Bohemian Rhapsody

[Sithborg]

Or, considering this is a biopic, people wanted someone who is considered an icon for the gay community wanted that part of his life highlighted.

 

[AResistor]

Or, considering this is a biopic, people wanted someone who is considered an icon for the gay community wanted that part of his life highlighted.

A valid criticism, I would've loved for it to be a complete film instead of half a film then a concert. As said, the first half was great and it did focus on that part of his life - the second half... although people like it, eh... I would have wanted it to continue depicting the lives of Freddie and the band (like other musician biopics do). It seemed like half a film that didn't know how they wanted it to end so they just decided to have an IMAX concert to make an intriguing character piece have something flashy to show off.

Personally, if I wanted to see the concert - I'd rather just watch the actual concert since you really can't recreate the level of talent that a band has.

I mean, still show the concert - but not to the degree that it was; spend more time showing what happened before and after - the parts that people couldn't see from the real concert. Showing what the friendship was like in the final days in the last twenty minutes would've been more intriguing and dramatically powerful.

 

[Greens]

A valid criticism, I would've loved for it to be a complete film instead of half a film then a concert. As said, the first half was great and it did focus on that part of his life - the second half... although people like it, eh... I would have wanted it to continue depicting the lives of Freddie and the band (like other musician biopics do). It seemed like half a film that didn't know how they wanted it to end so they just decided to have an IMAX concert to make an intriguing character piece have something flashy to show off.

Personally, if I wanted to see the concert - I'd rather just watch the actual concert since you really can't recreate the level of talent that a band has.

I mean, still show the concert - but not to the degree that it was; spend more time showing what happened before and after - the parts that people couldn't see from the real concert. Showing what the friendship was like in the final days in the last twenty minutes would've been more intriguing and dramatically powerful.

Agreed. It's like they did the concert because they could, not because the movie needed it. Yeah, Rami did a good job lip syncing and copying the moves and the green screen audience was passable but we didn't need to see all of that.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Curious to hear some opinions on this, but does anyone in the LGBTQ community have an issue with a queer icon like Freddie being portrayed by a heterosexual actor (I presume that Rami is heterosexual, since as far as I know, he's never indicated otherwise and he's been in relationships with his female costars from BH and Mr. Robot). The reason I ask is because I know more recently, there has been some backlash against straight actors taking gay/bi roles, since it's often harder to make it big as a gay/bi actor. I believe Darren Criss recently said that he would no longer play gay characters since he doesn't want to take away parts from gay actors.

I guess I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it is very true that gay actors are often stuck playing supporting roles in movies because producers still have that old mindset that straight actors are more bankable. And it can be jarring for people in the LGBTQ community see a straight actor get showered with praise for "bravely" sharing a love scene with a member of the same sex on the big screen. On the other hand, there are some cases (Rami's performance being one) where the actor does such an amazing job and is so clearly the right choice for the role that I feel the actor's own sexuality shouldn't be an issue.

When the subject of trans characters comes up, I think that unequivocally, trans actors should be cast in those roles. That's something that I don't even think can be debated any longer. But when it comes to gay and bi characters, I'm curious to hear whether people believe the actor's sexuality matters, because I'm honestly not sure what the right answer is. Also, just to clarify, I identify as bi and I used to be an actor, so I have some insight into this but I'm interested to get other perspectives.

 

[Schlosser85]

I believe actors should be allowed to play whatever they can be convincing as.

Rami Malek (as far as we know) isn’t LGBT.

Anthony Hopkins isn’t a psychiatrist or a cannibal, and Tom Holland doesn’t really shoot webbing from his wrists and crawl on ceilings.

 

[Deck Rickard]

I mean, yes, but those examples aren't the same thing. It's been well documented that, on average, LGBTQ actors who are out have a harder time landing high profile roles than heterosexual actors. That's why, even today, many actors are still hesitant to come out.

 

[jmc]

Yes, let's just segregate everyone. Because that's worked out well in the past.

 

[Schlosser85]

When you start putting restrictions on what actors can and cannot play, you defeat the purpose of acting.

