| mickyparise 11.10.2010 05:44 |
Peter Morgan is one of the busier screenwriters working today, as his two Oscar nominations for Frost/Nixon and The Queen have him in demand for seemingly every high-caliber film that comes down the pipe. His latest effort Hereafter is now a film directed by Clint Eastwood coming out next Friday, but he's got any number of exciting projects coming up, including the one I was most curious to ask about when I interviewed him today-- the untitled Freddie Mercury biopic. We learned last month that Morgan was scripting the biopic for Sacha Baron Cohen to star as the legendary Queen frontman, and he revealed to me today that Baron Cohen isn't just perfect casting, but the entire project was his idea-- "Sacha was the one who asked me to write it. He was the guy who rang me up." I asked him why the movie was intended to focus more on Mercury's musical career than his personal life-- including dying of AIDS in 1991-- and Morgan gave me a frank answer: I didn't want to write an AIDS movie, to be honest with you. And then, I just looked the period-- It's sort of where he rejects [the other members of Queen] and comes back to them. It's sort of like a family movie. It's sort of like I hate my family, I want to be independent, and then I come back. The surviving members of Queen-- Brian May , Roger Taylor and John Deacon-- are collaborating on the project as producers, and though Morgan said he would use their input to recreate the history of the band, it wasn't going to be a puff piece or even necessarily show them in a good light: I'm not sure how much they'll like what I write. I think they'll recognize the truth in it, but it's a series of painful memories for them. I'm essentially writing about the most painful time in the band's history. The time he's referring to is the period leading up to the famous 1985 Live Aid concert, when the band took time off from touring before facing harsh criticism for performing in South Africa during the apartheid era. Presumably Morgan will be exploring some of the conflicts within the band at the time, though as he explained, "I'm only on page 56" of the script, so there's plenty of time for all of this to change. He also wasn't certain whether or not Baron Cohen would be performing the songs or simply lip-synching to Mercury's original songs, but seemed as enthused as I am about how perfect Baron Cohen is for the role. The Freddie Mercury project is still set to start production in 2011. We'll have the rest of my conversation with Morgan on Hereafter, including why he never expected a star as big as Matt Damon to play his role, posted tomorrow, so come back to check it all out. link |
| The Real Wizard 11.10.2010 10:44 |
Peter Morgan says:
I'm essentially writing about the most painful time in the band's history.Um... no he's not. The movie ends at 1985. Otherwise, the concept and chosen time period of the movie sounds great. |
| Wiley 11.10.2010 12:22 |
I like the idea. I imagine something like this: "Hot Space underperforms, Queen fails to fill out arenas in the U.S., they take some time off, they make a 'comeback' with The Works but the relationship between band members is not too good. Freddie goes solo but eventually goes back to the Mothership. Queen is back on top form in Live Aid. The End." Hopefully there will be flashbacks to select periods in the band's history and it will end in a bittersweet note because, eventhough we see Queen "conquering the world" again, everybody knows how the story ended. In Borat's voice: "NIIIIICEEEE!!" |
| buffypython 11.10.2010 17:00 |
Wiley wrote: everybody knows how the story ended. In Borat's voice: "NIIIIICEEEE!!" Yeah, that will be sad. Still, like Morgan said, it's not an AIDS movie. I think it's better that it isn't, cuz that would almost necessarily make the rest of the script feel like it was leading up to it or make it poorly written. Plus, all the hype about it would revolve around the sickness at the end & it would be a sob story. I'd like to think it's not all gonna be drama. XD Exactly what I thought when I first heard Cohen was doing this! Farrokh: Musical Learnings of England for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Zanzibar. I really hope they have Cohen lipsync with either Freddie's voice or an impeccably close singer. I have a feeling when I first see pictures of Cohen dressed in a leotard or leather shorts, I'm going to wet myself over how much he looks like Freddie. I pray we get to see the shoot from IWTBF! I would hate to see the entire movie revolve around Freddie's sexuality, though I'm sure it will at least touch on it, which is good. As for the music, we'll obviously get most of the hits, but I'd like to think they'll throw in 1 or 2 non-singles in the movie for us Queenies. |
| GratefulFan 11.10.2010 23:20 |
