 |
| Courtesy of Brett Jordan |
By David Tizzard
 |
This didn't really come as some surprise though. In 2018 Bohemian Rhapsody became the most successful musical ever in South Korea, taking over $70 million at the box office and selling more tickets than it did back in the band's home country. Some cinemas even had 'sing-along screenings' of the movie, allowing the audience to chant, sing, and clap with the movie.
Korea definitely has Queen fever.
Music critic and cultural observer Kim Young-dae has suggested that Queen's music, stage performance, and choreography helped lay some of the foundations for Korean popular music. In a country seeking to make its own cultural imprint, "Queen became the gold standard for Korean musicians of the late 1980s and 90s."
But it wasn't just electric guitars and outlandish perms, it was Queen's ability to mesh electronica with pop, rock, and everything else: To create hybridity, and textual impurities. Kim Young-dae says, "This methodology behind Queen's music is the same as the one behind modern K-pop's inclination towards genre-bending music… and K-pop idols are finding success as heirs of Freddie Mercury."
This all sounds like a wonderful mixing of cultures and influences, the appreciation of art, aesthetics, and unique personal narratives. But unfortunately something seems to have been lost along the way.
As a young music lover in the United Kingdom, I grew up watching videos of Freddie Mercury and the band in drag, Marc Almond fronting Soft Cell, Elton John, George Michael, Morrissey, and then later Skin of Skunk Anansie, Brian Molko, Will Young, and others.
Each artist had their own personal life, experiences, and sexuality: None were exactly the same. Moreover, their sexuality didn't define them completely but was instead rather a part of the wider, more complex understanding of them as individuals, as artists, and eventually as global superstars creating some of the world's best music. Well, perhaps not Will Young.
No doubt for many people it was important to see representation, to see people exploring their own way of life, to see success.
That's why it was all rather disappointing when SBS removed scenes from their broadcasting of Bohemian Rhapsody last weekend. These scenes were not pornographic nor were they lewd: they were of the character Freddie Mercury kissing his partner Jim Hutton.
If you are going to show the biography of a person, why would you choose to omit those obviously dear to him? Is this a respectful act which honors his work? Or is it a way to profit off a person's life and legacy without fully acknowledging who they are? It feels like SBS is essentially turning what is often seen as a marginalized group into a cultural product to be enjoyed but never accepted.
The film's rating from the MPAA is PG-13, meaning that, while there might be some suggestive elements and language, it is deemed acceptable for the majority of the family when supervised.
Rami Malek, who played Freddie Mercury in the film, won the best actor award at the Oscars for his performance. In his acceptance speech he said, "We made a film about a gay man, an immigrant who lived his life just unapologetically himself, and the fact that I'm celebrating him and this story with you tonight is proof that we're longing for stories like this."
South Korea has celebrated its own recent Oscars success with Bong Joon-ho's Parasite. The country champions its act BTS topping the Billboard charts. And many people here have complained that the highly-acclaimed Minari is not being given the respect it deserves in Hollywood.
There is a rightful demand that the West pay more attention to the Korean cultural products currently being produced. But surely such respect has to go both ways?
Voices here also very appropriately suggest that history be told correctly. But one must then ask whether that applies to "all" history? Does it apply to Freddie Mercury's history? To Jim Hutton's history? And the history of all those who made Bohemian Rhapsody? Or just Korea's own history?
It is not my position to suggest to Korean broadcasters what they can or cannot show to the citizens of this country. Nor do I seek to tell Korean people what their cultural and social values should be. These are things for the people of the country to decide amongst themselves.
Nevertheless I might suggest that if they are going to use cultural products like Bohemian Rhapsody and show them on television, they might do respectfully and by acknowledging the lives and efforts of those involved. If they are unable to do that, then perhaps they should not use such cultural products.
It is up to SBS whether they air Bohemian Rhapsody or not. That's a completely free choice. But if they do, they shouldn't be "straightwashing" history for profit. At some point, honesty has to come before money no matter how uncomfortable it might be for some.
Ultimately, changing people's pasts to suit our own contemporary narrative while at the same time profiting from them does not really seem like something we should wish to happen to anyone. Glocalization is a real thing and it can produce some fabulous smorgasbords of culture, but this sadly is not one of them.
Dr. David A Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) has a Ph.D. in Korean Studies. He is a social/cultural commentator and musician who has lived in Korea for nearly two decades. The views expressed in the article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.
![[INTERVIEW] Busan has potential to be world-class city, says mayor](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/b58861f810524e18a4ade3af8c9351f9.jpg/dims/resize/178/optimize)
