectations. But, speaking of a biopic dedicated to Freddie Mercury, can you blame me?
However, there is a positive use of the soundtrack, which is composed of many of the greatest hits of the British band, filling the viewer with nostalgia and emotion, even if they make the same big mistake that I have already described: Not respecting the timeline. However, it is a guarantee: very few people will be able to leave this film without singing or humming some Queen melody. Against my first doubts about the cast of the film when it was revealed, Rami Malek does a splendid job portraying the legendary Queen frontman. For those who tell me: "He needs to get more in role and go full method on this one" I can only say: Buddy, do you really who is the person that Rami personifies in this movie? If there is an artist difficult to interpret in a biographical film, that is Freddie Mercury. And in my humble opinion, Malek gave us a performance worthy of our expectations and even more. It all comes down to the words that Brian May and Roger Taylor dedicated to him when he saw the movie: "Freddie would be proud". If something really stands out in this film, it's the casting job. Very good performances.
Summing it up, I think it's an enjoyable movie, but it falls short of the expectation that those almost ten years of production generated in me. And, for those history junkies like me who read the original story before watching a biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody is a complete disappointment. Even when portraying this artist, I think that the writers could be much bolder by presenting the duality between the Freddie of the stage and the real man. I think that, in an effort to make this film suitable for almost everyone, great sacrifices were made as to what led Freddie to a premature end. And no, I'm not talking about explicit sex scenes, but a more powerful vision towards that world in which Mercury was involved, which was more like a response to years of repression and an ideal that it sought to fulfill in an attempt to extrapolate the Freddie of the stage towards his everyday life. I think that the star is captured correctly, but not the man behind it, which implies omitting many of his duels, the consequences of his precarious way of life and, in essence, what turned Freddie Mercury into an icon. I still hope that this great story can motivate a true cinematographic masterpiece, as brave and transgressive as Freddie himself, but we'll have to keep waiting ...