| Under Pressure 05.06.2008 04:25 |
So I'm halfway through with the screenplay Michael Cunningham (The Hours) has written, and it's RUBBISH. Honestly don't believe the man did any research whatsoever, perhaps not even the quite concise Wikipedia article. While it does ... sort of ... focus on Live Aid, it doesn't really focus on anything. It cuts back and forth mostly between 71, 79, and 85, with a few flashes back to Freddie's boarding school and Persia (Zanzibar?) and flashes forward to '90. Some choice tidbits include: no personality for the rest of the band, utter lack of tension or character depth, the boys sitting around and snorting coke every five pages (as we all know what a coke fiend Brian is ...), changing the name from Smile to Queen after John's joined ... honestly it's one flub after another. I truly hope Brian has some say, some kind of advisory capacity if this project were to go through. It's devoid of any charm whatsoever, and reads closer to Velvet Goldmine than anything truly Queen. Now 3/4 through and there's no real discussion of music, no scenes in the recording studio. It's 1985 and he's still in a romantic relationship with Mary Austin (name changed for whatever reason) and she's jealous of Jim Hutton. The plot seems to be one gay party scene after another, set to songs from GHI, and GHII if lucky. I cannot imagine that a) this film will ever be made b) this man actually has a Pulitzer Prize. Oh, it's also 1985 and he's already exhibiting Kaposi Sarcoma. Has this "writer" ever heard of research? For serious? Also, apparently Freddie grew up in Persia, and Mary stalks him, is evil, and has a daughter with some random dude out of spite because Freddie won't knock her up. And then he dies--though obviously we don't see it. Throughout there are three concert scenes. One of BoRhap live (WTF) "before" it's popular, two are snippets from Live Aid. That is it. No roadies. No recordings. No discussion of their music. No anecdotes. No scenes with Freddie interacting with individual members of the band. No touring. No discussion of charts or popularity, except to say "we're slipping" a few times in '85. Apparently Freddie really had a boner for La Boheme and Montserrat since he was 20, and he solely listened to Opera in his spare time. Also, he's a huge tool at home, has no taste in furniture or art, and only talks about how famous and fabulous he is all the time. God, what a pompous, terrible piece of writing. |
| Freddie May 05.06.2008 05:06 |
Could you share it with us ? If this is true :-p |
| Under Pressure 05.06.2008 05:19 |
I'm hesitant to send it around because it was sent to me in confidence, but a little piece of me wants to send it around because if everyone knows how shitty it is, it won't get made. Let me think about it. I may post a few pages up, but not the whole thing. *also I realize it's copywritten, and since it's unproduced, I could get in trouble if I post a lot of it. |
| YourValentine 05.06.2008 05:31 |
"Mary Austin (name changed for whatever reason") Probably to avoid inevitable law suits. Mary Austin is not a public figure and always stayed in the background. There is no "public interest" whatsoever to justify spreading lies about her. Actually, I think that Queen do not need to take it when they are portrayed as coke users when it's not true at all. I am sure they can put this movie on hold for years if they choose to. |
| Under Pressure 05.06.2008 05:38 |
It's odd because Mary has done a number of interviews about Garden Lodge and her relationship with Freddie, so it seems odd. No other names in the script were changed. I think if Brian were to see this he would be very, very offended. Not only as he's portrayed as a drug user, but also because he and Roger and John are BARELY mentioned. It's an 104 page script, and they appear in only 4, 5 scenes, always collectively, with no distinctive voice. It really is hurtful because they had such complicated, long-lasting relationships with one another, and this script makes it seem as if a) Freddie wrote all the songs and was the only one who cared about the material and b) that the other band members didn't know him or interact with him personally. It's quite upsetting. There are so many amazing anecdotes, from Bowie, Tim Curry, Crystal, Peter Freestone ... NONE of those features in this script. Many of these anecdotes are so telling, like Roger locking himself in the closet, or Freddie finding himself in the Trivial Pursuit game ... but instead it's all replaced with glitter falling from the stars and ships in the sky filled with characters from various operas. The worst travesty is that it's common knowledge how private and shy Freddie was in his personal life. However this script only reflects the public Freddie, the loud, dandy, temperamental Freddie. It's truly a sad depiction. |
| YourValentine 05.06.2008 05:49 |
Not being a lawyer I am still sure that the movie needs some sort of approval by the Freddie Mercury Estate. For example, I don't think that Yoko Ono would ever allow anything published about John Lennon she does not approve of. |
| Under Pressure 05.06.2008 06:14 |
Unfortunately the problem comes with people who are famous or in the public eye. There's a film in production right now about George Bush, and there's not a thing he can do about it, because legally he gives up his privacy by being a public figure. Usually the reason no one would do, say, an unauthorized biopic of John Lennon, is that without the family's help there's little to no chance of getting the rights to use the music in the film. I'd hope that's the case here. As well, Freddie was SUCH a public figure that I highly doubt a film would be made without verifying some of that information. But bastardizations are made every day in Hollywood ... |
| john bodega 05.06.2008 06:28 |
YourValentine wrote: Not being a lawyer I am still sure that the movie needs some sort of approval by the Freddie Mercury Estate. For example, I don't think that Yoko Ono would ever allow anything published about John Lennon she does not approve of.Bingo. She doesn't allow anything about him to come out without having herself inserted somewhere she doesn't belong. This Freddie screenplay sure sounds like a laugh. If it's genuine, I'm not really surprised.... just watch Pearl Harbour for an idea of how accurate a film has to be these days. If it's a joke - 5 stars from me, it's hilarious! |
| LadySonnet 05.06.2008 08:00 |
Guys, say it's not true! Please! I am a screenplay writer myself and am horrified by what you just say here. Is it that bad????? From what I've read here it is awful. I only hope that by some miraculous way we are all somehow mistaken here and that we are talking of another movie. Gee! And can't fan power do something about it? Because obviously Mr. May doesn't have the intention - just visited his soap to check for comments on this - nothing! |
| PieterMC 05.06.2008 08:04 |
Sounds awful. Let's hope it does not happen. |
| Freddie May 05.06.2008 08:06 |
And who'll be playing Freddie? Johnny Depp? |
| pittrek 05.06.2008 08:30 |
Will it contain gay sex scenes ? |
| Donna13 05.06.2008 08:32 |
Under Pressure wrote: .... without the family's help there's little to no chance of getting the rights to use the music in the film. I'd hope that's the case here.Me too. Is this THE script? Or are there others? I should think they would want to focus on the music and an accurate story. |
| YourValentine 05.06.2008 08:37 |
Under Pressure wrote: Unfortunately the problem comes with people who are famous or in the public eye. There's a film in production right now about George Bush, and there's not a thing he can do about it, because legally he gives up his privacy by being a public figure.Yes, that is right - he is a person of historical importance. However, I have seen books being withheld due to lawsuits started by people who see their personality rights harmed on just a few pages in the book. It would be very hard to publish such a film if Queen and maybe some other rich and famous friends of Freddie have serious problems with it, speak out on public or even file lawsuits. |
| The Fairy King 05.06.2008 08:57 |
pittrek wrote: Will it contain gay sex scenes ?I'll be there! At the premiere! Frontrow! With Kleenex! |
| john bodega 05.06.2008 09:12 |
I wouldn't worry about getting the rights to Queen music. They can always get Valensia to write some more ripoffs, that'll work. I hope this film gets made. It'll boost the membership of Queenzone so much that I can make it my full time job to say 'no, Freddie didn't get KS until 87' or 'John Deacon is still alive'. Actually, there's a good question. Will Paul Rodgers be in the film? I fucking hope so. |
| Yara 05.06.2008 09:21 |
I think they have a point there. If there are no sex scenes in the movie, no point in doing it. I'm not trying to be clever, by the way, which I'd never get to be, nor facetious or witty. It's still premature to do a movie about Freddie. It's going to be unintersting whoever is in charge - it'll be inevitably about coke and so on, which is great, but we had already tons of films about celebrities or talented artists who were destroyed by drugs and alcohol and sex. Why another one, especially after the releasing of the movie about Edith Piaf, which was kind of a killer, gained an oscar and said pretty much the last word about the whole stuff? The movie about Ray Charles, pretty good, great actor. About Freddie? No. I think after studying and playing music since I was a kid, I want to believe I know a little bit about it. I do it for a living. Spent the last days performing, the whole days. I have talked about music with people specialized in Jazz, Opera, and so on. I had discussions. I learned quite a good deal. What does it prove? That I'm great? No, there are many people like me and better than me at that, for sure, many, thousands, musicians and non-musicians alike, and that's why I worry. People still don't understand how talented Freddie was. It's absolutely premature to do a movie about him. His singing style and his compositions are barely understood. He was one of the very finest popular singers of the last century, ranking above in terms of technique and sophistication, much above, than Ella Fitzgerald, for instance. I had this discussion millions of times, and Freddie comes out as a better singer - I'm talking about qualities that we usually expect singers to have - than most who performed in any field except Opera which is a world of its own - and not really "popular music". So, unless people begin to understand what the guy was about, sorry, any movie will be pointless - because great movies about artists being destroyed by drugs, sex and so on we hae aplenty. The lay audience, so to say, will find it boring: "Another movie about a star who went the wrong way...". I bet it. What makes Freddie different is being gay? Well, perhaps. Though, among others, Cole Porter was gay, and there's a great movie about him. We have had movies about gay relationships which are certainly much better than a movie about Freddie could possibly be. So people will react like: "Another movie about gays...and this is a boring one". It'll be boring because the music is not there and it's the music which makes the difference. So, unless the gay stuff is given a real good attention, there's no point in releasing the movie. We need to wait some 10 or 20 years to realize that the guy deserve to be ranked among the very greatest popular singers. So, I expect a lot of...gay. Gay sex scenes, reflections about aids, and that's it. Because it actually can't be otherwise at the present state. Strong scenes, very sad atmosphere, a lot of reflections about the trials of being and having been gay at that time, what AIDS is really about, how promiscuous Freddie was, and so on. Then, nice, if that's the point they want to make, I find it legitimate. I just don't know whether the audience will have the patience to go through it, but that's with the producers. |
| Daniel Nester 05.06.2008 10:25 |
Um, I'll just skip over Yara's post here, and talk about the OP. The changing Smile to Queen bit with John? Yes, it's an "inaccuracy," but I do hope that people are smart enough to know it happens all the time in biographies, biopics, etc. It's called a composite, a combinations of events to move the story along. Do you think any movie would work that chronicles the succession of Tim Staffell, Mike Grose, Doug Bogie and Barry Mitchell, then John Deacon, then the name change? No. It's probably a first draft you're reading? What does it say on the title page? Give Michael Cunningham a chance, will ya? Oscar. Pulitzer. Geez. |
| Daniel Nester 05.06.2008 10:28 |
Also: No roadies? Are we really sorry that there are *no roadies* in the screenplay? Also: Freddie did coke. Lots of it. It's interesting. Also: Recording studio scenes are usually do not, like, make for great cinema. It's dark. People are arguing. There are exceptions. I could see maybe the BoRap sessions making it into the movie, but maybe that's because I have a visual memory of watching Brian and Roger in the BBC documentary. |
| Yara 05.06.2008 10:57 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Also: No roadies? Are we really sorry that there are *no roadies* in the screenplay? Also: Freddie did coke. Lots of it. It's interesting. Also: Recording studio scenes are usually do not, like, make for great cinema. It's dark. People are arguing. There are exceptions. I could see maybe the BoRap sessions making it into the movie, but maybe that's because I have a visual memory of watching Brian and Roger in the BBC documentary.Hi, Daniel! Do you think the "coke", or, let's put it in a broader sense, the "artist devastated by drugs" theme is still interesting after so many good movie about it? Charlie Parker, Ray Charles, Cole Porter, Edith Piaf (a killer, this last one, great movie), Jim Morrisson, just to mention a few who made it into the screen. Well, Amadaeus highlights a pretty derrailed Mozart, by the way! Great movie. Not much accurate, as you correctly pointed out, but a good movie all the same. I think the studio scenes in the movie about Ray Charles were stunning. And the actor was incredibly good. So, maybe there's a pontential there to be developed - a new kind of theme the movies could explore. Because the "drug theme", so to speak, has been over, and well, explored - either in the artistic realm or outside of it (I think about Requiem for a Dream, pretty recent movie, or many other about drug dealing, like American Gangster, just released, great, great movies, great actors). So, my worry: if that's going to be the gist! (Hahaha. Hey, MasterHistoryGirl!) of the movie, will the audience find it interesting? Well, maybe, I'm skeptical. I think it's a theme that has already been addresses many times in movies. Music, don't: especially music making. There's a potential there, a surface that the movie industry didn't even begin to tap. So, maybe it's worth trying! Giving the music a chance! What can be really interesting, and that's what I'd expect then, is the gay theme. That, yes, I think it's an interesting theme to be addressed: a promiscuous, drug-addicted gay artist who destroyed his life and harmed a lot of people who loved him in the process. There could be reflections, as you were arguing earlier, about whether he should have come out as gay or not. That I find interesting. But, really, I doubt, I very much doubt that it will be given a good approach. If the actor is going to be Johnny Depp, that helps, it's a great actor. Sex scenes would be nice - nothing very explicit, but, you know, conveying the point that there's such thing as a gay sexuality. Then, yes, interesting. But it depends on what it'll be done, for sure. |
| Daniel Nester 05.06.2008 12:06 |
I do think those studio scenes in the Ray movie were great. I would say they are an exception to the rule, however. I am listening to isolated Queen tracks that have been popping up on the internets, and I think maybe a studio scene could work. Sex scenes, sure -- I do think the movie would work to explore Freddie that way. And sex is interesting, no matter what happens to whom and where. I agree the drugged-out rock star has been done. But Freddie's brand of drugginess is uniquely Freddie. He never checked into rehab--that we know about!--he never ruined his life, the band didn't go kaput because of it. It's true decadence. So maybe if he explores that angle, it could work. I certainly don't want to see a montage of nose-snorting. Seen it a million times. I would like to see the others as more well-rounded characters. But as a writer myself, and one who's writing about colorful characters in my own life, you need to recognize who are the colorful characters in a story. In mine, in this particular thing I'm writing about--a family memoir--I totally recognize I am not "the star." It's other people. With Queen, even though I find everyone immensely interesting and great human beings, it's the story that's being served. And so Freddie, I think we can all agree, it by far the most colorful character in the Queen universe, and will be the main focus. I personally would not like to see, say, Jim Beach as a character. His job is to be in the background, and I think even he would admit to that. And John Deacon sort of personifies that archetype of background person in a band. Is he a genius? Sure. A great musician? Sure. But he, like, me, drives a Volvo. Not so sexy. One thing UnderPressure brought up that makes me cringe: Velvet Goldmine. Hated hated hated that movie. If it's like that, all arty and interior and fake, then I'm with you, UP! But let's give this one a chance. By that way: Can I get a copy? |
| steven 35638 05.06.2008 12:56 |
The only way to make a suitable, not to mention justifiable, film is to choose a dedicated film director who will study Freddie Mercury in as many different aspects as possible. For instance, he or she must look at several interviews (especially David Wigg's), watch documentaries, interview his closest of friends, and even go as far as to listen to his music with as much attention and consideration as possible. It is the only way I can thing of. Until such a film director is found this is a helpless cause. As for the music in the film, I would love to hear mostly orchestral versions of Queen songs. We all know they sound great that way and would make for a magnificent soundtrack, if there were one. |
| Daniel Nester 05.06.2008 13:12 |
Great points, Steven, about research. Even the most skeletal film script can be transformed by a performance--I Walk The Line comes to mind. Johnny Depp is notorious for doing research as well as method acting his way into role. I wish someone like Tim Burton, Depp's frequent collaborator, would direct it, actually... |
| Under Pressure 05.06.2008 13:52 |
Whoa, lots of replies. First of all: What sets Freddie apart from some of these others, like Edith, isn't just that he's gay. Focusing on the fact that he's gay totally undermines the fact that he's one of the greatest songwriters of the past century. And that's the problem with the screenplay -- it's literally one gay sex scene after another, until he gets AIDS. As to Dan, it may be a first draft, but structurally it's nothing. There are no major plot points in the film, everything Queen achieved historically is forgotten in favor of more drugs and sex. I'd say drugs and sex make up about 70% of this script. And while it's true that Freddie was, to some degree, unsafe and that's how he got AIDS, it's unfair to say that "this is what happens when you're a gay sex fiend" which I think is the message I've seen. And in terms of roadies, again, I'm not looking for everyone and his mother to be in this script, far from it -- but what I am looking for is some human interaction between Freddie and other people who he's not fucking. He was a sensitive guy, a caring guy, a generous guy -- none of that is shown. As well, there are NO other characters "developed" other than Freddie, and he's not at all, considering we only see him as a diva brat -- all he does is do drugs, sex, shopping for clothes. On occasion we flash to him rehearsing for Live Aid, but the dialogue is like: (rehearsing Ga Ga) He stops again ROGER What's wrong this time? FREDDIE No soul. Girls playing jacks sing like this. ROGER How about we go on to "Hammer?" FREDDIE No. "Ga-Ga" still sounds like crap. Clearly Roger, Brian, and John are becoming exhausted. BRIAN This isn't like you, Freddie. JOHN It's just-- Freddie finishes the phrase along with him. Clearly this has been said before. JOHN AND FREDDIE (IN UNISON) --a benefit. ROGER There's more than a dozen other bands. -----and it goes on and on----- But it's SO BLAND, no personality to anyone. These are people who have known each other since they were vulnerable kids. They're rehearsing for something HUGE, that they ALL cared about. They're rehearsing with their FRIENDS from other bands ... I mean the author clearly has no interest or knowledge of the rock scene whatsoever. Also, for comparison, let me reiterate that this script is almost exactly like Velvet Goldmine, sans Kane-ian framing device. There are glitter kids chasing Freddie down the street, writing on his walls, and camping out in front of Garden Lodge even in 1985, wearing boas. |
