Opinion Piece - I'm Airing My Beef on Bohemian Rhapsody

At this point, in real life and on the blog, I feel like my anger over Bohemian Rhapsody has become very well known. I never actually reviewed it and while it's definitely too late to review it now (and I think that might require a second viewing which is out and out not happening), I wanted to take the time to properly lay out what it is I don't like about it. See, when the film first came out, there was a critical mauling which I fell very clearly on the side of. I saw it the day it came out and assumed I'd probably never have to think about it again, at which point it became a hit. It made almost $900 million (and still counting), was briefly on the IMDb Top 250 and won more Oscars than any other film did in this years ceremony. People love it. So yeah, I think you could say we have unfinished business. I also just wanted to make this post to spare my poor housemates who have had to listen to me ranting about it since October and by using my blog as an outlet for my beef, I'm hoping to be a slightly calmer person after this. With all that said, lets rip this piece of shit a new arse hole.

Let us start with what has become maybe the most infamously bad thing about this film: the editing. Obviously, not everyone has a complete and proper understanding of editing. In fact, I study film for a degree and I don't even get it fully but that's kind of the point. With a mainstream movie, the editing is meant to be invisible, moving the film as a whole and individual scenes along at a pace that will keep audiences interested. Bohemian Rhapsody kind of does that, although on a film wide level, I have to admit I was hugely bored most of the way and there was plenty that could have done with some trimming. Still, most people seemed to be fine with it so for the sake of argument, lets say that's a problem only I have. What is undeniably a problem is the editing within scenes. You've probably seen the video going around social media of one particular scene which is so horribly edited it is actually laughable and if you haven't, just a search of "Bohemian Rhapsody bad editing" will take you there. It is every example of what you're told not to do in editing, with rapid, unmotivated cuts, inexplicable inserts of long shots and doesn't leave any moment any room to breathe. That's just one scene, there are plenty others that I remember feeling very upset at when I was in the cinema. Almost as upset as I felt when this film won the Oscar for Best Editing.

There's also plenty of very clumsy story telling throughout the film that, at times, feels like a parody of the musical biopic genre. At one point, a title pops up on screen that just says "Midwest, USA". That's how much the screenwriters cared. At another point, when Freddie is exploring his sexuality, the camera shows him walking into a bathroom with a man and then zooming in on the sign on the toilet which, in case you were unaware how men's toilets work, is an image of a man. That's how much the screenwriters cared. When Freddie is busy realising he has AIDs (which he had because of that there homosexual stuff he did, crying shame of course), he does it by coughing into a tissue, holding it up and there's some blood in there. That's how much the screenwriters cared. I'll stop bagging on about the script in a second because there's only so many examples I can give but the one that bugged me the instant I saw it and hasn't stopped since is the scene in which a record label executive played by Mike Myers (as in, the star of Wayne's World) tells Queen that no teenagers will ever listen to Bohemian Rhapsody while banging their heads in their cars. It's just so infuriatingly smug and knowing.

Perhaps what bugs me most about this whole thing is that the film never shows the band Queen earning their stripes, proving why they're beloved. To use a fiction film example, you root for Andrew in Whiplash because he's shown to be so very talented from the start. Here, there's none of that. We are simply told they're great and then played music that the four men we're looking at did not write because that's the thing with this film. I have a theory that people only like it because of the music and that's almost fair. The music is great because Queen (the real life band) and I'd be lying if I said that I don't get goosebumps whenever I hear Radio Ga Ga. BUT THE FILM NEVER EARNS THAT! The music isn't written for the film like with A Star is Born and the only reason any given song is played at any moment is because this is the bit of the story where they did that song, meaning that pre-written songs don't have the meaning that they would in something like Boogie Nights. That would be fine if the actors sung the songs but they don't even do that! Worst of all, there's a scene where Queen are about to perform on Top of the Pops but complain they won't do it if they have to lip sync their songs which, ya know, is exactly the thing that they're doing in the actual, poorly made film. Good job team.

I've left this paragraph until last because it's about the context surrounding the film and frankly, I completely understand if you think that context is irrelevant to the actual quality of a film. I often feel that way and that's what the other paragraphs have all been about, just me trying to lay out the big problems inside the film. So yeah, if context is an issue, get out now because I think many of the problems with the film lie in the fact that all the surviving members of Queen are producers on this film. That's a common theory as to why the editing is so bad, because each member wanted to be on screen as much as possible, meaning silly film things like appropriate shot length and rhythm are thrown out the window. You might not remember, but there was a little while ago when this film was going to star Sacha Baron-Cohen. The version he pitched sounded absolutely insane (one memorable highlight being parties full of little people with cocaine trays on their heads) but of course, it was about people who are still alive and still famous so that was just never going to happen. Any chance for any griminess in character details or motivation is ditched. Apparently Freddie's homosexuality was so unimportant that it was just cut out for the China release because of their beloved "no ghosts, no gays" policy. Which brings us to the elephant in the room. This film was directed by a man who, for years, has been an alleged paedophile and child predator. There are many films I love that are directed by people who were horrible humans and so I understand not wanting to think about that if you enjoy the film but as I've laid out, I don't think the film deserves defending on a cinematic level. If a film is this poorly made, having an alleged paedophile at the helm becomes the final nail in a coffin that should long ago have been put to rest.

There's a light at the end of this tunnel. Bryan Singer was fired from the film after about 80% of filming was done and as a replacement, Dexter Fletcher stepped in. Next month, he's directing (all on his own, replacing no one) Rocketman, a musical biopic about Elton John and I'm actually excited about it. Not because of my love for John's music, because while I love many of his songs, there's so many more Queen songs I love. No, it's because it looks like it's fixing so much of what I didn't like about Bohemian Rhapsody. Star Taron Egerton is actually singing throughout, they've promised not to shy away from the grim parts of John's story and it's also looking like it's going to have some fun with itself. One part of an early trailer shows an audience being lifted off their feet by the power of music. By not shying away from the darkness of being a rock star while also never forgetting that the telling of any story is a fantasy, Rocketman may be the film Bohemian Rhapsody should have been. Of course, it could also be shit. We'll find out soon and I may even review it! Until then, Bohemian Rhapsody can suck on my fat bottomed girls and bite the fucking dust.