 

[green]

Curious to hear some opinions on this, but does anyone in the LGBTQ community have an issue with a queer icon like Freddie being portrayed by a heterosexual actor (I presume that Rami is heterosexual, since as far as I know, he's never indicated otherwise and he's been in relationships with his female costars from BH and Mr. Robot). The reason I ask is because I know more recently, there has been some backlash against straight actors taking gay/bi roles, since it's often harder to make it big as a gay/bi actor. I believe Darren Criss recently said that he would no longer play gay characters since he doesn't want to take away parts from gay actors.

I guess I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it is very true that gay actors are often stuck playing supporting roles in movies because producers still have that old mindset that straight actors are more bankable. And it can be jarring for people in the LGBTQ community see a straight actor get showered with praise for "bravely" sharing a love scene with a member of the same sex on the big screen. On the other hand, there are some cases (Rami's performance being one) where the actor does such an amazing job and is so clearly the right choice for the role that I feel the actor's own sexuality shouldn't be an issue.

When the subject of trans characters comes up, I think that unequivocally, trans actors should be cast in those roles. That's something that I don't even think can be debated any longer. But when it comes to gay and bi characters, I'm curious to hear whether people believe the actor's sexuality matters, because I'm honestly not sure what the right answer is. Also, just to clarify, I identify as bi and I used to be an actor, so I have some insight into this but I'm interested to get other perspectives.

It does not matter one iota to me if the actor is the same sexual orientation of the character they are playing or not.
Sure I can sympathize with the gay actors losing out on roles simply for being out of the closet but when it comes down to it the character portrayal is more important to me. So, nope no backlash from me on that front.

 

[AResistor]

It does not matter one iota to me if the actor is the same sexual orientation of the character they are playing or not.
Sure I can sympathize with the gay actors losing out on roles simply for being out of the closet but when it comes down to it the character portrayal is more important to me. So, nope no backlash from me on that front.

On that note, are they really?

Months before ‘Love Simon’ came out people wouldn’t have known that Keiynan is bi.

Months before ‘Boy Erased’ came out people wouldn’t have known that Lucas Hedges also likes guys.

Those who demand these roles are always portrayed by lgbtq individuals - would have mistakenly made complaints against two actors in these roles when in fact they aren’t straight and just weren’t out at the time.

Due to Hollywood many lgbtq actors may be portraying lgbtq roles yet are nervous about coming out. This makes it impossible to tell if the actor is or isn’t.

For all we know, Rami may not be a 6.0 (heterosexual) on the Kinsey scale and he’s just not out yet. Might be the case, might not be. As said, there’s no way to tell. I’m not saying he is lgbtq, just that there’s no way to know for sure.

So, do I think only out lgbtq actors should be able to play lgbtq roles? Not even close, calling for that would be overlooking how hard it is in Hollywood still to be out. It would also unintentionally actually block lgbtq people from playing the roles just because they’re not out.

I can understand the notion, but it falls apart since it overlooks how many are still in the closet.

 

[AResistor]

I mean, yes, but those examples aren't the same thing. It's been well documented that, on average, LGBTQ actors who are out have a harder time landing high profile roles than heterosexual actors. That's why, even today, many actors are still hesitant to come out.

Lgbtq roles right now aren’t high profile though, they’re 99% indie films. So an up and coming lgbtq actor if they wanted to be a leading man in a comic book movie, sadly would likely be overlooked due to his sexuality (worked at Warners for a while, I can say Bomer was - I heard the casting department). So that leads to the possibility of restricting actors to indie roles.

To truly break the Hollywood closet - more high profile films need to get made with lgbtq protagonists so that coming out can’t hold back one’s career like it does today. There hasn’t even been an action, horror, sci-fi, or adventure movie with an lgbtq lead yet - certainly not with a male lead - I hope to help break these barriers.

We’re not there yet, but hopefully one day.

Restricting these roles wouldn’t help matters.

 

[Dave McFly]

this is probably gonna be the first biopic movie I ever buy never did before I would watch them or rent them but never owned them this one was that good for me.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Cool story bro.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Lgbtq roles right now aren’t high profile though, they’re 99% indie films. So an up and coming lgbtq actor if they wanted to be a leading man in a comic book movie, sadly would likely be overlooked due to his sexuality (worked at Warners for a while, I can say Bomer was - I heard the casting department). So that leads to the possibility of restricting actors to indie roles.