Sir GH wrote: Peter Morgan says: I'm essentially writing about the most painful time in the band's history. Um... no he's not. The movie ends at 1985. Otherwise, the concept and chosen time period of the movie sounds great. =================================== Do you think it's impossible that 1986/87 and beyond was not the most painful time in the band's history? I don't think that's impossible. While there was a lot of personal pain during those last years, it seemed that as a band a lot of the tensions of the past fell away due to the realities they were facing. The shared writing credits and the fortress they built around Freddie seem to speak to a renewed closeness and a shift in priorities. In the first interview after Freddie's death Roger said that although making Innuendo was hard and poignant, there was a lot of joy as well. Anyway, I do like the sound of where this script is going, preliminarily at least. |
| cmsdrums 12.10.2010 02:50 |
I very much like that the film will be focussed on the music and the band rather than Freddie's lifestyle - although as he met Jim in those years, and that along with his clubbing etc.. in New York and Munich is as much what led to the tensions in the band as much, if not more so, than the working environment. The only worry for me - which is unfortunately unavoidable with films about real people - is that certain fictional dialogue and events will be created by the writer and director to 'sex it up', and the general public will assume that these events and conversations actually took place and may paint the members of Queen in an unrealisitc light. As I say though, that's unavoidable. |
| Bad Seed 12.10.2010 09:55 |
So Freddie rejected the band, then came back to them? I had a slight chill down my spine when i read that bit. I hope to god its not going to a Brian May egomaniac film! With Freddie leaving the band to pursue a solo career, his solo career being a flop, then returning to Lord May with his tail between his legs. I could actually see this happening. |
| freddiefan91 12.10.2010 10:17 |
so basically they are going to falsify stuff to make a movie? I knew there was a reason why i wasnt keen on this If they are saying that Freddie rejected the band to make a solo album are they going to cover the same story for Roger making an album before Freddie did? |
| TyinPalmSprings 12.10.2010 12:44 |
It is disappointing that the time period selected for the movie misses the mark. If you want show the true Freddy, show him after he found his true love (Jim), his struggle with fidelity, coke, his creativity and the health impact on his life, love, and existance with the band. It could also show the fair weather friends and those who betrayed him, used him, and those who stood by him til the end. He had quirks, some lovable, an artists temperment, and the last challenging period of his life, when he reflects, seems to be a much better choice for the film. I have read several books and feel Jim's would make the best basis. May, Deacon and Taylor are great musicians, but this is about Freddie. When he died the band fragmented and never made it back..that says a lot. |
| Projector Freddie 12.10.2010 16:57 |
Well people, I mean, the liner notes of Mr. Bad Guy did thank Brian, Roger and John for "staying out of this" |
| buffypython 12.10.2010 19:05 |
TyinPalmSprings wrote: It is disappointing that the time period selected for the movie misses the mark. If you want show the true Freddy, show him after he found his true love (Jim), his struggle with fidelity, coke, his creativity and the health impact on his life, love, and existance with the band. It could also show the fair weather friends and those who betrayed him, used him, and those who stood by him til the end. He had quirks, some lovable, an artists temperment, and the last challenging period of his life, when he reflects, seems to be a much better choice for the film. I have read several books and feel Jim's would make the best basis. May, Deacon and Taylor are great musicians, but this is about Freddie. When he died the band fragmented and never made it back..that says a lot. "The true Freddie" is Freddie from all time periods. There is no 1 time period where he was more Freddie than another one; you can't help but be yourself. I think Morgan just doesn't want the movie to be the sad, decline of the artist movie of the year; even if the movie spanned Queen's entire career, the trailers for it would just make it out to be a depressing tear-jerker all because of the end. At least, this way, the audience doesn't end up remembering Freddie for his illness & death, but for his music and love. |
| The Real Wizard 13.10.2010 02:14 |
GratefulFan wrote: "Do you think it's impossible that 1986/87 and beyond was not the most painful time in the band's history?" I highly doubt there is even a remote chance that there was any single time between 1970-1990 that was more difficult for them than November 1991 through April 1992. But you're right about the Innuendo sessions. It was a great time for them. As for the movie including the detail of Freddie rejecting the band and crawling back - that may not be far from the truth. Freddie's solo album as a whole was a major departure from Queen, but there were many parts that were very Queen-like. It has been documented that Freddie asked his musicians to play certain parts the way the members of Queen did (particularly his guitarist), and they came up well short. The first half of 1985 was probably the lowest point of their career as a band, and they were going through the motions on stage. This solo album (particularly the thank you in the liner notes) likely did not help their relations. After the album flopped, Freddie may have realized he was best as part of the collective, and Live Aid was the vehicle that made it apparent. If it wasn't for Live Aid, it's quite possible the band may have broken up after the Works tour. Next to releasing BoRhap, those 17 minutes were probably the single most pivotal moment of their career. |
