| Daniel Nester 01.05.2007 12:01 |
I taped the Logo channel special and watched it last night, and I'm wondering what people thought. There's new interviews from Roger, Peter Straker, Phoebe, David Wigg, Davis Evans, Jim Hutton, Robbie Williams, a TimeOut reporter whose name I can't remember, Freddie's mom and sister, and others. There's Garden Lodge footage I hadn't seen -- Freddie taking a bubble bath and a backyard party of mostly men. I thought one of the most touching parts of the documentary was when people were asked what would they have given Freddie for his 60th birthday. |
| Benn 01.05.2007 12:15 |
It's absolutely shocking and appeared on UK TV last year - an appauling tabloid piece that only serves to prove that Freddie was, in fact, a gay man. It is of absolutely no relevance to the history of Queen or Freddie's legacy. |
| Daniel Nester 01.05.2007 12:31 |
What part was appalling or characteristic of tabloid newspapers? Was it the focus on his sexuality? |
| Micrówave 01.05.2007 14:04 |
Daniel Nester wrote: Freddie taking a bubble bath and a backyard party of mostly men.Unless he was writing Crazy Little Thing, I think I'll pass... |
| Adam Baboolal 01.05.2007 14:51 |
Don't worry, it's not as bad as that. The bath bit is the bubble bath bit that has been seen in Freddie's Loves. It's fun to see Freddie kick back and relaxed. The backyard of men is just Freddie standing around with a ciggy talking to some friends. Big whoop. Oh no, look! They haven't got shirts on. Aggghhh! lol There's nothing that would make me compare it to tabloid rubbish. It was a programme to mark his 60th and showed the man behind the music along with friends' opinions of the man. There's tabloid and then there's documentary. Every docu that goes beyond the music and looks at Freddie, the man, is criticised deeply here for doing it. It's a shame cause the real programmes that try to see the person, get an undeserved reputation because of these fans' own opinions. If those fans that say it's tabloid want to watch something with a disney-like perspective, check out the safe docus like the official ones. Adam. |
| freddiemercury4ever 01.05.2007 16:40 |
nope I live in the U.S. we hardly if ever get a chance to see anything to do with Freddie and/or Queen. It really sucks! |
| QueenTaylor 01.05.2007 17:34 |
^yeah i know-we never do, do we? hmm-it does suck-but I did see that on Logo channel because I have direct tv. |
| lillian 02.05.2007 03:05 |
i have seen something quite like that recently dunno if its the same thing or not.some things out there about freddie is just crap.has anyone seen freddie loves...that was tacky imo to say the least. |
| YourValentine 02.05.2007 03:44 |
I really don't understand why it's okay that the private home videos of a gay man are shown on national TV while it's not okay to show straight people in their bathroom, or is it? I know that celebrities are subject to incredible stalking and intrusion these days but I still think some decency should be maintained. We all know that Freddie Mercury was rather protective of his privacy and if he were alive I doubt that Peter Freestone would say "he had a huge cock" on TV. The fact that official documentaries are not much better (untold story) is no excuse imo. Such documentaries are not meant to protect Freddie's right to be perceived as a gay man, they are just intrusive. |
| lillian 02.05.2007 03:46 |
i agree with what u said 4 the most part...but i liked the untold story. |
| LadySonnet 02.05.2007 08:57 |
I came to see this topic because I always follow what's going on on the boards. It is funny how for us, Eastern Europeans, such documentairies don't have any impact. Most of us would't even watch it. If by any chance we would, being more hotblooded, either we would like to lynch the creators or we would have probably like that we haven't seen that at all because we don't need anyone to tell us whatsoever about Freddie. We simply love him just like that. Funny how the pages turn... |
| Kate4Freddie8 02.05.2007 11:45 |
I got an e-mail off queenzone saying about it but couldn't find the channel or anything it was on. Has any1 found it on youtube :) Please Reply because i really wanted to see it :( |
| Richy Mercury 02.05.2007 13:03 |
ThomasQu?nn wrote: What the fuck is the logo channelIt is a gay -lesbian channel on digital cable. |
| Daniel Nester 02.05.2007 14:50 |
It's interesting how we are reading from the grave how Freddie would react to the documentaries made about him. I think documentaries that tell stories about prominent artists is inevitable -- people want to know about the people behind the art they love. Where it gets complicated and potentially harmful, I think, is if we go back to the songs, armed with new biographical information, and try to re-interpret them. There's got to be a middle ground, I think, between direct, biographical readings and ignoring the artist altogether. |
| goinback 02.05.2007 15:48 |
|
| YourValentine 02.05.2007 16:49 |
"It's interesting how we are reading from the grave how Freddie would react to the documentaries made about him." I agree - we don't know. But we do know what happened to Paul Prenter after he gave a tabloid interview . His name was erased from the band history. Now we can guess how Freddie would have liked his private bathroom video on a TV programme. There are other ways not to ignore the artist than to pry into his privacy in such a shameless manner. You are perfectly right about the "re-interpretation" of song lyrics using biographical details. We have had many discussions about that in the past. |
| Daniel Nester 03.05.2007 10:31 |
I am still not sure how showing a private moment in a bubble bath -- where Freddie is happy and in love and is singing "I Wanne Be Loved By You" to Jim Hutton -- is a bad thing. Questions: -- Is it because *any* private moment shouldn't be aired because of Freddie's intimation when he was alive that his private life is private? -- Is it an issue of copyright--whoever took this movie doesn't own it, since it was taken in Freddie's house, his estate owns it? -- YourValentine, is airing a copy of this bubble bath footage the same as selling a story of AIDS (as Prenter did back in 1988 or so) the same? Do you know something we don't know -- that is, did whoever owns this footage -- Jim Hutton, Paul Straker, Phoebe -- make money off of this? More often than not, TV stations do not pay for this kind footage. -- Finally: Is it because this footage and the airing of it reinforces the fact that Freddie was gay and loved being gay, loved taking bubble baths and singing show tunes, and blowing bubbles at his male lovers? I genuinely want to know where this Freddie's Privacy is Sacrosanct mindset comes from. |
| YourValentine 04.05.2007 02:56 |
Daniel - it's just my opinion. I just think a private home video showing someone in his bathroom should not be aired on TV. I think it's intrusion of privacy. I think it does not matter if the person is gay or straight - or dead. Just ask yourself: if a friend of you would film in your bathroom - would you want him to give it to a TV station? It does not matter if he gets money for it. It does not matter if it's funny or not. It does not matter if you are gay or straight. He publishes material of you in your most private surrounding for everyone to watch. If you are gay it's not the job of your friend to illustrate this fact by showing private home video on TV. If you are straight it's not the job of your friends to publish any private video to prove your straight-ness, either. I don't know if selling the AIDS story to a tabloid and showing the victim in his bathroom is the "same". I only brought it up as an example that Freddie was apparently not too fond of friends who "dished". The difference is that Freddie was still alive in the first case and now he isn't. For me, it does not make a difference. His private life is still not subject to public interest and his privacy should still be respected, mainly by his friends - in my opinion. Funny how we only discuss the few seconds of this film. |
| john bodega 05.05.2007 11:32 |
"and if he were alive I doubt that Peter Freestone would say "he had a huge cock" on TV." I respect your dedication to privacy, but - it's not rocket science.... he DID have a huge cock. What are we to do, blur out all the live performances where it's obvious? :P |
| Daniel Nester 05.05.2007 15:20 |
It is a certain kind of rock science, in a way. (Bad dum-bu,.) |