To truly break the Hollywood closet - more high profile films need to get made with lgbtq protagonists so that coming out can’t hold back one’s career like it does today. There hasn’t even been an action, horror, sci-fi, or adventure movie with an lgbtq lead yet - certainly not with a male lead - I hope to help break these barriers.

We’re not there yet, but hopefully one day.

Restricting these roles wouldn’t help matters.

True. Yeah, I don’t really think we should restrict these roles, either. But I’ve known some LGBTQ actors who feel that these roles should only go to LGBTQ people and so I wanted to see whether that sentiment is growing.

You do bring up a good point too; very few mainstream movies feature LGBTQ protagonists, especially when it comes to genre films (superhero, action, sci-fi). The only recent one I can think of is Atomic Blonde. But hopefully there will be more in the future. I feel like TV has been better in this regard, with shows like Black Sails and House of Cards featuring LGBTQ characters that are very central to the main story.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I had this conversation last night with my brother. You don't see what I call a casually homosexual character in many movies. What I mean by that is, the character is LGBTQ, but it's not what the movie is actually about. More often when a main character is LGBTQ, the movie is some type of art film or movie directly about being LGBTQ. You don't see things like the manliest man in the history of manliness is out for revenge against a terrorist cell, but he happens to be homosexual. I also feel like if you do see that character, they're more likely to be female than male (but that isn't based on any real research I have done...just what I have observed). I think we need more representation like that in film.

 

[Schlosser85]

I had this conversation last night with my brother. You don't see what I call a casually homosexual character in many movies. What I mean by that is, the character is LGBTQ, but it's not what the movie is actually about. More often when a main character is LGBTQ, the movie is some type of art film or movie directly about being LGBTQ. You don't see things like the manliest man in the history of manliness is out for revenge against a terrorist cell, but he happens to be homosexual. I also feel like if you do see that character, they're more likely to be female than male (but that isn't based on any real research I have done...just what I have observed). I think we need more representation like that in film.

I'd like to see more movies with actually happy, well-adjusted LGBT characters, instead of their lives always being this angstfest. I think Love, Simon is about the only mainstream movie I can think of offhand that's just a casual happy rom com where the character is gay.

 

[Schlosser85]

You don't see things like the manliest man in the history of manliness is out for revenge against a terrorist cell, but he happens to be homosexual.

Unfortunately I don't think mainstream action movie audiences are ready for a movie where Jason Statham or whoever is out for revenge, kicking ass and taking names, and just happens to casually bang some dude along the way the same as a Bond girl.

Now, Charlize Theron in Atomic Blonde getting it on with Sofia Boutella in between kicking ass and taking names, is a turn-on for the same guys who'd be outraged by two guys together.

 

[AResistor]

Unfortunately I don't think mainstream action movie audiences are ready for a movie where Jason Statham or whoever is out for revenge, kicking ass and taking names, and just happens to casually bang some dude along the way the same as a Bond girl.

Now, Charlize Theron in Atomic Blonde getting it on with Sofia Boutella in between kicking ass and taking names, is a turn-on for the same guys who'd be outraged by two guys together.

Unfortunately this.

Guys liking guys are stigmatized whereas women liking women are often sexualized and fetishized to a fault.

I know a couple lgbtq women who find issue with that which is easily understandable since it’s not really acceptance as much as it is akin to “cat fight!!!” level “thinking.”

 

[Spider-Fan]

Unfortunately I don't think mainstream action movie audiences are ready for a movie where Jason Statham or whoever is out for revenge, kicking ass and taking names, and just happens to casually bang some dude along the way the same as a Bond girl.

Now, Charlize Theron in Atomic Blonde getting it on with Sofia Boutella in between kicking ass and taking names, is a turn-on for the same guys who'd be outraged by two guys together.

100% agreed. But I want to see a movie take that bold risk. There would def be backlash, but if we're ever to get to a place where it is perceived as normal, someone needs to take that risk.

 

[AResistor]

I'd like to see more movies with actually happy, well-adjusted LGBT characters, instead of their lives always being this angstfest. I think Love, Simon is about the only mainstream movie I can think of offhand that's just a casual happy rom com where the character is gay.

It is. Most others -

- Character has (gets) AIDS and is dying
- Boyfriend dies at the end
- Character never comes out
- Family is broken by the end

There’s few indie LGBT movies that are light hearted and even fewer mainstream ones.

 

[Schlosser85]

It is. Most others -

- Character has (gets) AIDS and is dying
- Boyfriend dies at the end
- Character never comes out
- Family is broken by the end

There’s few indie LGBT movies that are light hearted and even fewer mainstream ones.

I remember Ian McKellen wrote a letter of appreciation to Richard Curtis after watching Four Weddings and a Funeral (in which Simon Cowell and John Hanna are partners and Cowell dies of a heart attack) just because there was finally a gay character who died of something other than AIDS.

 

[AResistor]

Related articles in regards to films with lgbtq protagonists typically being sad:

Why do LGBT movies always have a sad ending? | Metro News

I’ve seen and can recommend most of these:

27 LGBT Movies That Are Actually Uplifting

To add to this: “Just A Question Of Love” or “Juste une question d'amour.”

——————

Another way the states, at least, were behind:

In terms of character representation, it seems like abroad is/was actually more advanced than the states. In the states LGBTQ characters were always typically the token gbf and 99% of the time flamboyant. I’m 30 and I still remembering having to check into overseas lgbtq films and shows to see a character I could relate to. The change into a broader view on lgbtq characters in the states (one notability being one of the brothers in ‘Animal Kingdom’ - that never would have been the case years ago [a crime show about surfing criminal brothers that has a mostly male demographic having a main gay character? That’s awesome!]) only happened I’d say five years ago?

 

[Schlosser85]

There are fluffy gay rom coms, I've seen them, but most of them are little indie movies and frankly a lot of them are kind of amateurish because they don't have a lot of resources to cobble together.

 

[Deck Rickard]

100% agreed. But I want to see a movie take that bold risk. There would def be backlash, but if we're ever to get to a place where it is perceived as normal, someone needs to take that risk.

Totally agree. Guess we'll see who finally takes the plunge and goes for it. I remember seeing a trailer for this mystery film about a gay male detective. Unfortunately, the quality looked really poor.

 

[AResistor]

Totally agree. Guess we'll see who finally takes the plunge and goes for it. I remember seeing a trailer for this mystery film about a gay male detective. Unfortunately, the quality looked really poor.

'Love Simon' showed studios that lgbtq films, at least domestically, can make as much or more money than their straight counterparts. In the states, 'Love Simon' is the third top grossing non-Twilight teen romance film of the 2010s at the domestic box office.

'Bohemian Rhapsody' is bringing in an amazing box office and features an lgbtq protagonist while depicting that side of his life (albeit, the trailers tried to hide it - but the film's been out for a while now so hopefully studios can see people know it's there).

As a bisexual writer with industry contacts I can say it's given me the courage to be an out writer in aiming to get mainstream lgbtq movies across various genres made and, in all likelihood, it's inspired many writers to do the same. In the past, industry level thinking that I think many writers had was having to "straight wash" a story out of fear that it'd be extremely difficult to sell if it was anything but (for example making a character straight in a horror film out of fear that making him gay or bi instead would significantly hinder its chances of being picked up). Twentieth Century Fox opened up a lot of doors with 'Love Simon' that'll hopefully continue. It gave me, and likely many more, courage to proceed; now it's on the financial end - producers who primarily care about money first and foremost, with that said 'Love Simon' 'Bohemian Rhapsody' and with all likelihood 'Rocketman' show that these mainstream films can be very successful.

There are fluffy gay rom coms, I've seen them, but most of them are little indie movies and frankly a lot of them are kind of amateurish because they don't have a lot of resources to cobble together.

That's America (although it's noticeably getting better). Check overseas. Particularly the UK. I'd say one of the best films the U.S. made was 'Fourth Man Out' which doesn't rely on stereotypes and is the kind of comedy that Judd Apatow and crew would make.