| plumrach 13.10.2010 02:31 |
The band as a whole decided to take time off after the hot space tour, apparantly they all decided that a year off would be good but as it turns out they only took a few months away from each other I dont think Freddie rejected the rest of the group, he said in an interview that he wanted to make a solo album and thats what he did, it wouldnt be as much of a solo album if it had a Queen like sound and i like the fact that the Mr Bad Guy album sounds so different from the usual Queen sound and he made the album in between the works tours so he was still with the group as such As for Live Aid, all 4 of them played a big part in what was a very successful 20 mins and from that you could see that they were happy to be with each other |
| The Real Wizard 13.10.2010 02:43 |
While all true, you've missed some of the history. Tensions were very high in the band at the time, and there are plenty of things that wouldn't be mentioned in casual interviews. Interviews rarely reveal the whole truth. |
| mike hunt 13.10.2010 03:32 |
plumrach wrote: The band as a whole decided to take time off after the hot space tour, apparantly they all decided that a year off would be good but as it turns out they only took a few months away from each other I dont think Freddie rejected the rest of the group, he said in an interview that he wanted to make a solo album and thats what he did, it wouldnt be as much of a solo album if it had a Queen like sound and i like the fact that the Mr Bad Guy album sounds so different from the usual Queen sound and he made the album in between the works tours so he was still with the group as such As for Live Aid, all 4 of them played a big part in what was a very successful 20 mins and from that you could see that they were happy to be with each other Very True......Freddie didn't reject the rest of the group.......He recorded Mr. Bad Guy during The works tour and in between the works and Magic era. Why is it that roger could record 3 solo albums and no one say's he rejected Queen?, lol. Also, Freddie asked a guitarist to record his guitar bits like brian on one song, and that song didn't even make it onto the album. Mr. Bad guy sounds nothing like Queen. Including the guitar parts. I guess the closest is Man Made paradise. |
| mike hunt 13.10.2010 03:50 |
buffypython wrote: TyinPalmSprings wrote: It is disappointing that the time period selected for the movie misses the mark. If you want show the true Freddy, show him after he found his true love (Jim), his struggle with fidelity, coke, his creativity and the health impact on his life, love, and existance with the band. It could also show the fair weather friends and those who betrayed him, used him, and those who stood by him til the end. He had quirks, some lovable, an artists temperment, and the last challenging period of his life, when he reflects, seems to be a much better choice for the film. I have read several books and feel Jim's would make the best basis. May, Deacon and Taylor are great musicians, but this is about Freddie. When he died the band fragmented and never made it back..that says a lot. "The true Freddie" is Freddie from all time periods. There is no 1 time period where he was more Freddie than another one; you can't help but be yourself. I think Morgan just doesn't want the movie to be the sad, decline of the artist movie of the year; even if the movie spanned Queen's entire career, the trailers for it would just make it out to be a depressing tear-jerker all because of the end. At least, this way, the audience doesn't end up remembering Freddie for his illness & death, but for his music and love. I disagree......The reason why The Doors was a big success was because they showed the ups and downs of the band, and not ending it after a good comeback album. That's kind of silly if you ask me. The Queen story didn't end in 1985, it ended tragically in 1991, and think it would have made a heck of a movie if they covered the whole career, Even if we're shedding a few tears at the end. The bonding of the 4 members during the Innuendo sessions was a big part of the bands history, and would gain the band a lot more respect as people and musicians. Those are the things that make a great movie. It still could end on a happy note with the tribute Concert and Bo Rhap hitting # 1 again. |
| plumrach 13.10.2010 04:06 |
we also know from various interviews from all the members that they did have disagreements about various things but nobody felt it was serious enough to say " im leaving and thats it" it would be strange it they didnt argue and disagree about things, all 4 of them are/were very different charachters that fitted together well within the band which is what made them so successful |
