This past weekend, Bohemian Rhapsody made its way into theaters to a slew of unfavorable – or at the very least, disinterested – reviews from critics. Regardless of the critics’ reviews, audiences have still flocked to the biographical drama, and for good reason. While the film is not flawless, it establishes and completes all of its goals while painting an often amusing, sometimes ugly, yet never boring picture of both Queen and Freddie Mercury.
The film teases at a non-linear structure by hinting at how massive the scale of the 1985 Live Aid charity concert truly was. It quickly returns to a linear storyline from Mercury’s perspective. This is both an interesting perspective for a movie about Queen and also a boring and slow mode of storytelling for a man whose performances were so strikingly fantastical. From there, the film follows his meetings with his future bandmates until the eventual completion of their portion of the Live Aid concert, allowing the concert to serve as a sort of wrapping paper or decorative ribbon for everything that happens in the middle of the film.
This is the film in the simplest way it can be described. Simultaneously, this is the type of film whose complexities run surprisingly deep. To treat any part of this simply does a great disservice to the work.
There were several aspects of the storyline which seemed flawed, or worse: forgotten. One such aspect was the inclusion of Mercury / Farrokh Bulsara’s family. They were a very strong and important part of the narrative in the beginning of the film and in the end of the film, but somewhere in the midst of the middle they drifted out of the picture, and with no real acknowledgement. At the same time, including them would have made the at-times slow film even slower. For a film that seemed to be unsure of whether or not it focused on Freddie Mercury or Queen, however, this felt like a choice that was left unclear.
This lack of clarity about who the film was really about also detracted from the overall narrative. If it was supposed to be a film about Queen, it focused far too much on Mercury himself. While Rami Malek gave an incredible performance as Mercury, from what was seen in the film, Ben Hardy’s Roger Taylor, Joseph Mazzello’s John Deacon, and Gwilym Lee’s Brian May were comparably praiseworthy. And as fantastic as the inclusion of Mary Austin (Lucy Boynton) was, it also seems out of place for a film about Queen. That isn’t to say that Mary was unimportant. In fact, it would have done the narrative and the actual band a disservice to ignore the influence she had on Mercury’s life. Yet, if the film was supposed to be about Freddie Mercury, then it should not have been billed as a movie about Queen. 20th Century Fox describes the film as “a foot-stomping celebration of Queen, their music and their extraordinary lead singer Freddie Mercury,” but according to word of mouth, people seemed unaware of the dual focus, which could lead to mixed reactions to how the narrative was handled.
For all of its flaws, Bohemian Rhapsody was a strong film. From the start, the film deeply immerses the audience into the music and world of Queen with a surprisingly expressive cover of the 20th Century Fox Fanfare by Queen. The band’s greatest hits were featured, whether through studio or live recordings, and many times, the film focused on simply letting the actors perform Queen’s great music videos or live performances without any real care for narrative progression. Were this not a biographical drama, this would be something worthy of criticism. As it is such a movie, it isn’t necessarily a drawback for it to be feature-length music video. A mainstream audience may not be that curious about Mercury’s life, or the formation of the band, but they are definitely going to be enticed by such excellent and iconic music. I personally would be more upset if there was less of a spotlight on the music and performances.
The focus on Freddie Mercury also brings awareness to many factors of the singer’s life that people either don’t acknowledge or are simply unaware of. The movie did not hesitate to acknowledge Mercury’s sexuality, which, while widely known today, still falls under the “controversial” umbrella of LGBT+ themes in mainstream media. The movie also didn’t hesitate to acknowledge his Parsi heritage, having been born in Zanzibar before his family moved to England. This second fact is something that I find most people are rarely aware of, but the film made it and how his heritage has influenced him known through his kind mother and stern father. By focusing on the legend, the film was unapologetic about the times in which it casted Mercury in an ugly light. Malek’s Mercury was unkind, ruthless, and very lonely at several points in his life. The film did not try to hide this, and whether or not he really was as extreme as the film portrayed, it was fantastic. It made the late performer seem human, something that often is hard to believe and harder to acknowledge about famed singers and artists. For all the ugliness the film offers, by starting and ending with the Live Aid concert, Bohemian Rhapsody creates a narrative of personal redemption for Mercury and gave the happiest possible ending to his story.
For a man so desirous of his privacy, if the film were any more explicit, it may very well have crossed a line. Bohemian Rhapsody dramatizes parts of the stories of both Queen and Freddie Mercury beyond the scope of reality, but the blend of this, musical performance, and ultimately respect to both the creators and the fans made a fearless film that deserves attention.
Indira Ramgolam is a freshman in Columbia College.