| Daniel Nester 05.06.2008 13:57 |
Why would focusing on his gayness undermine his status as a great songwriter? Is gayness some sort of force field or krytonite that repels people from focusing on songwriting talents? |
| Daniel Nester 05.06.2008 14:04 |
Some examples of gay musicians, many of them songwriters: link Some of my favorites are on that list. I might or might not know they're gay, but it's not distracting. Or undermining. What we're talking about is homophobia, by the way. Which is a shame because we're, like, Queen fans. |
| Under Pressure 05.06.2008 14:09 |
Well first of all, I mean that the gay aspect of the story FAR outweighs the musical aspects -- to the point that changing his profession would have little bearing on the script. The reason that it undermines his music to focus on the fact that he was gay is that nobody wants to be "known" for being gay, a woman, black, white, or anything like that that's part of them and they can't change. Hillary Clinton doesn't want to be known as "that chick who ran for President" ... she wants to be known as a great politician. Obama likewise doesn't want to be "that black guy," but a strong leader. Freddie surely wouldn't want to be known as "that gay singer." That makes it seem as if his career, his fame had nothing to do with talent, and everything to do with his promiscuity, which is not true. Just like people could say Obama only got the nomination because he's black, which isn't true -- it's because he's a talented speech writer and he ran a good campaign. Saying "oh, he just got it because he's black" UNDERMINES his talents. They want to be known for what they accomplish during their life, what they strove for. Sure, relationships are important to anyone's life, but for someone who's such an incredible creator, with drive and passion and talent like no other, it would be a WASTE to focus merely on sex. Would you make a film about any of the Beatles and focus on the girls they were banging? No. Picasso? No. Bunuel? No. Any great artist? No -- because from an audience perspective, that's of little interest. Amadeus I would say has a fantastic balance. His relationship was crystal clear, but we were still able to get inside his head, and Salieri's head. There were a lot of players too in that film, and all of them felt well rounded and even if we didn't see a lot of them, we understood their characters right away. |
| Daniel Nester 05.06.2008 14:09 |
That scene doesn't read as fantastic. And that idea that Cunningham isn't interested in the rock scene is problematic. I'm with you there. But gay is going to be a theme. Gay gay gay. Guys with penises kissing other guys with other penises. Guys with penises performing acts on other guys' penises. That's what gay is. And whether we like it or not, gay is hip these days. Or something. Brokeback Mountain, etc. UP, all you gotta do is say it's like Velvet Goldmine, and I'm outta here. It's funny: A lot of times, people employ gay writers (like Paul Rudnick in the lesbian bar scene in the First Wives Club) to "punch up" the dialogue and realism in gay-themed scenes. Maybe Cunningham et al will have to hire a straight male rocker to "punch up" the rock scenes in Somebody to Love. We could all offer our services... |
| Daniel Nester 05.06.2008 14:14 |
Actually, one of the best movies about the Beatles (IMHO), Backbeat, focuses on John Lennon's purported bisexual relationship with Stu Sutcliffe in the early days in Germany. |
| Daniel Nester 05.06.2008 14:17 |
Want to be known is a bit iffy to me. Are you saying this movie could spread the awful, distracting and undermining news that Freddie Mercury was gay? Sure people will focus on that if a movie about his life comes to happen, but there is no way that it would overshadow the music, the songs, the band. At least not for me. Will football fans stop singing along to WWRY/WATC after the movie comes out? I don't think so. The bottom line is that people have gotten past these distinctions, and the people who haven't will stay at home anyway. |
| Under Pressure 05.06.2008 14:17 |
I'm really not quite clear on why you think I'm referring to "undermine" as if people don't know he's gay, or will be offended. I'm quite literally saying is that there is more real estate dedicated to gay sex in this screenplay than there is to music, which is stupid when writing about a musician. Besides, everyone in the world knows he's gay. I'm not saying the fact that he's gay will overshadow the film. I'm say that this movie is not about Freddie Mercury: Singer, it's about Freddie Mercury: Gay Man. And I strongly feel that focusing on Freddie's sexual past is exploitative for exactly the reason you stated -- it's quite hip right now. And I'm even someone who liked VG. What disturbs me is that in this script, I have no idea of Freddie's passions in life, no idea of his dreams, his wants, what he gets really excited about, why he loves music, how he writes music, and ESPECIALLY how he connects that music to an audience. I mean, for all the scenes with Mary/"Christine" in this script, she's placed as the bad guy who won't let go. So we don't get Love of My Life, one of his deeply personal songs. We don't get Show Must Go On, Days of our Lives ... songs that have a real emotional punch. All of this is thrown out the window in favor of one debauched party after another. I don't have a problem making this story non-linear, I don't even have a problem doing what was originally intended, a week-in-the-life-of. I mean, right now the second to last scene is him in '90, while Jim and Mary spat and she has her toddler there to spite them. How much more emotional would it be to see, say, the filming of the TATDOOL video, with the other band members and crew getting all emotional? Even as a non Queen fan, one clearly trumps the other. |
| Daniel Nester 05.06.2008 14:29 |
There's no Show Must Go On? No vodka-swigging in Switzerland? Of course you're not homophobic. I do think worrying about a homosexual theme being played up, as opposed others, is a little iffy--if it's hip, it's hip. Queen never worried about such things, which is why they aren't, like, Frankie Goes to Hollywood. |
| Under Pressure 05.06.2008 14:31 |
Just to be clear, I'm not talking thematically. I'm talking that in the first 50 pages of the script, 5 of those pages are about the fact that he's a singer, and 45 are about him having random gay sex with strangers. |
| YourValentine 05.06.2008 15:08 |
I think it should be about Freddie, the gay musician, no? I mean: his sexuality was as much a part of his personality as his gender, family background and other features. Surely, he would have been another person had he been straight and probably he would have written other music being that other person. Therefore, it should be a topic of the movie that he was gay but it should not be tabloid-type, kiss-and-tell-type seady stuff. He was gay and enjoyed it, period. Years ago I saw the movie "The Doors" with Val Kilmer. Drugs played a big part in that movie but it was not to portray Jim Morrison as a useless junkie, he was shown as a person burning the candle at both ends and someone who was living on the edge and had "tragedy" written all over his life. I remember a drug scene which ended up in the song "The End" and it was obvious how drug induced hallucinations influenced the song writing and music of Jim Morrison. The movie respected the artist and did not denounce him. A life is not a stereotype, it has many aspects. |
| Under Pressure 05.06.2008 15:17 |
YourValentine wrote: Years ago I saw the movie "The Doors" with Val Kilmer. Drugs played a big part in that movie but it was not to portray Jim Morrison as a useless junkie, he was shown as a person burning the candle at both ends and someone who was living on the edge and had "tragedy" written all over his life. I remember a drug scene which ended up in the song "The End" and it was obvious how drug induced hallucinations influenced the song writing and music of Jim Morrison. The movie respected the artist and did not denounce him. A life is not a stereotype, it has many aspects.That's exactly what this film should be ... but instead it shows him as nothing more than a big slut :) |
| jackunion 05.06.2008 16:03 |
How gullible are you people!!!! You'd believe anything! So someone tell me how the hell this guy has got his hands on this film script. Oh, I know, he has a contact of some sort. Of course. What a load of complete bollocks! |
| Yara 05.06.2008 16:07 |
I think everyone has a point here. :-) He was not gay and enjoyed, period. He was gay, very promiscuous and hedonist, and enjoyed, period. That, yes, I think Queen fans don't want to see on screen, but it's true. It's up to the spectator to judge - because human beings do judge. Directors may try to avoid it, and I think it's the best approach, but the viewer inevitably judges the character, the movie and the real person the movie tries to portray. It's actually how he defined himself. The guy was very serious in the interview he says he likes buying things, being kind of isolated and that he wanted to be buried with all his stuff, without giving a penny away. He says himself - interview from 1987, end of his career! - that he had been, until he found Jim Hutton, very, very irresponsible with regards to his sexual behavior. So, if it shows that he liked to...make sex a lot and go shopping, well, it's true, isn't it? He didn't like to read books, for instance. He couldn't stand being quite. So, go shopping! Make sex! The guy has to do something. lol Life of celebrities do sometimes resemble stereothypes because they more or less fall into it. ------ On the other hand... I'm sure if the director did some research, he'd find out some good drama to be explored, like Freddie being actually very shy, very sensitive, a bit insecure even with regard to other aspects of his life. That's what happens if we exclude the music. Because the music portrays him and his life much better than the other way around: and it's a much more sophisticated, beautiful and intelligent way to approach the character of a musician, I think. If by reading Mozart's biographies I could understand why Mozart was Mozart, it'd be great; but the sad thing is that music talent and music in general is a bit hard to rationalize and to justify in biographical terms - knowing about Liszt's life, all of it, doesn't help me a bit understading his music. A bit. Like, it shouldn't even figure in a paper about his music, except as a curiosity or a reference (this piece was dedicated to...-> which says nothing about the piece itself). My problem is not the "gay" adjective. It's the total lack of interest in the "musician" adjective. But that's the times we're living in. And in the times we're living in, THE ONLY possible movie about Freddie which can be done is about the "gay Freddie Mercury, who happened to be a talented musician". And then, yes, the movie will try to explain how being gay and so on influenced his music - music being the less interesting part. These are the times, and I'm pretty much ok with it, I don't get angry because I think differently. It's the way things are. |
| thunderbolt 31742 05.06.2008 16:13 |
Under Pressure wrote: (rehearsing Ga Ga) He stops again ROGER What's wrong this time? FREDDIE No soul. Girls playing jacks sing like this. ROGER How about we go on to "Hammer?" FREDDIE No. "Ga-Ga" still sounds like crap. Clearly Roger, Brian, and John are becoming exhausted. BRIAN This isn't like you, Freddie. JOHN It's just-- Freddie finishes the phrase along with him. Clearly this has been said before. JOHN AND FREDDIE (IN UNISON) --a benefit. ROGER There's more than a dozen other bands. -----and it goes on and on-----That reads like dialogue written by a high school drama student. I should know; I was one, and I wrote dialogue about on par with that. Frankly, UP, I hope you're full of it and that's not the script. That said, I sincerely doubt that's the case, and I hope this movie, in its current form, is never made. I'd like to see what Robert Mandel could do with it. He did a nice job with Def Leppard in the VH1 biopic of them. Goes without saying that I'd love to see James Anderson (I believe that's his name; the guy who directed Walk the Line) take a stab at it as well. |
| Micrówave 05.06.2008 16:40 |
Ok, wait a minute. Freddie was gay? |
| Daniel Nester 05.06.2008 18:39 |
There was a biopic of Def Leppard? Awesome. Love to see it. |
| Under Pressure 05.06.2008 20:41 |
Yeah, it doesn't surprise me that some people think this is bollocks but on the other hand there are probably some long-timers (like YV) who remember me from back in the day and can vouch that I'm not full of shit. :) Actually taking a look at Cunningham's project, he's apparently working on a Dusty Springfield biopic, and considering how odd it would be for him to be working on two projects about British singers from the same time period, chances are his script for Freddie was shitcanned. Which is good. Although some how it got on the script Black List for '07 ... though with only 2 votes. |
| Under Pressure 05.06.2008 20:43 |
ThunderboltYeah, I agree. Back when I was in 10th grade I wrote a story about Roger locking himself in the closet for my English final, and even that was better than this. It's like cookie cutter bullshit, and what's ridiculous is even from a few interviews it's very clear how different Brian, Roger, and John are, personality wise. |
| YourValentine 05.06.2008 21:16 |
@ jackunion: don't worry, UP is for real - and a woman, btw, not a guy. @ Yara: I don't think that Queen fans have any problem with Freddie's lifestyle - or his drug use. I think, however, that Queen fans do not want a cheap tabloid-like movie that exclusivley deals with his lifestyle. It would be boring, too. Who wants to watch a movie about a series of one-night stands when Freddie Mercury's life was obviously so much more interesting. I don't plead for 100% historical accuracy, either - I plead for an honest quality film, that's all. I did enjoy Amadeus although I know that Salieri was not the person who ordered the Requiem and he was not the person who worked on it after Mozart's death. It was a good story, although it's probably not advisable to make up such stories about Queen considering that three members are still alive. |
| Yara 05.06.2008 21:33 |
@YourValentine, that's my point. I wouldn't like to see such a movie either - I'd find it boring, even though I know that a big part of Freddie's life was about party, sex and drugs. He was not, well, reading books, taking part in academic seminars, writing reflections about other countries or the places he knew, and stuf...he was pretty much about having fun, he said so, anyway. So, I agree with you, absolutely. There are also interesting things about Freddie life which would make for a good drama: his friendships, his own inner demons, his taste for other kinds of things besides sex and parties. But, in the end, and I obviously talk only about myself and my taste here, very subjective, I know I'll find it boring if music doesn't factor in the movie as a very important part, not as an acessory to an interesting gay personality and artist, you see? Is there potential for a good movie? In my humble opinion, yes, when his legacy gets more respected over time - his talent is quite underrated as compared to other artists, besides the huge Queen fan base. If the movie is about a gay personality, an interesting one, who happened to do music and was a good performer overall, well, I find it sad. Any movie about him, in my humble opinion, should be a witness to his musical genius, just like other movies about other musicians (some, in my opinion, less talented than Freddie). I agree with you, in fact. It's just that, as it was described, the movie would have absolutely zero appeal to me as a movie-goer - I'm not even talking as a Queen fan. Down in the dungeons just my poor taste and me. ;-))) Take care, Hugs* |
| Charlie Brown 06.06.2008 01:01 |
If our friend UP is correct about the screenplay, than all Michael Cunningham has been able to produce so far is a below average tv movie of the week script.Your run of the mill soap opera writer could have written the same thing if not something better. I hope it is just a rough first draft or even a fake that is just to throw the hounds off the scent of the real script. Hollywood is very gaycentric, so what UP has told us should probably not be a surprise. For our friend Thunderbolt, Walk The Line was directed by James Mangold. He has directed such films as Heavy, Copland and Girl, Interrupted. |
| paulosham 06.06.2008 09:58 |
Under Pressure wrote: I'm hesitant to send it around because it was sent to me in confidence, but a little piece of me wants to send it around because if everyone knows how shitty it is, it won't get made. Let me think about it. I may post a few pages up, but not the whole thing. *also I realize it's copywritten, and since it's unproduced, I could get in trouble if I post a lot of it.If this was sent to you in confidence then I wouldn't ever tell you a secret. I think that you are telling fibs. |
| Donna13 06.06.2008 10:14 |
paulsmith2001 wrote:I think you are just trying to get her to post more of the script. Haha. Very good.Under Pressure wrote: I'm hesitant to send it around because it was sent to me in confidence, but a little piece of me wants to send it around because if everyone knows how shitty it is, it won't get made. Let me think about it. I may post a few pages up, but not the whole thing. *also I realize it's copywritten, and since it's unproduced, I could get in trouble if I post a lot of it.If this was sent to you in confidence then I wouldn't ever tell you a secret. I think that you are telling fibs. Edit: Oh, no! I've ruined it now. I don't think her feelings about the script (too much emphasis on Freddie's gay life?) would be violating any copyright, but I'm not sure. But posting actual pages and lines and the plot from the script might be a problem. And as someone said before, it is probably a work in progress. Also, it might be so off-base that nobody is interested in it. Why wouldn't they hire a script writer that is an actual Queen fan? That would be better I think. Oh, well. I would vote for a documentary, rather than a biopic with made up lines and scenes and an actor playing Freddie. |
| jackunion 06.06.2008 14:03 |
@ yara - I accept that you've obviously had more correspondence with UP than I ever had so are making your judgement based on that, it's just that I find it incredibly hard to believe that she has managed to get her hands on this script. @ Under Pressure - Maybe I dismissed what you said too harshly there, so apologies if I sounded rude. Can I just ask how you got hold of the script - I'm not expecting you to give exact details and names or anything, but just a hint. And if that is part of the true script then I am sick to the very bone, i tell ya! What a complete lost opportunity. |
| Daniel Nester 06.06.2008 14:13 |
Still think a first or early draft of the script doesn't have much bearing on what the final product would or could be. I have to admit: putting up dialogue from an unproduced movie script is, legally speaking, not so cool. It's a violation of copyright. Getting a fan of a subject or person to do a movie on that subject or person is not necessarily the best way to go. There's lots of examples on both sides, too many to list here. What has me excited about this project is that it's Michael Cunningham who is involved. Like many working screenwriters, he probably did the first draft to get the development thing going, to drum up a little buzz, and to show prospective actors who might be cast. I am sure, if this is a viable project, that there are all sorts of meetings going on about the script as we speak--and UP, who I think is "in the business," as they say, should know all this more than most of us. A first draft xeroxed from a friend's production office is hardly reflective of the final project. |
| Yara 06.06.2008 14:40 |
@jackunion: I don't know UP and UP doesn't know me and is very likely not interested at all in doing so. ;-)) Actually, I find of no importance to what I'm trying to discuss whether the script is the real one or not. I'm talking about something different: what a movie about Freddie could possibly be in the days we're living in. I find it hard that it'll be a witness to his genius, as many other movies about artists. I find it hard because I do think he's still largely underestimated as a singer and musician, mainly because Queen was/is a rock band. In terms of technique, and I've gone through many of the recordings of his live concerts, he's a genius and he ranks up there with the very finest popular singers of the last century. Much above than Ella Fitzgerald in terms of technique and musical intelligence, for instance. If I start making this point NOW, people get outraged. Why? Because he's still not regarded as the genius he actually was. Whether he's going to be or not, well, I don't know: he was a great composer, musician and singer. Time will tell. But if the movie, as it's very likely when it comes to a biopic about a controversial personality as Freddie, doesn't feature his music and his musical genius as the main factor, I know I'll find it boring - it won't have any appeal TO ME. Hahaha. It's just my taste, my silly insignificant opinion. Other people may love it. And, yes, the script, as it was described, is very unappealing. I say that as movie-goer, not as a Queen-fan: it'd be a movie that would bore me to tears. So, that's it, that's my point: music. By the way, a real challenge to cinema nowadays - in the past we had great musical productions, but nowadays not so much. Maybe those times are gone forever; maybe they can reinvent or recreate that kind of thing. It'd be beautiful. And impossible. That's the point. :-)) Take care. ;-) |
| Under Pressure 06.06.2008 15:19 |
Aw, I'm happy to get to know everyone on the board ... I used to spend too much free time here, back when I had such to spend. As Dan pointed out, I am indeed a working screenwriter, and thus "in the business." It's fairly easy to get a hold of scripts so long as you know the right people (also I have a damn good manager). As I mentioned earlier, this script was on last year's Black List, which is a list of the supposed best spec (not written for hire) screenplays circulating that year, as voted upon by certain industry professionals. It came in towards the very bottom of the list, but the fact that it was on there assured me that a) it's not a first draft and b) enough people had probably seen it for me to be able to get a copy. It is iffy for me to even post that much text up, but I think one could claim fair use for half a page for illustrative purposes. |
| Daniel Nester 06.06.2008 16:06 |
Let me have your agent, UP! Yeah, I think you're covered by fair use. I give Michael Cunningham benefit of the doubt, however, and have a wait-and-see approach. I will say I am happy that people outside the Queen circle are trying to tell the story of FM and Queen. The world does not need another DoRo documentary with the same montages. |
| Daniel Nester 06.06.2008 16:12 |
I think you're covered by fair use as well--I do think someone in the business would know as well as anyone that a small snatch of dialogue like that would not represent a film, nor is even a screenplay going to reflect the final product. Add Johnny Depp and a great director and a great cast, and the movie would do just fine. My guess is that the producers have gotten from Cunningham just what they want--structure. And it's a Cunningham-like structure--like UP says, it's very Citizen Kane-like. Very cool conversation on this thread -- I am excited about a Queen /Freddie Mercury film. And I think, if someone like Depp or Sascha Baron Cohen plays him to the hilt, it will only prove to the world that Freddie is on par with an Ella Fitzgerald or Sinatra, as Yara points out. Yara, I think the time is right to bring up such things, especially with a resurged interest in rock music's arena age. It also proves to me there's some very interesting people on this board -- Yara is a musician (yes), I'm a writer, and UP a filmmaker. God knows what everybody else does. There's definitely a few criminals :)! |
| Adam Baboolal 06.06.2008 18:02 |
I'm interested in a Freddie film, but by the sound of this script, not this one! I hope it gets fleshed out properly as some have already said, i.e. Freddie's working within Queen and outside Queen, his relationship to those inside the band, his worries, his fun side (which we've all read about in biogs) and anything else related to ol' Fred! And it's a shame that this script focuses on his indiscretions more than his music talents. Adam. |
| Dusta 07.06.2008 01:36 |
Yes, I agree, and, as far as directors, I also think Paul Thomas Anderson may do a fair job at this sort of film. I can't say why, really...just a feeling.
And, I saw an interview with the director of the current project, and, it sounds as if he is pretty much sticking to his orignal plan, which is really disappointing, for me.
There are three things, in my opinion, which made Freddie interesting enough for a film: His music, and, where it may, or, may not, have come from, the contrast between his private and public persona, and, his heritage, and fascination and love for England(it gives him a sort of vulnerability). It seems that none of these characteristics is explored.
Daniel Nester wrote: Great points, Steven, about research. Even the most skeletal film script can be transformed by a performance--I Walk The Line comes to mind. Johnny Depp is notorious for doing research as well as method acting his way into role. I wish someone like Tim Burton, Depp's frequent collaborator, would direct it, actually... |
| Adam Baboolal 07.06.2008 07:00 |
Very good point Dusta. I think those things should also be explored as it's the most interesting. Adam. |
| john bodega 07.06.2008 08:20 |
YourValentine wrote: It was a good story, although it's probably not advisable to make up such stories about Queen considering that three members are still alive.2*. |
| The Real Wizard 09.06.2008 11:30 |
Under Pressure wrote: It's 1985 and he's still in a romantic relationship with Mary Austin (name changed for whatever reason) and she's jealous of Jim Hutton.Sounds like the writer consulted Jim for the "history" lesson. Either way, it's unfortunate that this film may actually go somewhere. The interest in Freddie as a homosexual (however ill-informed certain details are) is just as great as (or perhaps even greater than) the interest in him as a musician, so there's plenty of money to be made from a project like this. In the world of movies, being a brilliant writer/singer/frontman doesn't make money. Stuff like this does, and if it comes to frution, it will only add to the public idea that Freddie was little more than a raging homosexual who wrote a few good songs. |
| Daniel Nester 09.06.2008 11:52 |
Un-fucking unbelievable. Freddie was a raging homosexual. Don't you guys get it? He was a raging homosexual *and* a great musician. Why is this idea that Freddie was a raging, practicing, homosexual so distracting, so undermining, so very much beneath his legacy? It *is* his legacy. It's not a different aspect, or a distraction, or something that distracts from the music. It *is* the fucking music. Get over it. Freddie loved men. Men men men. It's what he was. He didn't need to say he was gay. He personified gayness. The band's name is Queen. Do you all get it or not get it? I grew up denying all this. I grew up saying to my fellow eavy metal fans in New Jersey, "they call themselves Queen because they're British. It's not because any of them are fags." I grew up thinking this was a problem. But you know what? I got smarter. I met gay people. I am friends with gay people. This doesn't "distract" or "undermine" my relationships with them. Nor is it something I ignore with these people. Like all of our qualities we see in each other, someone's homosexuality, the people they love, it's part of their personhood. The idea that someone would be a Queen fan and look to other people or themselves as looking at Freddie's story as being "too gay" or focusing on his love life as undermining of his musical legacy is not only laughable. It's hypocritical and pretty fucking naive. I know, there's gonna be someone saying "geez, if he were straight, I'd say the same thing." Bullshit. What a bunch of fucking bullshit. I have never bought that on the Queen boards. And I believe it comes from a minority of Queen fans. It's time to grow up and face the music. Freddie was gay. He dressed like a Chelsea boy, he had a cock-duster mustache, and he wore white leather shorts. He loved men, he loved love. That, to me now--and I speak as a straight man with a wife and daughter--is part of his appeal. He's completely different than me, and I wouldn't want it any other way. He's Freddie. |
| john bodega 09.06.2008 12:09 |
I don't see it as any different to if this was a film about Errol Flynn and 78% of the film turned out to be him shoving his love-sausage into different girls. Redundant sex scenes are redundant sex scenes. I don't buy Queen DVDs or listen to their music because I give a shit about where Freddie was stuffing his cock. What next? Freddie was a regular user of the toilet, 'it was who he was!', and so the film should be him taking a crap every five minutes? A good movie is an eloquent movie. The fact that he has a big gay moustache should spell out his sexuality well enough, and the movie can get on with the business of not being so shitty. Either way, it actually doesn't bother me. The film will probably suck. |
| john bodega 09.06.2008 12:16 |
I hate the edit button, so I'll get this out as well. To be fair; quantity of sex scenes isn't in itself a problem. If they're well filmed, or have some kind of artistic merit, then that's a different kettle of fish altogether. Judging purely by what I've read in this thread, it sounds like it's well on the way to becoming a flaming turd of a movie. Uwe Boll standards. |
| Daniel Nester 09.06.2008 12:19 |
*** Wow, Zebonka, I've read a lot of strained, homophobic logic, but comparing homosexuality to taking a dump, that's probably a new one. Well done. You stay classy, Perth. *** People make movies about people's sex/love lives all the time. People enjoy them. It deepens their understanding of the artist. Here's a question: Has there ever been a band--or any artist, for that matter--where the super-fans of an artist are less politically and socially progressive or accepting than the general public who enjoys that same artist? Are there, like, Tina Turner fans who complain about her movie biopic as being "too much of a beaten wife movie" or Ritche Valens fans who complain about him being portrayed as "too much of a Mexican"? I would think those fans--or at least some of them--might see those portrayals as deepening our understanding of their genius. Maybe Queen fans are unsure of Freddie being a genius. Me? I don't have that problem. I would like the world to know about his life as well. |
| john bodega 09.06.2008 12:26 |
Under Pressure wrote: And that's the problem with the screenplay -- it's literally one gay sex scene after another, until he gets AIDS.Well... to be fair, isn't that what happened in real life? Daniel Nester wrote: Actually, one of the best movies about the Beatles (IMHO), Backbeat, focuses on John Lennon's purported bisexual relationship with Stu Sutcliffe in the early days in Germany.I watched that film last night, good flick. There wasn't really anything bisexual going on there though. Astrid theorises that they 'love' each other, which Lennon incorrectly assumes to mean she thinks he's a 'queer'. On that subject, I've no doubt Lennon was a bit bisexual. The movie did show him up to be very insecure, of course, but didn't go a lot further than that. |
| YourValentine 09.06.2008 12:28 |
Why is it so easy to misunderstand each other? I know Freddie was gay. I say: him being gay was determinative (is that a word?) for his character and personality. If he had not been gay he would not have been Freddie Mercury, he would not have written Bohemian Rhapsody. I want a movie which makes that connection. I want a movie that shows us Freddie the gay song writer and musician. I don't mind sex scenes - on the contrary, I want to bring the fact home that Freddie was a gay man. However, I would not want ONLY gay scenes because then I could just as well watch a movie about my gay neighbour. And although my neighbour is a nice guy, he is not biopic material only because he is gay. The problem with us Queen fans is that we all have created a picture of Freddie in our minds. We know all his songs, saw the documentaries, read the books, the interviews, anything. Probably we have the biggest problem to keep an open mind for a movie in which we may be shown a picture that is different from our own idea about who Freddie was. |
| pittrek 09.06.2008 12:34 |
Well I agree with that. I think it's OK to show that Freddie was gay (or a bisexual prefering men, depending on the terminology) since it's a very important part of his personality, but I personally don't want it to turn into a gay porn movie. Freddie was a typical "sex & drugs & rock'n'roll " rocker, at least his public side, so of course you have to show these parts |
| john bodega 09.06.2008 12:36 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Wow, Zebonka, I've read a lot of strained, homophobic logic, but comparing homosexuality to taking a dump, that's probably a new one. Well done. You stay classy, Perth.You go right ahead and founder in that puddle of illogic there, dude. Sex and taking a dump. What have they got in common? We don't usually do it in public. Jesus. It's not a moral statement. You've got delusions that you're on some kind of high-ground here, that you've 'seen the light' and are in some kind of position to inform people about the gay experience. Sing to someone else, brother, I know enough gay people that I hardly feel the need to have it all spelled out to me (in amateur fashion) by you. You're imagining that people are sitting here, freaked out by gay behaviour in film, or something. Well I cannot speak for the others in the thread, but me!? Jesus Christ!!! I only grew up watching Rocky Horror fucking Picture Show! I think you've really got the wrong end of the wrong stick. I don't see gay sex as anything different to normal sex. I don't see friendship and love and all of that having anything to do with gender. Not that I want you to stop jumping to conclusions here, because it's awfully amusing! But your little tirades in this thread ought to be aimed at 12 year olds in Texas, or something. People with little/no awareness on the topic. Stay crazy, Albany! |
| john bodega 09.06.2008 12:47 |
Daniel Nester wrote: I know, there's gonna be someone saying "geez, if he were straight, I'd say the same thing." Bullshit.Hahaha. This bit is priceless. I'll use Errol Flynn as an example again, because he had a problem keeping his little dragon locked up. Just like our man Freddie. Have you ever read the David Niven book, "Bring on the Empty Horses" ? My absolute favourite chapter in that book is the one on Errol Flynn. It paints one hell of a vivid picture of the guy. It's very colourful, and very human. And while the amount of sex he got up to is alluded to here and there, it's not really thrown in your face as such; only one bit could remotely qualify as a 'sex scene', and if it were in a movie - you probably wouldn't see much because the focus is on the prank being pulled at the time. Errol Flynn having lots of straight sex is no doubt an important part of his life, if you were to make a movie about him. Right there, is a bit of writing where they manage to deal with that facet of him as well as being intelligent enough to do it in the right proportion, and deal with other (equally interesting) character traits. It is *no fucking difference* whether he was gay, straight, bi or a necrophiliac, though to be reasonable that part of his life must be dealt with on screen if you're to represent him as he was (or 'seemed' to be, to most of us). The only gripe I could possibly have is that they spend too much time on something we already know. That's bad filmmaking, and I've studied film enough in my short life to know about that! One last example; the original Star Wars film. They have to illustrate a Rebellion against a big, nasty Empire. Best way to do it? Tiny ship running from big ship. Can it get any more eloquent than that? I'd like any film dealing with my favourite singer to be clever enough that it doesn't have to repeat itself with shit I already know. |
| pittrek 09.06.2008 14:06 |
Are you THAT Zebonka who used to post on originaltrilogy.com ? |
| Yara 09.06.2008 14:21 |
I have problems. I'm a person. A real person. And, this problem aside, I'm also a musician, which makes me a disturbing and boring human being: because the dedicated musician is the new "black" of the world. I bet gay people aren't treated as garbage in the U.S - in Brazil certainly don't - as musicians are. So, I'm the new black. It makes me a difficult person. I want coherence. Daniel Naster spent days arguing that Queen's, not Freddie's, greatest mistake was not coming out as gay. He said so quite emphatically. Now, he writes: "Freddie loved men. Men men men. It's what he was. He didn't need to say he was gay. He personified gayness." Oh! Really? He didn't need? So, if he didn't need to, and people knew he was gay, and he personified gayness, what's the point of...coming out as gay? If you personify gayness? You have already come out as gay! No, but that's not the problem. Amadeus was a good movie. It showed all trials of Mozart's life; Bird was a good movie, it showed all trials of Charlie Parker's life; both movies have one thing in common: they are a witness to the musical genius of both artists. Why? Because artists' lives are a matter of curiosity, for sure, but they are hardly useful when it comes to explain their work. And why? Because, as a human being, he's just a guy/woman, with his/her personality; as a musician, he's universal: the art form is universal and transcends the artists' own personality. Bob Dylan life was boring. Ok. The chronicles are boring. So boring that, when Scorcese wanted to make a DOCUMENTARY about the guy, he was caught by the...music: it's all music, all around, little about Dylan's life. Now, let's talk GAY. Cole Porter was gay. He liked men men men men. There's an excellent movie about him: it shows that he was gay. But it is primarily a WITNESS TO HIS MUSICAL GENIUS. His songs are universal. They transcend his personality. And, if you fail to show that, you're just showing...the life of a ordinary human being. There were a lot of gays like Freddie. What makes Freddie different is the music, is not the "gay" part: it's what makes him universal, what makes his music appeal to all kinds of people. There were tons of gay artists. There are. Because there's a misconception in the whole debate: that an artist life explains his work. It's trash. This argument doesn't stand any criticism. One can grasp Mozart's genius, or Cole Porter's, without knowing A THING about their lives: their work transcend their lives. "Oh, but I wanted to make the connection between gay and Bohemian Rhapsody". Sorry, you'll fail. Philosophers have tried that thousands of times: linking artists' life to their works. It's hard. It's sometimes impossible. Musical genius is pretty much a mistery, is not something you can easily rationalize in terms of biographical events and experiences. So, we know there must be a connection in some point, but the result, which is the music, transcends the connection which takes place in the artist's life. I love We Are The Champions. I'm not gay. Millions of people do, and relate that to all kinds of things, because the art form is univeral. So, NO NO NO NO NO NO NO (like in Bohemian - no counterpoint there lol). If you tell me that gayness was his music, Daniel, sorry, It's beyond my ability of having a debate. It's saying that the particular is the universal. I find it nonsensical. There's no such thing as: "Gay -> Bohemian Rhapsody". There's a missing element in between both factors of this equation: what we call an ART FORM. And it makes things far more complicated. The connection, as it is, is so loose that it hardly has any intellectual value or emotional value. Johnny Depp is cute. I'd love to see the guy naked. I have no problem with gay scenes. In fact, I expect them: it's about time for people to realize that there's such a thing as a gay sexuality. That being said, it's perfec |
| Daniel Nester 09.06.2008 14:32 |
Hey Zebonka, I'm not your shrink. I'm just pointing out that you equated pooping with gay sex. You'll have to seek out professional help to figure out the rest. You know, the AIDS jokes and all that. You stay classy, spoiled college kid in Australia who watched Rocky Horror to invoke street cred. |
| Daniel Nester 09.06.2008 14:42 |
Yara, what you're describing is the intentional fallacy and the biographical fallacy. That a person's life can explain a particular work. But a person's life, or telling someone's life as a story, might help us understand the work, the artist, or even both. There's a valid debate on both sides. If you factor in the life of Freddie as a gay man, however, that's when the wackos come out. AIDS jokes. Fisting jokes. Do lifelong James Brown fans make black jokes on JamesBrownzone.com (made up name)? You've been fairly clear that *anyone's* life or biography would not be relevant to you in understanding anyone's work or artistry. That's one view, and it does works up to a point. As does the other view, which states that to understand the artist, to understand the life and background of a person, will help us understand the work. But again, if someone factors in the issues we're debating here--i.e., the gay factor--you've got fans--arguably the most devoted--who are pointedly against hearing about the love life of the artist they love. I find it quite bizarre, really, and the fact that some are either vociferously against a gay portrayal of any kind even moreso. I am not, in real life, Mr. Soapbox Politically Correct. I am not an activist. So it surprises me that I am reacting this way. Up to a point. When you have complete idiots making AIDS jokes and gay cracks, there's a certain line that has to be drawn. |
| Daniel Nester 09.06.2008 14:49 |
We've moved from poopy humor to necrophilia on the Zebonka front. Stay classy. "I'd like any film dealing with my favourite singer to be clever enough that it doesn't have to repeat itself with shit I already know." --Well, Zebonka, if you are half the fan you probably are, you probably know everything there is to know. So what would you do with the movie? We're talking about *how* a movie about Freddie would be made, and what in the story would be told. I'd guess all of us in this thread know down the finest minutia about his life. What we're debating here is what would be excluded and included. So if you want to learn something new about Freddie from the movie, I suggest you hit the FAQ boards and buy a few books, maybe a Wiki page or three. That's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is what is going to be included or excluded. And Mr. Z, you seem to want something a little less sex, a little more music. Do you think that the world needs to hear the songs more again? Another version of We Are The Champions with Johnny Depp on lead vocals? Maybe. But I think if we want a story about Freddie to be told, we need to hear about his life. And guess what? It's gonna be a whole lotta gay love, son. A whole lotta gay love. And it ain't gonna be like the drawn curtain Rocky Horror variety, either. We're talkin' piston shots. Gay love scenes. |
| Daniel Nester 09.06.2008 14:50 |
Yara, is it to "promote a cause" to tell the story of a gay man's life? Why is it a "cause" now? Why isn't it simply a "story"? That's quite a leap in logic. |
| john bodega 09.06.2008 14:53 |
pittrek wrote: Are you THAT Zebonka who used to post on originaltrilogy.com ?Yeah... What of it? Daniel Nester wrote: You stay classy, spoiled college kid in Australia who watched Rocky Horror to invoke street cred.... haha. Since when as having a healthy respect for how the 'other half' live ever been a bid for street cred? Wouldn't that be like watching Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and then calling myself a soul brother? It was just a good movie... It had good tunes and gave me a bit of awareness with regards to sexuality. All of that before I learned how to drive! 'spoiled college kid'. *ahem*. Not even sure what to do with that one. It's not even accurate, for one thing. I hope you're researching your memoirs better than this! It's sort of fun though, watching you shoot yourself in the foot here. "Oh, crap", goes your internal monologue. "Since I can't categorically refute what he's saying, I'll have to mention he's from Australia again!". I find latent bigotry like that incredibly amusing in this - a thread about a gay singer! PS. As for the AIDS jokes... you give them more attention than they even deserve, and I think that's part of the reason I kept coming up with more of them. Is a man dying in bed from AIDS funny? No. Is an allegedly grown man getting his feathers ruffled at AIDS puns on an internet forum funny? From where I'm sitting; extremely funny. I found it not only amusing, but hard to believe. So I kept going, just to see how long it'd take you to get past a bunch of gags you're (supposedly) too mature to pay attention to. And finally; I had a short version of this post, but then Yara entered the thread and I felt like trying to up the anté. |
| Daniel Nester 09.06.2008 14:59 |
And Yara, art isn't "rationalized" in terms of biography and experiences. Sometimes it's explained. It's interesting, because what we're talking about, if we take out the homophobia that I think is quite rampant on these boards, are really two sides of the debate. One is to exclude the artist from the art. The other is to appreciate the art based on the artist. Some people do take one side or another. In literature, for example, there are the New Critics who do "close readings" of poems. The professors all gathered around in the BBC BoRhap documentary, for example, were doing a bit of New Criticism explication. Then there's the complete historical reading of an artist. There are people who talk about Freddie and Queen in terms of Camp, for example. Camp is a big part of what is called Queer Studies, which is a part of academia. There's been a few articles about Freddie Mercury that look at his work with this idea of camp in mind. That's a version of "reading into" Freddie Mercury. Is that promoting a "cause"? No. It's a way of reading the world and telling our own stories to ourselves. |
| Daniel Nester 09.06.2008 15:02 |
Zebonka, go ahead and justify your AIDS jokes and puns. Do it all you want. My feathers will remain ruffled, as you say. (That's a classy way to put it, too, the feather-ruffling bit; not at all homophobic or meant to say I am in any way effeminate in my sensitivity.) |
| Yara 09.06.2008 15:04 |
Fair, Daniel. I see your point, and it's valid, no doubt. And, yes, I do find AIDS jokes disgusting and idiotic. Take care. |
| Daniel Nester 09.06.2008 15:08 |
I need to get this straight: Zebonka, you persisted on making AIDS jokes on at least one forum on a Queen fansite because you wanted to see how ruffled *my* feathers could get? Little ole me? That's the reason why? I suppose I should be charmed; but couldn't you find anything better to do? Also: When you makes AIDS jokes on a site dedicated to a band whose lead singer died of AIDS, you think it is immature to be offended? Does the subtext of this AIDS joke project of yours go like this: That it's a rough world out there, mate, and there's going to be AIDS jokes everywhere you go, and you might as well get used to it here on Queenzone? That people should not express their offense when you make AIDS jokes, else be called as immature as the joke-teller? You don't think any of this makes you look at least a wee-little bit offensive? I didn't know that the website rules around here stated you should just let idiots make AIDS jokes at their every whim. I might be 'promoting a cause,' after all. |
| Daniel Nester 09.06.2008 15:13 |
Yeah Yara, I do think both sides of looking at art are provocative and useful. I try--all I can do is try--to present these ideas to my students. I try to see both sides. I just get a little bit of a BS detector goes off when either one is portrayed as 'promoting a cause,' as you say. For some odd reason, that's a buzzword/phrase with me. Because the only way we're going to understand the world, in my humble opinion, is to take everything into account. One of my favorite quotes about this kind of intellectual debate is from F. Scott Fitzgerald: "The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." All I can do is try! link |
| john bodega 09.06.2008 15:16 |
Stop, please! The illogic is making me want to speak Yiddish.
Daniel Nester wrote: We've moved from poopy humor to necrophilia on the Zebonka front. Stay classy.Oy vey.... You seem to have an incredibly tenuous grasp of what 'context' is. If I were to simply take every swear-word you've posted in this thread and put it in a quote box, what impression might that give? Daniel Nester wrote: --Well, Zebonka, if you are half the fan you probably are, you probably know everything there is to know. So what would you do with the movie?Well... I'll assume this isn't rhetorical and that you're after an opinion here. I wouldn't do *anything* with the movie. I don't think it needs to be made. Or, I have very little faith in a good film being made from his life story. At this point in time, anyway. Daniel Nester wrote: We're talking about *how* a movie about Freddie would be made, and what in the story would be told. I'd guess all of us in this thread know down the finest minutia about his life. What we're debating here is what would be excluded and included. So if you want to learn something new about Freddie from the movie, I suggest you hit the FAQ boards and buy a few books, maybe a Wiki page or three. That's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is what is going to be included or excluded. And Mr. Z, you seem to want something a little less sex, a little more music.I'd like more thought to be put into what goes in. I read the original posters excerpts and summaries, and I reckon it sounds like garbage. You're not really paying much attention to what I say, and that's cool, but I'll say all this anyway. You didn't quite understand what I was trying to say in my other post. When I say 'stuff we already know', I mean that within the context of a movie itself. Imagine someone who doesn't even know who Freddie is, watching this movie. They need to know he's gay, so it's explained in the movie. They need to know that's a big part of his personality... so more of it is in the movie. Fair enough. As I recall, the original poster claimed this movie could wind up mostly sex scenes or whatever. Redundant. Bad filmmaking. This movie isn't going to break any ground, if that's how they're going to do it. How much sex was in "Philadelphia"? Daniel Nester wrote: Do you think that the world needs to hear the songs more again? Another version of We Are The Champions with Johnny Depp on lead vocals? Maybe. But I think if we want a story about Freddie to be told, we need to hear about his life.The issue with how much sex should go in the movie is only a tiny bit of what is wrong with this turkey. "We need to hear about his life". That's nice, but from the snippets on the first couple of pages, it doesn't even *sound* like his life. Sounds like Armageddon without the asteroid. Daniel Nester wrote: And guess what? It's gonna be a whole lotta gay love, son. A whole lotta gay love. And it ain't gonna be like the drawn curtain Rocky Horror variety, either. We're talkin' piston shots. Gay love scenes.I get a vague impression you'd like that concept to bother me. Hehe. |
| Erin 09.06.2008 15:28 |
blah, blah, blah gay....blah blah...moustache, blah blah blah.....toilet, Rocky Horror, sex...blah blah..AIDS....Fresh Prince? |
| john bodega 09.06.2008 15:38 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Zebonka, go ahead and justify your AIDS jokes and puns. Do it all you want. My feathers will remain ruffled, as you say. (That's a classy way to put it, too, the feather-ruffling bit; not at all homophobic or meant to say I am in any way effeminate in my sensitivity.):/ For your information, birds have had feathers for millions of years. In fact, many dinosaurs had feathers too. It is incredibly basic of you to go for that interpretation. I say that in the full knowledge that I was going "AIDS IN HEAVEN" and all that, which is again - very basic. However; why then do you complain, or even bring it up, if you've no qualms with stooping to that level? :) I don't like throwing the word 'hypocrite' around but really... Daniel Nester wrote: Zebonka, you persisted on making AIDS jokes on at least one forum on a Queen fansite because you wanted to see how ruffled *my* feathers could get? Little ole me? That's the reason why?Nope.. just happened to be you this time. I think you're carrying the assumption that I 'persisted' with some level of conviction. Or perhaps that I was sitting here with a rhyming dictionary and a flow-chart of just how many ways I could piss you guys off with the AIDS word? Nope... I'm just fascinated with people like you. I put next to no thought into those posts, and it shows. It's simply interesting to watch another human being make something else out of them; in this case, acting like I set fire to Rwanda or something. Daniel Nester wrote: I suppose I should be charmed; but couldn't you find anything better to do?Yes, I can, and I did, and I do. Again; couldn't take more than ten seconds to make a post like that. And again, you're putting more thought into them than I did at the time. Daniel Nester wrote: Also: When you makes AIDS jokes on a site dedicated to a band whose lead singer died of AIDS, you think it is immature to be offended?I don't think it's immature, but it exposes a flaw in human nature. The ones that protest the most at an immature joke are the ones who are (by their own logic) the ones that are supposed to be above responding, or even paying attention to, the joke. Daniel Nester wrote: Does the subtext of this AIDS joke project of yours go like this: That it's a rough world out there, mate, and there's going to be AIDS jokes everywhere you go, and you might as well get used to it here on Queenzone? That people should not express their offense when you make AIDS jokes, else be called as immature as the joke-teller? .Hehe, more assumptions... (I'm assuming that you're still reading.) I wouldn't presume to try and 'toughen' you up against the big bad world of AIDS humour. If one even exists. As for people expressing their offense.... pffft. Go for it! At what point, exactly, did I say you shouldn't complain? I still reserve the right to say something in response, whether it's something thoughtful or not. Daniel Nester wrote: I didn't know that the website rules around here stated you should just let idiots make AIDS jokes at their every whim. I might be 'promoting a cause,' after all.(sigh) I don't see any idiots in this thread. I think you're misinformed, but I don't hold that against you because it's actually my fault for representing myself with AIDS jokes. I don't think that makes you an idiot.... And as for me? (chuckle). I'm no idiot. I have valid points about this silly Freddie script, and you choose to read past them because I wrote something perplexing in another thread. Your prerogative! I'm still a little surprised at your reading of my 'feathers' comment. In all seriousness - has that phrase ever been used with a gay connotation? |
| steven 35638 09.06.2008 16:42 |
Gosh, this business really does spark some controversy amongst Queen fans. The underlying question being, "Who was Freddie Mercury?" As YourValentine pointed out, every single one of us has a different connotation when it comes to Freddie Mercury, or any of the other band members. So, if and when this movie comes out many of us will be disappointed and many of us won't be. It all depends upon your idea of who this remarkable man was. I, for example, think of Freddie Mercury as a musician at heart, who was quite the existentialist, although not an extremist. I recall him stating in a David Wigg interview from 1987 that he could do whatever he wanted and not feel obligated by someone or something to continue doing it. He once said "Rock and roll does not control me." I think that is a remarkable quality in a man mixed up in the world of rock and roll. Yes, he did drugs (coke, I believe was his drug of choice), but he never forced it upon another individual, or let it influence his music. Therefore, I would be pissed off if the movie made him look like an uncontrollable rock star. I mean, even when we look at his attitude toward AIDS, he was just as ignorant as most everyone else at the time. On a side note, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Freddie Mercury only experimented with drugs during the early 1980's. I would appreciate it if someone could verify that for me. |
| thunderbolt 31742 09.06.2008 16:52 |
Steven wrote: On a side note, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Freddie Mercury only experimented with drugs during the early 1980's. I would appreciate it if someone could verify that for me.I had always been under the impression that the drug use started long before the 1980s... |
| Daniel Nester 09.06.2008 17:11 |
There's some real chestnuts in your strained explanation for making AIDS jokes on Queenzone's boards. 1. No, Zebonka. References to feathers and the ruffling thereof has never, ever been used in reference to gay people or effeminate people, not ever. I am oh-so-wrong in sussing out that connotation. That paragraph, by the way, was written in a mode of writing we call "sarcasm." 2. So that it took just a little bit of time out of your day to make the "AIDS in Heaven" joke somehow justifies your doing so? How does that logic work? You had the AIDS jokes already at the ready? Does the fact that you wrote--and continued to write them--really fast makes them less offensive? 3. You say that it's "interesting to watch another human being make something else out of them; in this case, acting like I set fire to Rwanda or something." A couple things here. How do you "make something else" out of an AIDS joke on a Queen fan club site? Do you go "wow, that AIDS joke is really funny; making song parody lyrics about Freddie Mercury dying of AIDS is hilarious"? How is anyone hyper-sensitive to take offense, when one of my all-time favorite artists died of the disease? Then--classic Zebonka move--you set up a straw man red herring argument that states that, to complain about someone who makes an AIDS joke--again, keep in mind the context, on a Queen fan club site--is tantamount to comparing such an act to "set[ing] fire to Rwanda." I assume you're referring to the Rwanda genocide. Of course an AIDS joke on a Queen fan club site isn't the same. It's more like going to a fan club site for the movie Hotel Rwanda and making African genocide jokes. How do you think that would fly? I suppose there's an Andy Kaufman-like appeal or sensibility of seeing how you can piss off people who are seriously vested in a topic. But what exactly is your point? Is it to show how stupid you are? Or how angry you might get people? I think it might be. I really do. And so here, you are, my dear young man, with a person who is angered by your joke. And, my dearest, dearest Zebonka, if you fail to make any connection with making AIDS death jokes with hatred and persecution of gays, then there's something amiss in your brain circuitry. 4. Here's another classic from you, Zebonka, straight out of, like, junior high: "The ones that protest the most at an immature joke are the ones who are (by their own logic) the ones that are supposed to be above responding, or even paying attention to, the joke." Nope. I am afraid that doesn't fly. It's the ones who *laugh* in response at the immature (read: abusive, obnoxious, hateful, homophobic) joke who are the most culpable, alongside the ones who make it. The latter would be you. I simply don't get how taking you to task for making AIDS jokes on a Queen fan site, instead of ignoring them and you, the high and mighty joke-teller, makes me immature; the strained logic you use to go about justifying why you do it only proves to me you are a complete idiot. And a homophobe. And prejudiced against gays (Here's just a random idiocy from you in the past: "Freddie liked arse sex. And Michael Jackson. Let's not go using his tastes in life as an irrefutable yardstick of sorts" link And an idiot. There, I said it. And hey, listen, if I am on a high horse because I take offense at your jokes, Zebonka, then so be it. Is all this an over-reaction? Sure. I should just ignore you and all other idiots, and take your own advice. But I don't feel like ignoring you. So deal with it. |
| Donna13 09.06.2008 17:58 |
I have not studied film making or story writing or script writing but when I first heard about this movie (the possibility of it) I thought it would be good if the story were told from the perspective of Mary. I still do. OK, that is the end of that idea. Now, I think the only problem with one gay sex scene after another has nothing to do with the shock value that Freddie was gay. I don't think any of us are shocked or in denial about that. It is that I think the writer is maybe trying to capture the times to show a contrast to our reality today (pre AIDS / AIDS) and Freddie is just the vehicle for this (I don't think vehicle is the right word, but you know what I mean). I don't think this writer (of the script we are discussing) appreciates the musical talent that Freddie had and how rare it was. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my hunch. |
| steven 35638 09.06.2008 21:36 |
Twas a double post and I deleted the first. |
| steven 35638 09.06.2008 21:38 |
Thunderboltwrote:Maybe you're right. But the thing is, is that he seemed so on top of things all of the time that it really is difficult to distinguish when he started and ended the drug intake. I don't even think he was all that addicted.Steven wrote: On a side note, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Freddie Mercury only experimented with drugs during the early 1980's. I would appreciate it if someone could verify that for me.I had always been under the impression that the drug use started long before the 1980s... |
| Under Pressure 09.06.2008 21:48 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I don't see it as any different to if this was a film about Errol Flynn and 78% of the film turned out to be him shoving his love-sausage into different girls. Redundant sex scenes are redundant sex scenes. I don't buy Queen DVDs or listen to their music because I give a shit about where Freddie was stuffing his cock. What next? Freddie was a regular user of the toilet, 'it was who he was!', and so the film should be him taking a crap every five minutes? A good movie is an eloquent movie. The fact that he has a big gay moustache should spell out his sexuality well enough, and the movie can get on with the business of not being so shitty. Either way, it actually doesn't bother me. The film will probably suck.Agreed, 100%! I am quite aware of that fact. Actually, when I was younger, I was friends with a lot of people who wrote Queen stories and all they talked about all day was who he was doing :) I don't think anyone on the board is trying to deny or cover up the fact that Freddie was gay, it's just less important as a legacy. In fact he's always been highly criticized in the gay community for never coming out and for hiding his AIDS for so long instead of trying to aid others in the same situation. |
| Under Pressure 09.06.2008 22:03 |
Steven wrote:Totally agree, and it's an interesting point here -- though Freddie did take drugs, he was never out of control. Typically drugs in movies about anyone are there to show the person spiraling out of control -- but Freddie never did spiral out of control. So while one or two scenes could be interesting to show that he took drugs and was man enough not to fuck himself up, more than that isn't very necessary.Thunderboltwrote:Maybe you're right. But the thing is, is that he seemed so on top of things all of the time that it really is difficult to distinguish when he started and ended the drug intake. I don't even think he was all that addicted.Steven wrote: On a side note, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Freddie Mercury only experimented with drugs during the early 1980's. I would appreciate it if someone could verify that for me.I had always been under the impression that the drug use started long before the 1980s... From what it seems to me is that until the early 80's Freddie was fairly guarded as far as his sex life went -- he wasn't very promiscuous at that time, and I think he was living with Mary up until around 1980. But after a decade of touring and being wound up he wanted to relax for a few years, chill out in the bathhouses, have some fun, and that's what ended up getting him in the end. So that kind of tragic downfall, in that he goes from super closed off to super open to finally finding the guy for him, and THEN he has his downfall, that's a very compelling story. |
| Daniel Nester 10.06.2008 00:09 |
Freddie was *not* living with Mary until 1980. That's the kind of revisionist stuff that happens when Queen fans downplay Freddie's gayness. Listen--Michael Cunningham, gay writer. He's probably going to write from that point of view. I certainly give him loads more leeway than people who are rushing to judgment on this board who equate having gay sex and having that lifestyle, albeit in the closet--which makes it more interesting and compelling, now that I think of it, both to a non-Queenzone audience and to Cunningham as a writer--to taking craps and necrophilia. |
| Daniel Nester 10.06.2008 00:14 |
Freddie *did* take drugs and go crazy with it. Haven't any of you seen the documentaries or read the sleazy biographies? Christ. He was a major, major partier. It's just a fact. What do you think "Love of Life" is a euphemism for? His enthusiasm for cribbage? |
| steven 35638 10.06.2008 00:25 |
Under Pressure wrote:It is a compelling story indeed, and probably as accurate (minus one or two details) as we can get in depicting his life story. I have always thought of Freddie as the ultimate rock and roller. He lived the dream, but didn't let the dream take over. He was wise and witty -- talented at that, and just overall very human; just as wonderful as any other good gentleman.Steven wrote:Totally agree, and it's an interesting point here -- though Freddie did take drugs, he was never out of control. Typically drugs in movies about anyone are there to show the person spiraling out of control -- but Freddie never did spiral out of control. So while one or two scenes could be interesting to show that he took drugs and was man enough not to fuck himself up, more than that isn't very necessary. From what it seems to me is that until the early 80's Freddie was fairly guarded as far as his sex life went -- he wasn't very promiscuous at that time, and I think he was living with Mary up until around 1980. But after a decade of touring and being wound up he wanted to relax for a few years, chill out in the bathhouses, have some fun, and that's what ended up getting him in the end. So that kind of tragic downfall, in that he goes from super closed off to super open to finally finding the guy for him, and THEN he has his downfall, that's a very compelling story.Thunderboltwrote:Maybe you're right. But the thing is, is that he seemed so on top of things all of the time that it really is difficult to distinguish when he started and ended the drug intake. I don't even think he was all that addicted.Steven wrote: On a side note, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Freddie Mercury only experimented with drugs during the early 1980's. I would appreciate it if someone could verify that for me.I had always been under the impression that the drug use started long before the 1980s... It is an utter shame that the man is overshadowed by both his sexuality and the drugs he took (and, as we have discussed, it never got serious). I have heard too often people of all ages, including my 60 year old uncle, ridicule and shun Freddie for his sexuality. Do we shun Jimi Hendrix for having been an addicted druggy? No! In fact, plenty of people worship the man for crying out loud! But Freddie, who was peaceful and generous, and so determined to become who he was and live a normal life, is only shunned by ignorant people who live in the past. This is why we need a movie about him. Not to say being gay is righteous, but to clarify to people just who this man was. Let people know that he was just as human as they are. Let them know his sorrows, his creative mind, his deep love for living and being generous, etc, etc. This movie could be so meaningful and tearful, if only the present director would get his a$$ in gear and jump on the oppurtunity. If he won't, then give the job to somebody who actually has vision of the aforementioned oppurtunity. |
| steven 35638 10.06.2008 00:38 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Freddie *did* take drugs and go crazy with it. Haven't any of you seen the documentaries or read the sleazy biographies? Christ. He was a major, major partier. It's just a fact. What do you think "Love of Life" is a euphemism for? His enthusiasm for cribbage?We never said he *didn't* take drugs, but I don't think many of us are convinced that he went crazy with it. I for one have seen the many documentaries and 'sleazy' biographies. I am still not convinced. Of course, however, he was a major partier, but does that really mean he handled it irresponsibly? Were any of us at one of his parties? Did we witness first hand? No. That being said, maybe you're right, maybe I'm kind of right, maybe you're completely wrong, maybe you're sort of right. But, I stand by what I said. I see no evidence that he was obsessed with coke or any other drug. Of course, you could then say that I have no evidence that he was not obsessed with drugs. But, as usual, we all go by our gut instincts and whatever clues that are put in front of us. I have seen interviews of people, who went to his outragious parties, who said that, 'Yes, he did drugs, but he never pushed it on anyone.' And then, if we consider his attitude throughout his career, did he ever really change? Nope, the man really didn't change...he was always a crazy person -- that was his personality. |
| Daniel Nester 10.06.2008 01:15 |
Steven and others, I offer as evidence some quotes from Q magazine's Freddie story from a couple years ago [I think 2005], "The Queen of Cock." Before the quote, the writer, Steve Lowe, outlines how Freddie "never tried to his his homosexual liaisons" from his friend Barbara Valentin during the Munich years. "[I]ndeed," Lowe recounts, Valentin "once recalled finding him naked on a balcony, singing We Are The Champions to some construction workers below shouting: 'Whoever has the biggest dick, come on up!" Lowe then talks about the infamous Sid Vicious meeting and an incident in which Freddie asks a woman accompanying Roger whom he had taken a dislike to, "How big is your cunt, dear? Can you get it over your head dear?" "Such behaviour," Lowe continues, "was presumably exacerbated by another affair he maintained into the late '80s: cocaine. Once, flying to America on [the] Concorde, he discovered a large stash in his bag and, in an attempt to avoid an awkward US customs bust, snorted the lot. "Freddie didn't need the plane," his personal manager Paul Prenter recounted. "He was so high on drugs he could have flown over the Atlantic by himself." I point all this stuff out to add to the discussion about Freddie's gayness and drug use. And also because I find it thrilling and interesting. I think it's exciting that he was so in-your-face about his sexual liaisons and cocaine use--and on the Concord, no less! Perhaps Cunningham, in his research, draws on these kind of stories for the screenplay? Go ahead and discount the story and the quotes, I suppose. But if you put these together with Phoebe's accounts and other stories I could find in my files, we have a portrait of a person fairly interested in his nose candy. And gay sex. |
| Daniel Nester 10.06.2008 01:25 |
And here's a quote from one of Paul Prenter's ex-boyfriends: "I don’t think I’ll be causing any great scandal when I say that one of my main memories of Freddie is of the huge amounts of cocaine he took (and always shared), and which I, being 21 years old at the time, was happy to join in with (well I wouldn’t say no now either!). "On a number of occasions I did go back to Freddie’s house off Kensington High Street, though my memories of this are also vague since this was always after a long night of drink and drugs, and the visits involved popping in, doing a few lines of coke (and his coke was always the best), then leaving to go home with Paul." Source: link |
| Under Pressure 10.06.2008 01:49 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Listen--Michael Cunningham, gay writer. He's probably going to write from that point of view. I certainly give him loads more leeway than people who are rushing to judgment on this board who equate having gay sex and having that lifestyle, albeit in the closet--which makes it more interesting and compelling, now that I think of it, both to a non-Queenzone audience and to Cunningham as a writer--to taking craps and necrophilia.Ironically on MC: Although Cunningham is gay and has been partnered for 18 years, he dislikes being referred to as only a "gay writer", according to a PlanetOut article[1] because while being gay does greatly influence his work, he feels that it is not (and should not be) his defining characteristic. Also, as to your quotes about his drug use, sure, he got high on a flight. But he's not stumbling around like Amy Winehouse, or wasting away on a liquid diet like Bowie did. Certainly something to think about. ALSO, rereading Jim's article, I think it's totally true that MC relied very heavily on him for information, especially about Mary, whom Jim refers to merely as Freddie's "company secretary." Clearly there was antagonism there, but the way to solve that in a screenplay isn't to take one side over another, but to show that antagonism play out. Clearly Freddie didn't see Mary as such considering the vast, vast difference in what he left to Jim and what he left to Mary. |
| Under Pressure 10.06.2008 01:54 |
Also honestly focusing on sex takes away from being able to show a lot of the pivotal moments in Freddie's life, which for the most part didn't have to do with random sex and parties. Especially as someone who felt he had no real friends (other than MA) the parties were all a sham attempt to find happiness anyway, happiness that ultimately only occurred onstage and with his few true friends and JH. I also think it's quite compelling the way that he was so close with his bandmates at the beginning of his career, then they gradually drifted apart but by the end they were back to the friendship they once'd had. That's something very special, and something that many people don't get to recover once it's lost. |
| john bodega 10.06.2008 02:39 |
Daniel Nester wrote: 1. No, Zebonka. References to feathers and the ruffling thereof has never, ever been used in reference to gay people or effeminate people, not ever. I am oh-so-wrong in sussing out that connotation. That paragraph, by the way, was written in a mode of writing we call "sarcasm."Hah. I've never been so childish as to make that connection before. Feathers = gay people? Your words, not mine. Daniel Nester wrote: 2. So that it took just a little bit of time out of your day to make the "AIDS in Heaven" joke somehow justifies your doing so? How does that logic work? You had the AIDS jokes already at the ready? Does the fact that you wrote--and continued to write them--really fast makes them less offensive?Had them at the ready? Haha. Now there's a text file I'd love to see. "Jokes-for-Queenzone". I don't think the length of time it took me to write the posts has anything to do with the offensiveness, now that you mention it. A sentence does not contain any inherent 'offensiveness', though. People see what they want to see, they create their own interpretations. You've been doing it all through this thread, surely you're aware of this? Daniel Nester wrote: A couple things here. How do you "make something else" out of an AIDS joke on a Queen fan club site? Do you go "wow, that AIDS joke is really funny; making song parody lyrics about Freddie Mercury dying of AIDS is hilarious"? How is anyone hyper-sensitive to take offense, when one of my all-time favorite artists died of the disease?I think I've already explained to you that I don't find the jokes sophisticated enough to be really 'amusing'. As I said; it's really your reaction that's been more entertaining, although even that is getting old. Heh. Daniel Nester wrote: I assume you're referring to the Rwanda genocide. Of course an AIDS joke on a Queen fan club site isn't the same. It's more like going to a fan club site for the movie Hotel Rwanda and making African genocide jokes. How do you think that would fly? I suppose there's an Andy Kaufman-like appeal or sensibility of seeing how you can piss off people who are seriously vested in a topic. But what exactly is your point? Is it to show how stupid you are? Or how angry you might get people? I think it might be. I really do. And so here, you are, my dear young man, with a person who is angered by your joke."What is your point", you say... again, you're assuming there is one. No master plan here, I'm afraid. Aside from the momentary fascination that there's someone like you posting on Queenzone, I really don't have anything for you in that regard. If your over-use of commas in the last sentence are some sort of sarcastic dig at me for over-using them myself, I apologise - I tend to throw them in subconsciously a bit. Andy Kaufman comparisons! Woo. I can honestly say that it doesn't bother me if you're angered by my 'joke'. It would've bothered me, but after a couple of pages of your illogic posts, non-sequitur references to nationality, utter hypocrisy and lack of ability to put things in their proper context... I can't waste empathy on somebody who's acting like a fool, no matter whether or not I actually think he 'is' a fool. It's a conscious decision on your part, an actual choice to see only what you feel like seeing, to ignore other ideas. And here you are purporting to be someone who 'tries' to see two points of view during an argument, etcetera... Daniel Nester wrote: And, my dearest, dearest Zebonka, if you fail to make any connection with making AIDS death jokes with hatred and persecution of gays, then there's something amiss in your brain circuitry.Hahaha. Here's an idea that might be too big for your brain, but I te |
| john bodega 10.06.2008 02:39 |
Daniel Nester wrote: And a homophobe. And prejudiced against gays (Here's just a random idiocy from you in the past: "Freddie liked arse sex. And Michael Jackson. Let's not go using his tastes in life as an irrefutable yardstick of sorts" linkRandom idiocy, huh? HIV likely got into America as early as 1969, so it's unfair to place todays standards on people who were having unprotected sex or sharing needles from that time onward.. they simply didn't know any better. The thing about Freddie is; once he knew there was a risk, he kept going anyway. That didn't just affect him. It affected anyone he exchanged bodily fluids with. I'm sure you find his "Fuck it" attitude terribly romantic, but I reckon it's irresponsible and stupid. I don't understand how you people can idolise him in such a fashion. I don't deny it makes him one hell of an interesting human being, but if you think I'm prejudiced against gays for thinking he should've taken a bit more care from 1984 onwards, then you're just deluded. As for Michael Jackson.... he screwed over Paul McCartney and paid Vincent Price an absolute pittance for the dialogue which was the only saving grace of his terribly juvenile song, "Thriller". Besides, you've quoted me up there as saying "Freddie liked arse sex". This might come as a surprise to you, but it's hardly one of my favourite passtimes. So I disagree with Freddie; big whoop. That isn't prejudiced. It just means I don't like having a chunky man-log in my backdoor. Daniel Nester wrote: And an idiot. There, I said it. And hey, listen, if I am on a high horse because I take offense at your jokes, Zebonka, then so be it."There, I said it". Haha. The 6 year old's equivalent of 'QED', no doubt. Just because you say something doesn't actually make it right, in case you've forgotten. You can attempt to reinforce the idea and keep repeating the word 'idiot' but it doesn't really change anything. Daniel Nester wrote: Is all this an over-reaction? Sure. I should just ignore you and all other idiots, and take your own advice. But I don't feel like ignoring you. So deal with it.*ahem* 'Deal with it'? I don't think anyone should utter that phrase unless they're prepared to do so in kind. Not to be an ass about this, but I 'dealt' with it after your first post. I said something to myself like "uh oh, another person is mad on the internet!". I did not give you 'advice'. I just pointed something simple out, probably something you knew already. I don't mind you over-reacting; it's still a little amusing, though as I'm sure I've said already, it's wearing off. Take care! |
| john bodega 10.06.2008 02:41 |
Under Pressure wrote: I also think it's quite compelling the way that he was so close with his bandmates at the beginning of his career, then they gradually drifted apart but by the end they were back to the friendship they once'd had. That's something very special, and something that many people don't get to recover once it's lost.Amen to that. |
| YourValentine 10.06.2008 04:06 |
Very interesting thread. As long time fans we are all interested in the lives of the band members but we should keep in mind that it's truly none of our business. Freddie did not live with Mary Austin until 1980, he moved in with his first live-in boyfriend David Minns around 1976. Please read "Freddie Mercury - The Real Life" by David Evans (writer and long time friend of FM) and David Minns. Why Freddie never "came out" - we can only speculate. Some say it was because he did not want to hurt his parents, some think he did not want to hurt his business. In the 1980s Freddie was known as openly gay in Germany, everybody knew it. The general (probably wrong)idea was that he lived in Germany to avoid discrimination in England which was very conservative and anti-gay at the time. It was not so easy to "come out" at the time - Elton John even got married in 1988 to avoid the gay-hunting. About his drug use: there is not a single interview after 1979 where we do not see/hear Freddie "sniffing" - he must have taken huge amounts of cocaine. Watch him at Live Aid and Wembley 86 - he was sweating like mad and it was not the lights, it was the coke. Certainly the drugs must have had an affect on his personality. However, it's true that Freddie managed to control his public image, he was never perceived as a junkie and he never was in court for drug use like numerous other musicians. Therefore I think it's correct to say that he was "in control" of his drug use. If I understood UP's post correctly, the movie script portrays Brian as a coke user, too, which would definitely be a legal issue. About the friendship with the other band members: we really do not know this. They often said that they are just working colleagues and do not spend any time together but Roger was obviously a close friend of Freddie. Jim Hutton wrote in his book that John Deacon never visited Freddie at home in his last weeks and Roger blamed Brian for releasing his solo stuff so soon after Freddie's death in an interview from the 90s that recently was posted on Queenzone. The band always closed ranks and did not say too much about personal issues in public in order not to hurt their band image. Mainly Freddie was very good in joking the issues away ("four cocks fighting"). We can be sure that we have no idea about the true relationships or friendships within the band. We can say that they were very good in creating legends, though. |
| john bodega 10.06.2008 06:41 |
Well... they always were a fairly private band. Truth be told; you don't always have to get along with someone to love them, and I suspect that's how Queen worked. |
| Holly2003 10.06.2008 07:55 |
YourValentine wrote: Very interesting thread. As long time fans we are all interested in the lives of the band members but we should keep in mind that it's truly none of our business. Freddie did not live with Mary Austin until 1980, he moved in with his first live-in boyfriend David Minns around 1976. Please read "Freddie Mercury - The Real Life" by David Evans (writer and long time friend of FM) and David Minns. Why Freddie never "came out" - we can only speculate. Some say it was because he did not want to hurt his parents, some think he did not want to hurt his business. In the 1980s Freddie was known as openly gay in Germany, everybody knew it. The general (probably wrong)idea was that he lived in Germany to avoid discrimination in England which was very conservative and anti-gay at the time. It was not so easy to "come out" at the time - Elton John even got married in 1988 to avoid the gay-hunting. About his drug use: there is not a single interview after 1979 where we do not see/hear Freddie "sniffing" - he must have taken huge amounts of cocaine. Watch him at Live Aid and Wembley 86 - he was sweating like mad and it was not the lights, it was the coke. Certainly the drugs must have had an affect on his personality. However, it's true that Freddie managed to control his public image, he was never perceived as a junkie and he never was in court for drug use like numerous other musicians. Therefore I think it's correct to say that he was "in control" of his drug use. If I understood UP's post correctly, the movie script portrays Brian as a coke user, too, which would definitely be a legal issue. About the friendship with the other band members: we really do not know this. They often said that they are just working colleagues and do not spend any time together but Roger was obviously a close friend of Freddie. Jim Hutton wrote in his book that John Deacon never visited Freddie at home in his last weeks and Roger blamed Brian for releasing his solo stuff so soon after Freddie's death in an interview from the 90s that recently was posted on Queenzone. The band always closed ranks and did not say too much about personal issues in public in order not to hurt their band image. Mainly Freddie was very good in joking the issues away ("four cocks fighting"). We can be sure that we have no idea about the true relationships or friendships within the band. We can say that they were very good in creating legends, though.i think that's probably very astute. Which makes me think any movie about his life should focus on how, as a young immigrant to the UK of Indian descent, he felt he had to hide his heritage in order to achieve and then sustain his success. Similarly, as you point out, he felt he had to hide his gay lifestyle from the British public in order to stay popular. Not very flattering for British viewers but probably accurate. |
| Daniel Nester 10.06.2008 08:48 |
Two of my posts were lost or taken down--they were up here last night. One a response to the increasingly idiotic Zebonka, and another couple having to do with Freddie, sex, and coke. |
| Yara 10.06.2008 09:21 |
Well, it could be flattering to British viewers, why not? The WHO says so: look, in the Independent, two days ago: "Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits A 25-year health campaign was misplaced outside the continent of Africa. But the disease still kills more than all wars and conflicts By Jeremy Laurance Sunday, 8 June 2008 A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic has disappeared. In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa. Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, IT WAS CONFINED TO HIGH-RISK GROUPS INCLUDING MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients. Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries. Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalised epidemic in Asia – China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn't look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas." [...] Aids organisations, including the WHO, UN Aids and the Global Fund, have come under attack for inflating estimates of the number of people infected, diverting funds from other health needs such as malaria, spending it on the wrong measures such as abstinence programmes rather than condoms, and failing to build up health systems. Dr De Cock labelled these the "four malignant arguments" undermining support for the global campaign against Aids, which still faced formidable challenges, despite the receding threat of a generalised epidemic beyond Africa. Any revision of the threat was liable to be seized on by those who rejected HIV as the cause of the disease, or who used the disease as a weapon to stigmatise high risk groups, he said. "Aids still remains the leading infectious disease challenge in public health. It is an acute infection but a chronic disease. It is for the very, very long haul. People are backing off, saying it is taking care of itself. It is not." Critics of the global Aids strategy complain that vast sums are being spent educating people about the disease who are not at risk, when a far bigger impact could be achieved by targeting high-risk groups and focusing on interventions known to work, such as circumcision, which cuts the risk of infection by 60 per cent, and REDUCING THE NUMBER of sexual partners. There were "elements of truth" in the criticism, Dr De Cock said. "You will not do much about Aids in London by spending the funds in schools. You need to go where transmission is occurring. It is true that countries have not always been good at that." But he rejected an argument put in The New York Times that only $30m (£15m) had been spent on safe water projects, far less than on Aids, despite knowledge of the risks that contaminated water pose. "It sounds a good argument. But where is the scandal? That less than a third of Aids patients are being treated – or that we have never resolved the safe water scandal?" ONE OF THE DANGER AREAS FOR THE AIDS STRATEGY WAS AMONG MEN WHO HAD SEX WITH MEN. He said: " We face a bit of a CRISIS [in this area]. In the industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is NOT declining and in some places has INCREASED. "In the developing world, it has been NEGLECTED. We h |
| Daniel Nester 10.06.2008 09:34 |
Do I really need to "spell out for you" how "AIDS in Heaven" or, and I'm quoting here, The BBC did a special on what Freddie might look like in 2006 link might be offensive or homophobic? Here's what I think: You have a lot of time on your hands. I have some time now because I just finished my semester. You write offensive things, people may explain to you how they're offensive, point by point, and then you ask them to explain it again. It's a tactic used by politicians for millenia. And it seems, many Queenzoners as well. (And hey, if this is an inappropriate thread, I can always start a new one called "Zebonka's Greatest Homphobic Hits" that's no problem.) I like how you say "It's not a 'nice' thing to write, and with a fortnight or so of hindsight, I probably won't be doing it again very soon." It shows some reflection and critical thinking. The catch, however, is that you've been doing it for quite some time now on Queenzone, and I'm asking you to stop and I am calling you on it. You don't seem so apologetic about it. Zebonka, if you don't think making AIDS jokes is offensive, and if you're going to justify homophobic jokes about "arse sex" with conspiracy theories about how the HIV virus got into the U.S. in 1969, then yes, you pretty much are the dictionary definition of an idiot ("an utterly foolish or senseless person"). When you Zebonka justify your crack about "arse sex" and cite the red herring theory about the HIV virus's spreading in 1969, and then conflate that with Freddie's contracting HIV because he had gay sex, I have trouble wrapping my head around your logic. But you do follow through with your idea that Freddie's "fuck it"/Typhoid Mary behavior led to his death. I'm sure no one else here will come along and correct you on that, but if you have a copy of Mercury and Me, pick it up and read about his sex life post-1982, when AIDS surfaced as AIDS. He may not have been 100% safe, but he sure wasn't as crazy as he was 1979-1984. I hardly ever come here, I'm a busy guy, and when I have been here on the boards in the last couple of months, I will see one of your 5,000-plus posts. Most of them are the just wisecracks of a late teenager, but some of them are hateful and offensive and it seems you need to be taught or made aware that your jokes not only hurt people's feelings. You are resistant to this. That ole pesky chestnut of "words and motives are actually quite separate things" you drag out in your last point? Many, many people disagree. But you do have company. Right now in Jamaica--just a random recent example--there's a controversy going on about "Murder Music"--i.e., reggae songs that talk about the killing of gays. Groups in Canada and the UK group has made that connection between words and motives enough to call for boycots and denying entry into their countries. link link (old article, but well-written) Perhaps you would fall on the sides of the reggae stars who say it's part of their art to makes songs about the killing of gay people? Or you could argue there's no connection between the lyrics they write about and the much higher rate of hate crimes (i.e., killing of gays because they're gay) Maybe you could invite them to come on these boards? |
| Holly2003 10.06.2008 09:45 |
I don't really know what you're trying to say Yara but I think you've misunderstood my point. If indeed Fred had to hide both his ethnic background and sexuality from the British simply to fit in, then it doesn't say much about British tolerance. |
| PieterMC 10.06.2008 09:54 |
Hang on a second. Freddie was gay? |
| Yara 10.06.2008 10:03 |
I didn't, Holly2003. Your words: "his gay lifestyle", which was very promiscuous as it was, and unfortunately still is, usually the case among gays. Again, the problem is not being gay, I have to stress it in the times we're living in. It's about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, an issue which, albeit universal and very suitable for a movie or any art form, is neglected. I don't think Freddie HAD to hide anything. He made a choice of not making any of this public. He made his own judgement - I think revealing my ethnicity and coming out as gay will undermine my career - and that's it. I don't blame the "British" for that. I don't blame Freddie for anything. It's easy to make moral judgements in other people's shoes. What I do say is: there's an interesting topic to be discussed without victimizing a guy who, through his behavior, did cause a lot of harm to himself - this is universal. This is art: if you tell this story, anyone can relate to it, because every single one of us have to make personal decisions and choices. If your choice turns out to be the wrong one, well, it may well be the case that you have only yourself to blame. But a movie shouldn't be a moral lesson: it should be an attempt at addressing Freddie's life in such a way as to make it universal, because there are elements in his life that anyone can relate to - from his sexual behavior to his friendships and tastes. Ok? But I see your point, Holly2003, and I respect it. I just don't agree with it, at least not the way it was expressed. If I misunderstood you, of course, sorry. :-))) Take care! |
| Daniel Nester 10.06.2008 10:07 |
"usually the case among gays" Yara, watch it! |
| Yara 10.06.2008 10:12 |
Daniel Nester wrote: "usually the case among gays" Yara, watch it!LOL. Take issue with the World Health Organization and the Independent, not me! ;-)) Question is: sexual responsibility. Gays have been less responsible throughout times and that's why they were, and still are, a high risk group. ;-) Problem is not being gay. Is about personal decisions and choices. Take care, Dan, now I have to study something absolutely different and shift my mind to topology. lol Take care you all! |
| john bodega 10.06.2008 10:15 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Two of my posts were lost or taken down--they were up here last night.With any luck, the forum will recover from the loss. |
| The Real Wizard 10.06.2008 10:17 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Un-fucking unbelievable. Freddie was a raging homosexual. Don't you guys get it? He was a raging homosexual *and* a great musician. ...and a whole lot of other angry drivelHoly friggin defensive! Let's calm the flame war, as this thread should be about the movie. Of course we get that he was a raging homosexual, but that was just one aspect of him. The problem is that he's known far more for his sexuality than he is as a musician. Most people couldn't name 5 songs he wrote, but they have a fairly good idea of what his partying life was like. These things should at least be equal, and they're not, and probably never will be - particularly in North America. It's about 90/10 from what I've seen. Like I said, a biopic full of graphic details (however true or not) about his private life is what will make money. The creators of this movie know that most people won't care about the brilliance it took to create that string of eclectic albums in the 70s and that he's the only rock singer ever to do an opera album. But again, maybe they even aren't aware, nor do they have to be to make a movie. To the general public, sex sells. Musical quality doesn't. |
| Erin 10.06.2008 10:22 |
PieterMC wrote: Hang on a second. Freddie was gay?I think he did drugs, too! :-o |
| Under Pressure 10.06.2008 10:46 |
Yara wrote: Again, the problem is not being gay, I have to stress it in the times we're living in. It's about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, an issue which, albeit universal and very suitable for a movie or any art form, is neglected.I think what's so crystal clear, reading Freddie's interviews, and even reading written work from Jim and his friends, is that he never really felt properly loved, he was always looking for a connection with someone, which made him bed hop even after AIDS was hitting his social group. This one quote was interesting, but I don't know exactly where it originated: "Oh God, I pray I'll never get AIDS. So many friends have it. Some have died, others won't be last much longer. I'm terrified that I'll be next. Immediately after each time I have sex I think, 'Suppose that was the one? Suppose the virus is now in my body? I jump in the shower and scrub myself clean, although I know it's useless and anyway it's too late." Clearly this is the angle that must be taken when discussing this story. Like with most people 'slut' isn't an appropriate blanket term -- as most people have an ultimate goal with what their doing, even if it's attention, self-harm, or just a need to be wanted. Showing how desperate he was to be loved as a motivation for his irresponsible behavior would add much more heartbreak to the story as well, for previously mentioned JH reasons. |
| steven 35638 10.06.2008 10:53 |
Daniel, thank you for coming forth with some truly disturbing tales of Freddie's addiction to coke. As much as it bothers me, I can't say I deny the stories; although it is not impossible that the stories were exagerated a bit due to years of carrying the story through verbal exchange. People are known to over tell things time and again, and time and again they can begin to believe themselves. But, as stated above, I cannot deny these tales you have come forth with. They are rather believable -- although picturing Freddie doing these things is really, well, weird and awkward. I suppose it's because all of his music is so un-drug related -- and his interviews hardly show serious signs of drug abuse. And yes, I am aware of what YourValentine said about his sniffling, but, looking back at it now, I don't see much of anything to work off of. He looks too clean and sober. Therefore, I wish to confirm my belief that the man was, overall, in control of his actions. Put it this way, he obviously quit the drugs without use of rehab (not that we know of). 1986-87 are the years where I notice him really settling down (with Jim, of course)...and just by listening to interviews of those years you will notice that many of the things he has to say is in regard to his promiscuous life style and how he was able to move on. Of course, one could say it was the AIDS that changed him -- but do we know that for sure? Maybe the tragedy of the situation was that he learned to change, and then found out he still had to pay for his previous life style. Watch the following (it's in three parts): link I wish to end this post by saying that I am in no way denying Freddie was an addicted coke user. I am merely trying to say that there is still reason to believe he wasn't THAT serious, especially when we consider what has happened to other rock stars. |
| john bodega 10.06.2008 11:09 |
Ignoring a stifled "why are you bothering with this idiot?", that I can hear being mumbled next to me...
Daniel Nester wrote: Do I really need to "spell out for you" how "AIDS in Heaven" or, and I'm quoting here, The BBC did a special on what Freddie might look like in 2006 link might be offensive or homophobic?Offensive? No, I don't need that spelled out at all. I fully realise some oversensitive shit-piles out there might get up in arms over a picture of a prosthetic mummy that happens to be called "BBC Specially Enhanced Freddie", even though anyone with a brain would probably avoid clicking it as it's likely going to be Rick Astley anyway. I can well imagine some weak souls getting offended, but I'm afraid I still don't get your homophobia angle. Sexuality doesn't even come into the majority of my posts. And yeah, you're probably going to quote "Arse sex" again so I'll get in first and ask you : did Freddie Mercury, or did he not, have lots of arse sex? Does it matter much if I go 'anal sex' or 'arse sex'? It's the same thing, doesn't matter what name you give it. This is an idea you're clearly too intellectually crippled to get a hold on, but basically - I can write any old thing, right now. Cabbages. It doesn't have to bear any reflection on my thoughts or feelings. I could wax lyrical on what I really think about AIDS or whatnot, but what's the point? It's all been said before by people more involved in this situation than I. Your steadfast, close-minded and foolish insistence that what I write down is done so with utter malice towards gay people, is amusing in the extreme. It's your interpretation, and while I won't for a minute suggest you have some sort of deep seated issue that you're dodging, the fact remains that you are seeing homophobia where it does not exist. I cannot speak for anyone else, though. I've seen homophobia before and it's ugly. More people should be more active against it; but uhm... you're preaching to the converted, so to speak. Daniel Nester wrote: I like how you say "It's not a 'nice' thing to write, and with a fortnight or so of hindsight, I probably won't be doing it again very soon." It shows some reflection and critical thinking. The catch, however, is that you've been doing it for quite some time now on Queenzone, and I'm asking you to stop and I am calling you on it. You don't seem so apologetic about it.Hmmm... I'd say you wander close to having a point here. You were on the money, more or less, when you speculated that I have a lot of spare time. Frankly, yep. I do. 'Doing it for quite some time' would imply a conscious effort to keep it going for a long period of time. Fact is, I really see them as isolated instances of boredom and dissatisfaction. I get bored with some of the utterly inane threads sometimes... particularly in General Discussion. There comes a point where I see the umpteenth vapid thread of the month and you know what? Nope - it doesn't bother me to post (as I described earlier) a prosthetic mummy head with a false file name. Anything is better than mindless banter about what colour John's shorts were at Wembley. Daniel Nester wrote: Zebonka, if you don't think making AIDS jokes is offensive, and if you're going to justify homophobic jokes about "arse sex" with conspiracy theories about how the HIV virus got into the U.S. in 1969, then yes, you pretty much are the dictionary definition of an idiot ("an utterly foolish or senseless person").This is largely a worthless statement. First of all, you are again using that homophobia word which does not apply to me. Don't get me wrong; I'm not insulted or bothered, as I never take umbrage at being called something I'm not. I know the truth, whereas your version of the |
| john bodega 10.06.2008 11:10 |
we should lynch gays |
| Daniel Nester 10.06.2008 11:12 |
Sir GH, you can call it "angry drivel" if you like, but I tend to get riled up when people insult gay people. It's not the civilized thing to do, or humane, and it's particularly bizarre on a site called "Queenzone." |
| The Real Wizard 10.06.2008 11:16 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Sir GH, you can call it "angry drivel" if you like, but I tend to get riled up when people insult gay people. It's not the civilized thing to do, or humane, and it's particularly bizarre on a site called "Queenzone."Fair enough. But I hope you can see from this topic that the accused are actually decent people who don't truly believe those insults at face value and are having nothing more than innocent fun. Once, flying to America on [the] Concorde, he discovered a large stash in his bag and, in an attempt to avoid an awkward US customs bust, snorted the lot. "Freddie didn't need the plane," his personal manager Paul Prenter recounted. "He was so high on drugs he could have flown over the Atlantic by himself."Gotta say, this is ridiculously funny! |
| Daniel Nester 10.06.2008 11:18 |
Steven -- I've seen/listened to the Wigg interviews for 20 years now, and I do see it as a document of someone who has already settled down. Perhaps where you and I differ is that I don't see his drug use--or his sex life, for that matter--as "disturbing." I see it as a rock star's life, one that's interesting and compelling and inspiring in many ways. Not that I'm going to go on the Concorde and snort coke, but I do think it makes Freddie a character worthy of capturing on film. Freddie's life is a compelling storyline. Capturing the dynamics of he and his bandmates? Not so interesting to me. That would truly be a feat: to make John Deacon's life interesting. Freddie's the star, he's the star of the movie. He's the one who shouts at construction workers and offers them sex. That's rock and roll. Such "promiscuous" behavior -- so common among the gays, as Yara likes to point out -- leads to him dying. It's a freaking opera is what it is. |
| Daniel Nester 10.06.2008 11:19 |
GH -- For myself, I don't regard Zebonka's comments as "innocent fun." I take offense at them. |
| The Real Wizard 10.06.2008 11:20 |
Yeah, I can see how it gets under your skin, as we all draw our line of humour somewhere different. Cheers. |
| Holly2003 10.06.2008 11:26 |
Yara, it still isn't clear to me exactly what you're saying so apologies if get this wrong. You seem to be arguing that Freddie's decision to hide his gayness from the british public does not reflect badly on the british public. Is that correct? If so, I disagree. Despite having a reputation for tolerance, in reality being openly gay in the UK up until relatively recently could be a career killer. That's why so many celebrities kept their sexuality private.* I think this is a natural reaction to an unhealthy social climate. And it reflects badly on the intolerance of british society in that time period. Similarly, racism against Pakistanis, West Indians, Indians etc living in the UK was openly expressed and often violent. No wonder Fred chose to hide his ethnic roots and 'passed' as white. This too reflects badly on british society. This would make a good angle for a film, but maybe not one that would be too popular. *it's a lot differnt today btw. |
| steven 35638 10.06.2008 11:33 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Steven -- I've seen/listened to the Wigg interviews for 20 years now, and I do see it as a document of someone who has already settled down. Perhaps where you and I differ is that I don't see his drug use--or his sex life, for that matter--as "disturbing." I see it as a rock star's life, one that's interesting and compelling and inspiring in many ways. Not that I'm going to go on the Concorde and snort coke, but I do think it makes Freddie a character worthy of capturing on film. Freddie's life is a compelling storyline. Capturing the dynamics of he and his bandmates? Not so interesting to me. That would truly be a feat: to make John Deacon's life interesting. Freddie's the star, he's the star of the movie. He's the one who shouts at construction workers and offers them sex. That's rock and roll. Such "promiscuous" behavior -- so common among the gays, as Yara likes to point out -- leads to him dying. It's a freaking opera is what it is.Fair enough -- but I don't find his sex life disturbing. I think it was who he was as a person, and there was nothing wrong with that. But, yes, his coke addiction does disturb me a bit. But as I have said, at least he didn't let it take over his career, or let it destroy Queen. He was even able to quit without the help of rehab. That takes a great deal of personal ambition and determination. |
| Daniel Nester 10.06.2008 12:08 |
If half of the accounts of what his coke intake in the 80s is true, it's amazing he didn't end up in rehab, actually. |
| Dane 10.06.2008 13:45 |
I think Freddie had a very strong persona. Meaning he wasnt very perceptable to other peoples opinions. Never doing something to fit in. Only doing stuff because he wanted to. Most cokeheads lack most of the mentioned things. He always knew how far he could go. (except one time in the early eighties, which he paid for in the early nineties) |
| Yara 10.06.2008 14:24 |
# Holly2003: "Yara, it still isn't clear to me exactly what you're saying so apologies if get this wrong. You seem to be arguing that Freddie's decision to hide his gayness from the british public does not reflect badly on the british public. Is that correct?" Yes. And I disagree with you there, because I don't think he ever hid his gayness. He just didn't speak much about it, which is different. If Elton John decided to marry because he felt he had something to hide - which was not hidden, regardless of his try at improving his image - I think it's more likely that it REFLECTS VERY BADLY ON HIM. But that's a different story altoghether and I don't want to hijack the thread. And, of course, it's my personal opinion - I don't judge the guy. "If so, I disagree." I know that. I see your point. :-) "Despite having a reputation for tolerance, in reality being openly gay in the UK up until relatively recently could be a career killer." Queen was a huge success in U.K (and Germany, and Austria, and Italy) all throughout the 80's, when Freddie was openly gay. "That's why so many celebrities kept their sexuality private.* I think this is a natural reaction to an unhealthy social climate." No. It's a moral, personal decision, not a law of nature. "And it reflects badly on the intolerance of british society in that time period. Similarly, racism against Pakistanis, West Indians, Indians etc living in the UK was openly expressed and often violent. No wonder Fred chose to hide his ethnic roots and 'passed' as white." Though by revealing his identity, being a very famous singer, he could actually improve U.K's image. People could find it interesting as a propaganda device. Who knows? It's just that it's neither here nor there: he decided to hide it, period. No one forced him to do it. It was his decision. "This too reflects badly on british society." Maybe, I'm not qualified to pass judgements on the British society. "This would make a good angle for a film, but maybe not one that would be too popular." I don't think so. I think UP's idea is very good: I guy wanting to be loved, who was loved by many people he cheated on, who finally found someone he really felt good with - among all that, promiscuity. Terms like "not very promiscuous", "not as crazy", don't mean nothing. The guy was promiscuous, by his own words: I have just re-listened to the 1987 interview. He makes it very clear: I was a mess, very promiscuous, before getting into a stable relationship. His words. So, we have the following predicament: Freddie never denied he was promiscuous, but there are people here wanting to undermine the fact. Freddie didn't like to talk about his sexuality, but people want to make a movie not about the musician, but about his sexuality. So, the movie could be called: "We don't care for Freddie and don't respect him". Good biopic? |
| Holly2003 10.06.2008 15:11 |
YARA: I don't think he ever hid his gayness. He just didn't speak much about it, which is different. I don't think he ever spoke about it to the British press or his fans until the 1980s. I distinctly recall a story in The Sun in which he supposedly outed himself, but he quickly denied it. He said something like "If I was going to admit I was gay do you think I would do it to the fucking Sun?" This would've been around the time of The Works. I would say he was hiding his gayness rather than just being reticent. YARA: Queen was a huge success in U.K (and Germany, and Austria, and Italy) all throughout the 80's, when Freddie was openly gay. I can only speak for the UK. Freddie was not "openly gay" at all when he was alive. Not publicly at least, but most definitely amongst his friends. There is a difference between being "camp" and being openly gay. I think Fred knew this. Kenny Everett certainly did. I think Fred judged correctly that it would hurt his career to be "openly gay". And let's face it, many fans are in denial even today about his sexuality. how many times have you hear the line, "He wasn’t gay, he was bisexual"? YARA: No. It's a moral, personal decision, not a law of nature. I didn’t say it was a law of nature, I said it was Fred's "natural reaction" to an unhealthy social climate. In other words, a rational decision taken not to expose himself to a possible anti-gay backlash. YARA: Though by revealing his identity, being a very famous singer, he could actually improve U.K's image. People could find it interesting as a propaganda device. Who knows? It's just that it's neither here nor there: he decided to hide it, period. No one forced him to do it. It was his decision. That is a very simplistic, head in the sand, attitude. People often make decisions based on how others will react. This is perhaps even more the case when celebrity and wealth are involved. YARA: Maybe, I'm not qualified to pass judgements on the British society. I am! ;) |
| Yara 10.06.2008 15:30 |
Fair play, Holly2003. I see your points and they are no doubt legitimate. Good discussion throughout. ;-) Take care! |
| Saif 11.06.2008 06:51 |
I'll watch it only if Johnny Depp plays Freddie. If he doesn't, I won't watch it and I'm afraid I'll have to burn some theatres then.... |
| Daniel Nester 11.06.2008 17:06 |
I really do think Depp could make something out of this film, and with DeNiro's production company behind it, this first draft of a script (many go through 20, 30, 40 drafts) could become something special. |
| Yara 12.06.2008 10:28 |
Daniel Nester wrote: I really do think Depp could make something out of this film, and with DeNiro's production company behind it, this first draft of a script (many go through 20, 30, 40 drafts) could become something special.I think you do have a point here. Johnny Depp is a very fine actor, not only because he's convincing on screen, which is great, but mainly because he's very creative and inventive. He more or less shapes the characters as much, or even more, than the director or the writer. That he is the actor is a hope. More of a hope, even, when we know that he's fond of music in general and of rock music in particular. I find it hard to believe that Depp would accept doing the first draft, as it is and has been described here. I pretty much doubt. I do think there's hope there. Well, the guy went as far as to RS guitar player Keith Richards to shape his character (a Pirate!), so no doubt the guy is inventive and creative and is linked to music. Yeah, I would rather see Jim Burton directing this one, it'd be a hell of a movie in terms of creativity - because that's what's Deep and Burton are partially about: trying to make things a bit different from what we usually see in the movies - and intelligence, but, well, I liked "The Hours", so...let's see, it may turn out to be interesting. Well, The Hours is another good example of a movie I could direct if I took some lessons, I think(lol): if I had Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore, Ed Harris and the post-Dogville Nicole Kidman, well, the movie would be interesting at least. lol So, here I stand: I hope to see a good movie. That's it. I'm talking now like a simple movie-goer, not as a Queen fan. Because, well, I have to be realistic: the movie is going to be made, it seems. So, if it's going to be made, I think it's a sign of hope that there's Johnny Depp there. And that this is alledegly the first draft. So, let's see. :-) |
| beautifulsoup 12.06.2008 11:46 |
Daniel Nester wrote: It's a freaking opera is what it is.A Freddie opera? Now *there's* an idea! |
| Daniel Nester 12.06.2008 12:04 |
They made operas out of Jerry Springer and Nixon visiting China, so it's not so out of the realm of possibility. I think I would like it more than We Will Rock You. (Ducks head.) |
| The Real Wizard 12.06.2008 12:32 |
Daniel Nester wrote: They made operas out of Jerry Springer and Nixon visiting China, so it's not so out of the realm of possibility. I think I would like it more than We Will Rock You. (Ducks head.)Funny how so many people who "don't like" the musical haven't even seen it. Did you get out to Vegas or somewhere else to see it, or are you one of them too? |
| on my way up 12.06.2008 13:09 |
Sir GHWhere I live Queen is regarded as one of the biggest bands ever. But by the serious music press not as one of the best:-) In a way Queen still seems the band some type of people(pseudo intellectuals:-) love to hate. Freddie is regarded as an incredible vocalist and a very flamboyant character. Bohemian Rhapsody makes it to number 1 in many polls, ever since freddie's passing and recently Freddie was voted number 2 after Elvis Presley as best vocalist ever(in a poll that got quite some publicity). So I can't complain. Altough every piece about Freddie starts or ends with the words: Freddie Mercury, who died from Aids in 1991... Brian and the others get little attention. Queen=Freddie Mercury attitude, you know. |
| Saif 12.06.2008 13:45 |
Elvis is incredibly over-rated. Even his daughter would agree that Freddie is a better singer than him. If you count rockabilly only, even then, Roy Orbison is a better singer than Elvis. But I don't have the authority to judge Belgium. :) Anyway, how certain is it that Johnny Depp will indeed play Mercury? I will see the movie IF and ONLY IF Depp plays Mercury. I'll see it even if this shit script gets drafted. I'll do it for Depp, if not for Freddie. |
| Daniel Nester 12.06.2008 13:45 |
No, I saw WWRY in London. During the first year. (My wife's dad lives in England, so we go out there every two years or so, which is also how I got to see QPR at Wembley Pavillion.) I didn't hate WWRY; not at all. I just didn't love it. I think it's more curious than anything. I loved the music--it was loud and genuine. |
| Donna13 12.06.2008 14:33 |
I just re-read this thread and I think we are lucky that Under Pressure started this thread and that she had many thoughtful comments here from an insider's viewpoint (inside the film industry, I mean, but also of course - "insider" at Queenzone - ha). Dusta said there was an interview with the director for this project. Does that mean they are working on this film now? If it only got two votes on the "black list" for 2007, I thought maybe that meant it wasn't considered good enough to make. Have you thought of sending the script to Brian? Do you think he actually read this one and still had positive comments about this film being made? Have you thought about writing one yourself or would that be considered a no-no since Michael Cunningham already has his script circulating? It would be a shame if people are so impressed by him that they would go ahead and do a really bad movie. Because if it is a big "in all theatres" type of movie - then nobody would want to tackle Freddie as a subject again possibly - or I imagine the wait would be quite long. I don't know. Anyway, I think there are so many "little stories" about Freddie's life, that any number of stories could be told in different movies. I suppose all the possible ideas would have to be narrowed down quite a bit for any 2-hour movie. Thanks, UP. Please keep us updated on what you hear, if it is safe to do so. |
| Daniel Nester 12.06.2008 16:34 |
I seriously doubt there has been a director "attached," as they say, to this project. It's still in its infant stages. Is there a link? And I'm sure that Brian would have a copy of the script right now, considering it's to do with DeNiro's production company. Re-reading this thread could be harmful for your health. |
| pma 12.06.2008 17:52 |
Oh my, that surely doesn't sound like a good script as a whole. But for one if the biopic is about Freddie Mercury, then it could either concentrate on his music as the main factor (the reason we as the public know know him, his music). Or it could try to somehow create his private persona, the person he was when he was not practicing his well-known occupation of music (yes I'd like to think he had a life besides music, how strange is that). And if that private persona just happens to be of a man who was as someone put it " a raging homosexual" then so be it. For some bizarre reason I'd rather take that route when the subject of the biopic happens to be a certain Freddie Mercury. A portrayal of F.M as someone who lived for his "art" and thought about music 24/7 sounds way more "off" than a portrayal where F.M lived for sex and "goodtimes" and thought about it most of the time. That somehow sounds more human to me. And besides, there could be much much worse ideas for an F.M biopic. Two words - Mariam Ahundova. |
| Dusta 12.06.2008 21:22 |
Ugh. I think some of us just want the film to be about MORE than his gayness. I wouldn't get into a movie about...Bob Dylan, if it was chiefly about him having sex and doing drugs. That has been done and done and done...
There are many more interesting facets of Freddie's life(including his colourful and talented BAND MATES, for one thing) that one could write about.
I am not opposed to Freddie's gayness being A PART of the film, just not the focus. I want to see, and, hear, about the MUSIC, about the transformation from boarding school boy to eager Brit subject to rockstar...and, about his loves.Daniel Nester wrote: Why would focusing on his gayness undermine his status as a great songwriter? Is gayness some sort of force field or krytonite that repels people from focusing on songwriting talents? |
| Dusta 12.06.2008 21:27 |
Though I may have worded it a bit differently, I agree wholeheartedly with this post. Very good points.
Zebonka12 wrote: I don't see it as any different to if this was a film about Errol Flynn and 78% of the film turned out to be him shoving his love-sausage into different girls. Redundant sex scenes are redundant sex scenes. I don't buy Queen DVDs or listen to their music because I give a shit about where Freddie was stuffing his cock. What next? Freddie was a regular user of the toilet, 'it was who he was!', and so the film should be him taking a crap every five minutes? A good movie is an eloquent movie. The fact that he has a big gay moustache should spell out his sexuality well enough, and the movie can get on with the business of not being so shitty. Either way, it actually doesn't bother me. The film will probably suck. |
| Dusta 12.06.2008 21:35 |
Yes, this. Freddie was gay. Clearly. It is a part of who he was. It is a part of what fueled his art, his music. Why can't we have a lovely film which is about all of those things? His music, his art, his friendships, his band...and his gay self? Freddie was an interesting character, who came from an interesting beginning, who led an interesting life. I would like to see a film which explores more than the gayness and the drugs, is all.
YourValentine wrote: Why is it so easy to misunderstand each other? I know Freddie was gay. I say: him being gay was determinative (is that a word?) for his character and personality. If he had not been gay he would not have been Freddie Mercury, he would not have written Bohemian Rhapsody. I want a movie which makes that connection. I want a movie that shows us Freddie the gay song writer and musician. I don't mind sex scenes - on the contrary, I want to bring the fact home that Freddie was a gay man. However, I would not want ONLY gay scenes because then I could just as well watch a movie about my gay neighbour. And although my neighbour is a nice guy, he is not biopic material only because he is gay. The problem with us Queen fans is that we all have created a picture of Freddie in our minds. We know all his songs, saw the documentaries, read the books, the interviews, anything. Probably we have the biggest problem to keep an open mind for a movie in which we may be shown a picture that is different from our own idea about who Freddie was. |
| Dusta 12.06.2008 21:50 |
I admit I have found Zebonka's AIDS jokes offensive, and, well...puzzling. I have actually avoided this place because of that sort of thing(which, to be fair, has not been Zebonka all by his lonesome), but, I DO agree with the point he made, here, in this thread, poop aside.
Daniel Nester wrote: Zebonka, go ahead and justify your AIDS jokes and puns. Do it all you want. My feathers will remain ruffled, as you say. (That's a classy way to put it, too, the feather-ruffling bit; not at all homophobic or meant to say I am in any way effeminate in my sensitivity.) |
| The Real Wizard 12.06.2008 22:38 |
Daniel Nester wrote: No, I saw WWRY in London. During the first year. (My wife's dad lives in England, so we go out there every two years or so, which is also how I got to see QPR at Wembley Pavillion.) I didn't hate WWRY; not at all. I just didn't love it. I think it's more curious than anything. I loved the music--it was loud and genuine.Well, thank goodness you actually have an informed opinion on this one.. ! |
| you_rock_my_socks06 13.06.2008 05:33 |
Daniel Nester wrote: I didn't hate WWRY; not at all. I just didn't love it. I think it's more curious than anything. I loved the music--it was loud and genuine.I think that's the conclusion most people have about it |
| Tranchera 13.06.2008 12:39 |
Freddie Mercury, a Rabbi and God walk into a bar. The barman says to Freddie: "AIDS." |
| Donna13 13.06.2008 13:18 |
Tranchera wrote: Freddie Mercury, a Rabbi and God walk into a bar. The barman says to Freddie: "AIDS."Not bad. Are you going to expand it? Here is my idea for an opening scene. Setting the scene in London: view of London from above (like in Mary Poppins or Google Earth); then the camera swoops down and gets into a taxi. Then it encounters lots of 1970's traffic and other characters, then it arrives at a market area and goes into Freddie's booth where he is selling art or clothing or something and adjusting his mirrors so he can see the girls trying on clothing in an opposite stall. There will be finger snaps - like in the beginning of Killer Queen. Then Roger appears with his shirt mostly unbuttoned, and a halo of light is behind him (aaaaaaahhhhhhh). Well ... I am just beginning to write my script. I hope Bob likes it or it will all have been a big waste of my time! |
| Daniel Nester 13.06.2008 14:00 |
Here's my opinion: One man-on-man sex act--from a kiss on up to full-on love-making--of an actor playing Freddie on this film or any other one and it instantly becomes, for many die-hard Queen fans at least, a film that focuses too much on his Freddie's gayness. It's as if some fans take Freddie's desire to be closeted or indeterminate in his sexuality in the public eye to also include our reception and representation of him to other people. That's a bit of a stretch, for my taste. |
| john bodega 13.06.2008 14:17 |
Depends on the Freddie you want to see on the screen, which I believe is a point either you or someone else brought up earlier in the thread. Do we want to see the Freddie that Freddie wanted us to see? Or the Freddie as he was perceived at the time? Or a warts and all Freddie? Given that he's been gone for 17 years and now only exists as the impressions he's left on other people, you really could go anywhere with a biopic on the man. Freddie for instance insisted he was a normal, boring guy (or something like that... I don't have a quote handy). One misconception is that he never 'found love', when in fact he did. There are literally dozens of angles there, and my only hope is that they devise something that is true to Freddie... if I have to choose between fact and truth, I'd like a little bit of both, but something leaning towards truth. |
| Tranchera 13.06.2008 14:32 |
Why did Freddie cross the road? Because he had AIDs. To be serious, though, a film about a gay person does not need, and is probably even better off without a gay sex scene in it. Even a film like Philadelphia, which was focusing on sexuality, didn't need a sex scene in it. It just depends on if it's a film about Freddie, or a film about how he died. If it's a film about Freddie, there's no need to show the sex. Everyone has sex (er, most people) but there isn't a sex scene in every biopic ever. If it's about his death, I still don't think the sex scene is necessary. |
| Under Pressure 13.06.2008 23:56 |
I don't know why this appeared earlier than what I was replying to?? Double post. |
| Under Pressure 13.06.2008 23:59 |
Donna13 wrote: Anyway, I think there are so many "little stories" about Freddie's life, that any number of stories could be told in different movies. I suppose all the possible ideas would have to be narrowed down quite a bit for any 2-hour movie. Thanks, UP. Please keep us updated on what you hear, if it is safe to do so.Thanks for the response Donna ... I'm trying to figure out exactly what the production status is at the time. Due to the clout of Mr. Cunningham I wouldn't be surprised if it were in some stage of pre-production. I would be tempted to work on a draft if I knew his was dead in the water. Originally when the project was announced, it seemed as it would be structured as "a week in the life of" -- which maybe this draft started out as, but it didn't end up being as it jumps around in time too much. Personally I think this would be a great structure to go with, focusing on the Live Aid week, of course -- there are a number of events happening there, the beginning of his serious relationship with Jim, moving in to Garden Lodge, the aftermath of the Mr Bad Guy release and the South Africa gig, and the culmination of their bickering. As far as an arc, they were friendly again by the time the gig finished, and revitalized, you get to see how revered Freddie was by his famous peers, and perhaps you can even show the entirety of the true performance -- if the rights can be managed. While maybe it leaves out some of the more notable fun anecdotes, it does give us a good portrait of him professionally and personally, without having to cram absolutely everything in about his history. |
| Donna13 14.06.2008 10:20 |
Under Pressure wrote:This is very interesting to think about. I agree that would be a good time period to focus on. Maybe that was their best moment for a lot of reasons.Donna13 wrote: Anyway, I think there are so many "little stories" about Freddie's life, that any number of stories could be told in different movies. I suppose all the possible ideas would have to be narrowed down quite a bit for any 2-hour movie. Thanks, UP. Please keep us updated on what you hear, if it is safe to do so.Thanks for the response Donna ... I'm trying to figure out exactly what the production status is at the time. Due to the clout of Mr. Cunningham I wouldn't be surprised if it were in some stage of pre-production. I would be tempted to work on a draft if I knew his was dead in the water. Originally when the project was announced, it seemed as it would be structured as "a week in the life of" -- which maybe this draft started out as, but it didn't end up being as it jumps around in time too much. Personally I think this would be a great structure to go with, focusing on the Live Aid week, of course -- there are a number of events happening there, the beginning of his serious relationship with Jim, moving in to Garden Lodge, the aftermath of the Mr Bad Guy release and the South Africa gig, and the culmination of their bickering. As far as an arc, they were friendly again by the time the gig finished, and revitalized, you get to see how revered Freddie was by his famous peers, and perhaps you can even show the entirety of the true performance -- if the rights can be managed. While maybe it leaves out some of the more notable fun anecdotes, it does give us a good portrait of him professionally and personally, without having to cram absolutely everything in about his history. Thanks for all your great comments. |
| steven 35638 14.06.2008 13:15 |
I enjoyed reading your insight, UP. The week of Live Aid would serve as a wonderful setting for the film, but I wouldn't let it be limited to that week, of course. It would be fitting for the story to at least end with Freddie Mercury's death, and to let the audience understand his long and dreadful death. I mean, the movie starts out with this man at the top of his profession, and slowly we witness him deteriorating (all along the way witnessing him improving as a musician, of course, ex. Barcelona). Of course, the movie would then need at least one flashback to the early eighties so the audience will understand how he might have caught the disease -- through heavy partying and drugs, a man of his time. This movie has a great deal of potential. I hope that you're given the oppurtunity to write your own draft, and present it to whoever is in charge. |
| Dusta 14.06.2008 17:56 |
I imagine you are right on about this, however, it is certainly not true, in my case. I would welcome such a scene, as long as it fits with the film, and, is not the focus of the entire film. To be honest, I am not so partial to full on sex scenes in ANY sort of film...however, do manage to suffer through them, as long as they are a part of the story.
Daniel Nester wrote: Here's my opinion: One man-on-man sex act--from a kiss on up to full-on love-making--of an actor playing Freddie on this film or any other one and it instantly becomes, for many die-hard Queen fans at least, a film that focuses too much on his Freddie's gayness. It's as if some fans take Freddie's desire to be closeted or indeterminate in his sexuality in the public eye to also include our reception and representation of him to other people. That's a bit of a stretch, for my taste. |
| Daniel Nester 15.06.2008 08:34 |
My guess is a screenwriter who wants to have a gay sex scene in a movie will write, like, 20 of them in the hopes that at least one will stay. If there's just one, any producer worth his or her weight will find a way to cut it. Then again, lots of straight guys and gals might not mind watching Johnny Depp kiss a guy. It might, however, be a shock to see him do it with prosthetic buck teeth. |
| Donna13 15.06.2008 11:12 |
Daniel Nester wrote: My guess is a screenwriter who wants to have a gay sex scene in a movie will write, like, 20 of them in the hopes that at least one will stay. If there's just one, any producer worth his or her weight will find a way to cut it. Then again, lots of straight guys and gals might not mind watching Johnny Depp kiss a guy. It might, however, be a shock to see him do it with prosthetic buck teeth.I don't need to see any kissing at all! Did you see the scene in Chocolat when he was dancing with Juliette B. down at that river rat party? The way he looked at her. Gosh, if it had been me dancing with him at that moment in that scene, I think I would have been in danger of fainting - or knees becoming weak or something. But, anyway, as Freddie, yes he would have to be completely Freddie. I don't know of any other actor that could probably pull it off. Of course, Johnny Depp is amazing. But also, look what Colin Firth can do when no kissing is involved. In fact, he does so much with just his facial expressions that no dialogue is needed for some of his scenes. I think I am agreeing with some others here - that you really don't need anything physically "intimate" to happen on screen to have a huge impact and understanding. It would be great if a lot of things could be communicated without the graphic stuff (in any movie; not just this one). Then, if Freddie's mother is still alive (hope so), she can also enjoy the movie as an artistic achievement (not a gratuitous, possibly embarrassing display of "acting"). Ha. |
| Under Pressure 15.06.2008 15:47 |
Daniel Nester wrote: My guess is a screenwriter who wants to have a gay sex scene in a movie will write, like, 20 of them in the hopes that at least one will stay. If there's just one, any producer worth his or her weight will find a way to cut it.Not the case at all. |