| john bodega 13.10.2010 05:51 |
"The only worry for me - which is unfortunately unavoidable with films about real people - is that certain fictional dialogue and events will be created by the writer and director to 'sex it up', and the general public will assume that these events and conversations actually took place" So you've seen Titanic then? |
| paulosham 13.10.2010 06:08 |
mike hunt wrote: I disagree......The reason why The Doors was a big success was because they showed the ups and downs of the band, and not ending it after a good comeback album. That's kind of silly if you ask me. The Queen story didn't end in 1985, it ended tragically in 1991, and think it would have made a heck of a movie if they covered the whole career, Even if we're shedding a few tears at the end. The bonding of the 4 members during the Innuendo sessions was a big part of the bands history, and would gain the band a lot more respect as people and musicians. Those are the things that make a great movie. It still could end on a happy note with the tribute Concert and Bo Rhap hitting # 1 again. You should watch The Damned United to see that you don't need to span someones whole career to tell a good story, I think that ending the film with the tribute concert and bohemian rhapsody at No. 1 would be awful, I mean talk about cliche. If you've ever read any of David Peace's work or seen any of his previous films you'd know that's not his style. |
| Fone Bone 13.10.2010 09:42 |
Dr Evil Bri did it again : focusing Fred's biopic on Mr Bad Guy's flop ! Outrageous ! Anyway, I'm not sure Freddie was really trying that hard to go solo at this point ; Mr Bad Guy is really below his standards in terms of both composition and production. I suppose a recreation of a Body Language performance during the US Hot Space Tour will make for great cinema, though |
| TyinPalmSprings 13.10.2010 10:19 |
I see the point of not creating a tear jerker, bu this could be done in a meaningful way. With all due respects to John, Roger and Brian, , I thought this movie was to be a biopic of Freddie, not of the rise of fame and fortune of Queen. There are enough praise and glory books and clips on the net. Like Frost/Nixon where Morgan dealt with Nixon at a turning point in his life, this film could be equally as powerful. My fear is that this will just be another exercize in guitar and drums solos (so to speak), possibly dealing only with creatively supplemented fillers and treating Freddie as a brilliant madman with an overactive libido. Morgan does seem to like to show the petty and flawed man/woman in his writings. (The Queen,Nixon, Henry VIII) This is not the way I think Freddie would want to be remembered. Rather, make the point that he finds true love (Jim), and its effects on him (looks at he ring from he wears in his later interviews), his gentile nature, constant need to know he is loved, shyness,refined taste, generosity, and the changes that finding Jim, the effects of the virus, plus the freedom to explore creative outlets that brought him completeness, peace, privacy and a time of happiness in spite of his dibilitating illness. Freddie was a gay man, and he celebrated that and his uniqueness, and, although reluctant to discuss it in public, did not hide it in his actions. He was genuine. I fear all that will be lost in this film if it just focuses on Queens glory years. |
| GratefulFan 13.10.2010 11:32 |
Sir GH wrote: GratefulFan wrote: "Do you think it's impossible that 1986/87 and beyond was not the most painful time in the band's history?" I highly doubt there is even a remote chance that there was any single time between 1970-1990 that was more difficult for them than November 1991 through April 1992. But you're right about the Innuendo sessions. It was a great time for them. As for the movie including the detail of Freddie rejecting the band and crawling back - that may not be far from the truth. Freddie's solo album as a whole was a major departure from Queen, but there were many parts that were very Queen-like. It has been documented that Freddie asked his musicians to play certain parts the way the members of Queen did (particularly his guitarist), and they came up well short. The first half of 1985 was probably the lowest point of their career as a band, and they were going through the motions on stage. This solo album (particularly the thank you in the liner notes) likely did not help their relations. After the album flopped, Freddie may have realized he was best as part of the collective, and Live Aid was the vehicle that made it apparent. If it wasn't for Live Aid, it's quite possible the band may have broken up after the Works tour. Next to releasing BoRhap, those 17 minutes were probably the single most pivotal moment of their career. ================================ Would be interested to hear more of your thinking behind your Nov. 91 - Apr. 92 reference, if you're of a mind. Dug up something on brianmay.com I had remembered reading about Brian's feelings on some of Fred's choices around his solo work. It's striking that he characterizes it as hurt that still remains