![]() That argument could also be made against the doc as a whole. Instead, this one brief statement ends up leaning on Andrew's viewpoint more than you might expect, making George's incredible achievements beyond Wham! more about Ridgeley than George himself. While the second point makes sense to include given the focus of the doc, the first one does almost nothing to capture George's life beyond the band. No one was more proud and less surprised than Andrew."Ģ) "In 2020, 'Last Christmas' finally hit the number one spot." ![]() ![]() Instead, all we're given is the following two statements:ġ) "As a solo artist, George went on to sell over 120 million records. You'd think that the film would perhaps end with more information to help contextualise the band's story within George Michael's wider career. He's far more concerned with how "life affirming" Wham! was to their millions of fans, which makes for a rather hollow take, unfortunately. The problem is that Smith doesn't want to take a "serious" look at their story. That means they should also be integral to any documentary that wants to take a serious look at the band's legacy as a whole. They were integral to his journey, after all, and not just after Wham! broke up. Had George Michael himself been involved, it's likely that much more would have been made of his struggles as a closeted gay superstar. Netflix's Wham! director on how doc is different.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |