[ SECRET POST #3599 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3599 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Life]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Man from U.N.C.L.E., The Professionals, Starsky and Hutch]


__________________________________________________



05.
(Penn Jillette)


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
[CSI: Cyber]












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 09 secrets from Secret Submission Post #514.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

I mean there's private and then there's private. He was extremely protective of his actual relationships and obviously his health, all the things that made him vulnerable to the public, but he was also visibly ...culturally gay and very open about his party lifestyle and like exotic sex life or whatever. And this is the part I've always seen the surviving band memebers get unocmfortable about. I think the parts that he always wanted to remain private are not the same ones that they'd want to cover up.
And you really can't focus on his life as a musician without involving his sexuality, because there were plenty of professional disagreements within the band when Freddie wanted to do stuff that the rest of them deemed too gay and too sexual. I'm not a fan of Brian and Roger's attempts at revisionism, though I think they just want to protect Freddie's memory. It's just unfortunate that they think he needs to be protected from being remembered as a part of the demographic that he was a part of.

Re: OP

[arcadiaego]

This is pretty much my view as well. Although haven't Queen since denied Baron Cohen's version of events?

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

He self ID'd as bisexual, not gay. But okay sunshine whatever.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

He literally did not. He used both words, but gay comes up way more often.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

On the other hand, I don't think he'd want his movie to be AIDS: The Movie. You can have a bit of both, but as someone actually gay, this sounds very, very uncomfortable and comes part and parcel with the whole "ONLY GAY MEN AND DRUGGIES GET AIDS" that's still prevalent.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT
Oh, absolutely. As I said, his health was one of the things he did not want discussed. I think it's just a very difficult movie to make because there are so many bad cultural assumptions about AIDS and also just plain homophobia around. As I said in my long comment way down in the thread, it's probably impossible to avoid common harmful narratives. I can't see it going over well one way or another.
FWIW as someone also actually gay, though not HIV+, and I'm uncomfortable with the way that the idea that anyone can get HIV is used to whitewash the history of AIDS and how homophobia was 100% a factor in how that history played out and keeps playing out. Homophobia and the general idea that there's classes of social undesirables, drug users among them, that can just go die off. And I think a movie about someone who did have his specific life experience would be making a statement either way, whether by showing things or deliberately not showing them.
So yeah, I think the whole thing is a pretty bad idea. Unless you make it like, snapshots of his life through the eyes of the other band members or something like that, where they can avoid having an actual narrative of the life as much as possible.