all these years later. So really there is nothing to say .... the art for the album hasn't been made public yet. But I have been hearing bits of the music all day [Wed 12 July]as Justin and Kris work on assembling it at incredibly high quality in my studio ... it sounds pretty damn good on the whole to me ... nice to hear Freddie's solo stuff again. There's always a tiny bit of pique inside us, I think, as well ... Freddie's solo stuff took him away from us, and although the rest of us all helped him on many tracks ... he put on the sleeve something like "thanks to Roger Brian and John for staying out of this" ... actually nothing had been further from the truth. And Freddie did this weird thing of hiring some guitarist to try to sound like me ... and played it to me with glee, imagining that I would love it ... strange .. forgive my immodesty - and the guy was not at all bad, but ... I just knew I could have done it 10 times better ... and it was MY style ! in some cases I had already demo'd parts for it. But in some cases Freddie just got the guy to "do Brian May type harmonies" - an approximation - and if he wanted the tracks to sound like us, why not just use us ? A little bit of hurt is still there. Unusual because Freddie was usually so considerate. .. (to us at least !!! ) Full post here: http://www.brianmay.com/brian/brianssb/brianssbjul06a.html |
| Holly2003 13.10.2010 12:10 |
I think Brian's missed a simple practical point. If Fred employed a session musician he could keep him sitting around until Fred was ready to 'come to work'. On his own solo album, Fred probably didn't want to work to Brian's timetable, he would've wanted the freedom to work when he liked without having to worry about Brian (or Roger's) ego getting in the way. Plus, of course, it takes Brian a month to produce a 10-second solo :) |
| mike hunt 13.10.2010 14:17 |
GratefulFan wrote: Sir GH wrote: GratefulFan wrote: "Do you think it's impossible that 1986/87 and beyond was not the most painful time in the band's history?" I highly doubt there is even a remote chance that there was any single time between 1970-1990 that was more difficult for them than November 1991 through April 1992. But you're right about the Innuendo sessions. It was a great time for them. As for the movie including the detail of Freddie rejecting the band and crawling back - that may not be far from the truth. Freddie's solo album as a whole was a major departure from Queen, but there were many parts that were very Queen-like. It has been documented that Freddie asked his musicians to play certain parts the way the members of Queen did (particularly his guitarist), and they came up well short. The first half of 1985 was probably the lowest point of their career as a band, and they were going through the motions on stage. This solo album (particularly the thank you in the liner notes) likely did not help their relations. After the album flopped, Freddie may have realized he was best as part of the collective, and Live Aid was the vehicle that made it apparent. If it wasn't for Live Aid, it's quite possible the band may have broken up after the Works tour. Next to releasing BoRhap, those 17 minutes were probably the single most pivotal moment of their career. ================================ Would be interested to hear more of your thinking behind your Nov. 91 - Apr. 92 reference, if you're of a mind. Dug up something on brianmay.com I had remembered reading about Brian's feelings on some of Fred's choices around his solo work. It's striking that he characterizes it as hurt that still remains all these years later. So really there is nothing to say .... the art for the album hasn't been made public yet. But I have been hearing bits of the music all day [Wed 12 July]as Justin and Kris work on assembling it at incredibly high quality in my studio ... it sounds pretty damn good on the whole to me ... nice to hear Freddie's solo stuff again. There's always a tiny bit of pique inside us, I think, as well ... Freddie's solo stuff took him away from us, and although the rest of us all helped him on many tracks ... he put on the sleeve something like "thanks to Roger Brian and John for staying out of this" ... actually nothing had been further from the truth. And Freddie did this weird thing of hiring some guitarist to try to sound like me ... and played it to me with glee, imagining that I would love it ... strange .. forgive my immodesty - and the guy was not at all bad, but ... I just knew I could have done it 10 times better ... and it was MY style ! in some cases I had already demo'd parts for it. But in some cases Freddie just got the guy to "do Brian May type harmonies" - an approximation - and if he wanted the tracks to sound like us, why not just use us ? A little bit of hurt is still there. Unusual because Freddie was usually so considerate. .. (to us at least !!! ) Full post here: link sorry, but I hear nothing on Mr. Bad guy that suggests he was trying to sound like Queen. Is this brian's ego talking or the truth?....but in all honesty I can't help but wonder how much better the works and a Kind Of magic era would have been if those same songs would have been done by the band, and not some weak session muscians. The songs were good. I do believe believe most of brian's words. i think freddie was on a ego trip and wanted to make it on his own. A shame, a lot of good music was wasted. |
| Gregsynth 13.10.2010 14:37 |
I think Freddie just wanted to see if he could "make it" on his own. I do agree that nothing on Mr. Bad Guy reminds of "Queen" in a way (not really a bad thing--just different). I always wondered if the band took each other's solo songs and they all re-did them and put them on a "Queen" record. Imagine how more successful The Works would have been if they took out a few of the weaker songs, and replaced them with the member's solo tracks! Even if there was ego trips involved (I don't know), I do give Freddie respect for the following: 1. Using original ideas on his solo stuff 2. Not breaking up the band before going solo 3. Keeping the solo stuff out of the band's stuff (AKA not talking about it on stage). 4. Returning to the band after making Mr. Bad Guy |
| mike hunt 13.10.2010 14:47 |
I shouldn't say the music was wasted. i still enjoy some of the album, but when brian said he was excited because he liked what he heard, and put down some demo's I started thinking of how good those songs would have sounded. no offense to roger and john, but freddie and Brian were musical soul brother's. Their styles were perfect for each other. |
| Amazon 14.10.2010 14:04 |
Holly2003 wrote: "I think Brian's missed a simple practical point. If Fred employed a session musician he could keep him sitting around until Fred was ready to 'come to work'. On his own solo album, Fred probably didn't want to work to Brian's timetable, he would've wanted the freedom to work when he liked without having to worry about Brian (or Roger's) ego getting in the way. Plus, of course, it takes Brian a month to produce a 10-second solo :)" Not to mention that Freddie probably felt that it would be best to record a solo album which was completely separate from the group. He spent so much with the other guys that when it came time to recording a solo album, I think he wanted it to be a proper solo album, rather than one with his bandmates doing guest spots. |
| The Real Wizard 15.10.2010 11:25 |
GratefulFan wrote:
Would be interested to hear more of your thinking behind your Nov. 91 - Apr. 92 reference, if you're of a mind. 11-24-91 - FM dies 12-3-91 - Bri/Rog TV interview, little more than a week after FM dies Feb-Mar 92 - FM tribute rehearsals 4-20-92 - FM tribute concert No band squabble before 1990 can remotely compare to the difficulty of these few months. |
| Gregsynth 15.10.2010 12:38 |
Not to mention the final months of Freddie's life were probably extremely painful on everybody. |
| Amazon 16.10.2010 13:12 |
mike hunt wrote: "I disagree......The reason why The Doors was a big success was because they showed the ups and downs of the band, and not ending it after a good comeback album. That's kind of silly if you ask me. The Queen story didn't end in 1985, it ended tragically in 1991, and think it would have made a heck of a movie if they covered the whole career, Even if we're shedding a few tears at the end. The bonding of the 4 members during the Innuendo sessions was a big part of the bands history, and would gain the band a lot more respect as people and musicians. Those are the things that make a great movie. It still could end on a happy note with the tribute Concert and Bo Rhap hitting # 1 again." If the film is going to show Queen's entire career, then I don't think it should end with Innuendo. Personally I consider No-One But You to be the end of Queen, however since it's nowhere near famous enough for the producers to want to include it, I think they should end with the memorial concert and mention MIH and No-One But You in a postcript. |
| Holly2003 16.10.2010 15:16 |
I'm always a bit disappointed that documentary makers tend to define Fred as 'that gay guy who died of aids,' rather than the tremendous musician and songwriter he was, so I'm glad this film will end at Live Aid. However, it will probably still be naff, as most music bios are. |
| Dusta 16.10.2010 22:33 |
While I AM a fan of Brian May, it does seem as if he is the least enthusiastic about sharing memories of Freddie in a positive light. I have always found the difference in Roger's recollection of events compared with Brian's recollection of events to be interesting, though it seems we hear far more from Brian. It will be interesting, then, if it IS true that all three remaining Queen members are going to contribute. John Deacon? Really? From what I've read(which is very little, truthfully) Deacon was the most saddened by the death of Mercury. It is hard to believe he is actually gong to be involved in this. |
| GratefulFan 17.10.2010 08:24 |
