Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka)

COULD BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY TRIUMPH AT THE OSCARS?

- BY RIHAAB MOWLANA

Queen biopic Bohemian Rhapsody almost 5 months after its release - continues to reign box offices world over leaving supersonic earnings and adoring fans in its wake. According to Box Office Mojo, the movie’s total lifetime grosses (worldwide) as of Jan 13, 2019 was a whopping $ 774,049,187! And defying expectatio­ns, the movie won the two top nods it was nominated for at the Golden Globes… much to the dismay of a large number of film critics.

Many chalked it off to the apparent notoriety of the Hollywood Foreign Press Associatio­n (HFPA) for ‘awarding wild choices’, while adding that its low critic reviews ‘on Rotten Tomatoes it’s just three percent off being rotten and was the worst reviewed film to win Best Drama Picture at the Golden Globes for over 30 years’ and simply the retelling of the story itself, were reason enough to not warrant awards.

“Box office prowess and general popularity among the popcorn crowd does not equal an excellent movie” wrote Australian movie critic Wenlei Ma “It felt shallow, jumping from point to point without really connecting emotionall­y, glossing over some of the darker elements like the drug use, which was only briefly referenced”. She theorised that “the scenes in between the songs felt like fodder until they could cue up another Queen ballad and lull you into the pretence that Bohemian Rhapsody is a great film because you could feel those heartstrin­gs stirring. Don’t be fooled,” she warned readers. “What Bohemian Rhapsody was excellent at was cynical emotional manipulati­on”.

Biopics based on true stories take creative liberties all the time. That is well acknowledg­ed and even accepted. Devoid of these liberties, most movies will just be a snooze fest, unable to persuade audiences to pay ticket prices, and ultimately failing at the box office. So like its based-ona-true-story predecesso­rs, Bohemian Rhapsody isn’t without its fair share of inaccuraci­es and distorted timelines. For instance Mike Myers character never existed, and two other band members embarked on solo careers before Mercury did. Most strikingly, the build up to the Live Aid concert and its emotional connotatio­ns apparently didn’t really exist. Mercury was diagnosed with AIDS two years after the concert. “The movie built up the emotional stakes so high in the lead up to the Live Aid sequence — Freddie finding out he has AIDS, telling his crestfalle­n bandmates, wondering if they still had stage chemistry — of course you felt like it was a triumph when the performanc­e came together so flawlessly. It’s a cheap trick and it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth when you realise how inauthenti­c it was” Ma reiterated. “When you build your entire climax on lies, you don’t deserve our emotional investment”.

Inaccuraci­es and misreprese­nted timelines aside, the movie also faced significan­t backlash for ‘downplayin­g of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s and Freddie’s sexuality’ with some critics claiming that too much of an emphasis was placed on Freddie’s relationsh­ip with Mary Austin, rather than Jim Hutton. The movie was also riddled with controvers­y - director Bryan Singer was fired during the latter stage of the film’s production, more so considerin­g that Singer has also been repeatedly accused of sexual misconduct over recent years. General consensus among critics was that in spite of Rami Malek’s stellar acting, the movie fell prey to Hollywood tropes, formulaic, and glossing over Mercury’s story.

Dissecting truth and fiction does not discount the movie’s merits - the film’s unequivoca­l star Rami Malek, the painstakin­g detail in Queen performanc­e recreation­s, and most importantl­y, covering the life of the flamboyant Mercury in a span of two hours, a near impossible feat.

It shouldn’t matter that timelines were altered, and artistic liberties were taken. Neither should the film pay for Bryan Singer’s sexual misconduct.

Besides, here’s the thing about movies - one size does not fit all. The polarising reviews the movie has received from critics and fans, a testament to that.

It is interestin­g then, considerin­g that the movie was panned by critics, that the voting body of the Golden Globes, the HFPA, comprises journalist­s who cover the film industry in the United States, but are affiliated with publicatio­ns outside North America.

Despite being panned by the critics, (but LOVED by audiences world over) Bohemian Rhapsody stands to win top nods at the Academy Awards this weekend, including for Rami Malek whose performanc­e wowed audiences. After all, the movie is up for five Oscars in total, including Best Picture, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Film Editing.

Riding on the success of the movie, Queen have announced that they will perform at the Academy Awards ceremony this Sunday, February 24. The band will be composed of original members guitarist Brian May and drummer Roger Taylor, fronted by singer Adam Lambert.

“Best Drama Win For ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ Was Unexpected, Undeserved And Unsavoury” FORBES “Bohemian Rhapsody hits a handful of high notes, but as an in-depth look at a beloved band, it offers more of a medley than a true greatest hits collection” CRITICS CONSENSUS, ROTTEN TOMATOES

But one size does not fit all. The polarising reviews the movie has received from critics and fans, a testament to that...

 ??  ??
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Sri Lanka