Read a quick Peter Morgan interview piece yesterday that contained one question about this film. Not much new, but a slightly more nuanced answer about the Sacha connection: Interviewer: And now you’re writing the Freddie Mercury movie for Sacha Baron Cohen, which seems like a very strange marriage of talents. Peter Morgan: He’s been trying to persuade me for two years. He said, “Would you write Freddie Mercury for me?” And I said, “I don’t really know why. I don’t really like Queen – no, not interested. Don’t want to write anything to do with AIDS. I don’t find a way in here.” Silence. Six months later: “Will you write Freddie Mercury for me?” “Uhhh, I don’t think so, I can’t find a way in.” “Well, will you write something else for me?” And his other ideas were so bad, I thought, I’ll figure out the Freddie Mercury one. And then finally I found a way in, and we set it up. Interviewer: Is there a director attached? PM: No, not yet. I’ve got to write the script first. I’m on page 56. "I don't really like Queen". I wonder if that gives a scriptwriter objectivity, or threatens to diminish a sense of their greatness which finally could have been wrested from the critics of the past in a long, historical look like this. |
| GratefulFan 17.10.2010 09:16 |
Sir GH wrote: 11-24-91 - FM dies 12-3-91 - Bri/Rog TV interview, little more than a week after FM dies Feb-Mar 92 - FM tribute rehearsals 4-20-92 - FM tribute concert No band squabble before 1990 can remotely compare to the difficulty of these few months. ======================================= It's completely possible that you're absolutely right, and that the band would identify this period as it's most painful. I'm still not sure because while they were grieving their friend and bandmate, there was still clarity and positive purpose in those months. They interview and the benefit event were things they very much wanted to do, and do well. It's analagous on a longer timeline to the busy days following the death of a friend or a loved one. Those days are painful, but also serve to focus the grief through the plans and rituals of goodbye. It's the reality that descends after that in which pain really lives. By that period for Queen the difficulty would have been largely personal and not a function of the band. 'Squabbles' probably understates it some through the period in question. The tension and resentment and uncertainty really seemed to have peaked then. The way forward as a band certainly couldn't have been clear. It's somewhat like a couple contemplating divorce. Is the most painful part the unhappiness and the inertia and the guilt and the pressure and the confusion that comes with not knowing the way forward, or is it the grief and rebuilding that comes after? You wouldn't get the same answer from everybody, so I think your casting of nothing being able to remotely compare to the period after Fred's death might be too strongly stated. Or not. :) |
| Dusta 17.10.2010 18:16 |
See? This makes me even more suspicious that the film'll wind up being a vehicle for one of Cohen's over the top caricatures. GratefulFan wrote: Read a quick Peter Morgan interview piece yesterday that contained one question about this film. Not much new, but a slightly more nuanced answer about the Sacha connection: Interviewer: And now you’re writing the Freddie Mercury movie for Sacha Baron Cohen, which seems like a very strange marriage of talents. Peter Morgan: He’s been trying to persuade me for two years. He said, “Would you write Freddie Mercury for me?” And I said, “I don’t really know why. I don’t really like Queen – no, not interested. Don’t want to write anything to do with AIDS. I don’t find a way in here.” Silence. Six months later: “Will you write Freddie Mercury for me?” “Uhhh, I don’t think so, I can’t find a way in.” “Well, will you write something else for me?” And his other ideas were so bad, I thought, I’ll figure out the Freddie Mercury one. And then finally I found a way in, and we set it up. Interviewer: Is there a director attached? PM: No, not yet. I’ve got to write the script first. I’m on page 56. "I don't really like Queen". I wonder if that gives a scriptwriter objectivity, or threatens to diminish a sense of their greatness which finally could have been wrested from the critics of the past in a long, historical look like this. |
| *goodco* 19.10.2010 13:53 |
Some interesting and head scratching comments here. As to Freddie's solo adventure, if 'Let's Turn It On', 'MMP', '...More To Life', 'SBH&C' aren't 'Queenish......and MIH as well as LOMO (UP anyone?). A quarter century ago, I thought Brian did the fade out guitar on 'Dangerous'. As to Brian working with Fred on his solo project: hope this is not rehashing the topic, but perhaps he heard some of the other tracks besides the two or three he had already worked on, and was either afraid the solo LP would sell well, or was p*ssed that Freddie had not offered some of these to the band, since the basic 'germs' of many were superior to the Hot Space and Works offerings. Or, Brian went, "WTF? What are you doing with the drum and bass machines? You're ruining some really good stuff!" As to the movie ending in 1985: unless Mr. Cohen can lose 20-50 pounds in two months (ala Tom Hanks in two movies), the filming time and costs are shot all to hell, or another actor would have to be called in to play the final years. From a production standpoint, it makes sense. From a biographical standpoint, it suxx. Let's just hope no phony 'medicine men' appear as in The Doors movie. |