Prior to this film, I had no idea who the heck Chris Sievey/Frank Sidebottom was. If anything, "Frank" has encouraged people like me to Google and discover the truth of who this unique individual was. Helping to spark that interest does well enough in bringing honour to his memory.
The character looked just like Sidebottom and there are no other entertainers that look like that so when they make "Frank" mentally ill are they not then insinuating that Sidebottom was mentally ill?
There is no insinuation because Abrahamson said from the get-go that the "Frank" film character is
NOT THE SAME as Frank Sidebottom (save for the mask). The two concepts are completely
DIVORCED from each other. The film is
NOT meant to be a biography. How much more explicit must the director's explanation be? To insist that such an insinuation exists is to ignore the director and imply that he had intentions directly opposite to what he publicly stated. I'm not interested in playing those fruitless mind reading games. It distracts me from appreciating the film for what it is.
The only people who seem worried about the mental illness link to Chris Sievey are his fans (I wonder...did Sievey's family publicly express the same concern? An open question to anyone who can answer me). It's not a universal reaction. I, for one, did not make that assumptive leap. I accepted Abrahamson's "Frank" as a fictional character while realizing that the fibreglass head prop originated from an actual British artist.
Inspired, what does that really mean?
Inspiration in this case means taking something (an idea, a fragment of a story, a person or an object--like a giant papier-mâché head, for example) and running off on a creative tangent with it, heading in a completely new direction. Inspiration isn't meant to be historically accurate. "Frank"--unlike Fassbender's other film, "12 Years a Slave"--does not come with the tagline "based on a true story". Sidebottom's mask happens to be the source of the movie's inspiration. That's it.
You can't deny that wearing a giant cartoonish head in public would be considered odd/strange/funny/different/unique/"interesting". Why would anyone do that? To quote from the film, "What goes on inside the head, inside the head?". What is being hidden? What is really going on? These are the kind of questions that are prompted when confronted by anyone wearing a type of mask (literal or figurative). I believe this general curiosity regarding Sievey's mask was Abrahamson's inspirational doorway to explore additional themes.
Imagine if you were Sidebottom's child or parent. Would you like that implication whether true or not?
This is a hypothetical question as I am neither Sievey's child nor parent (interesting that you refer to Sidebottom as if he was a real
person; Chris Sievey is the actual person's name and "Frank Sidebottom" was his stage persona--an important distinction). Having said that, as a close relative, I would imagine that I'd have a better knowledge of who Sievey was in real life and could tell the difference between truth and fiction. I would also think that I would be able to discern between disdainful mockery and flat out lies versus fanciful imagination. As far as I could tell and based on what the director said, there was no suggestion made within the movie that Chris Sievey was indeed mentally ill and hence wore a mask to deal with it.
To tell you the truth, I'm more upset with the early press reports and reviews for repeatedly stating that the movie was "about Frank Sidebottom". Sidebottom fans got excited, thinking they were going to see a cinematic tribute on the life and/or career of their beloved icon only to be disappointed that it wasn't that at all. Abrahamson didn't betray anyone. He was only inspired by the mask. So please...re-direct your wrath to those reporters who gave you the wrong impressions.
Maybe that's why he didn't want it done in his lifetime. Waiting till he was dead and then going ahead with it seems wrong to me.
Didn't want what done? A movie about about his life? But here's the thing (at the risk of sounding like a broken record):
THE "FRANK" MOVIE IS NOT THE CHRIS SIEVEY LIFESTORY. IT IS NOT A DOCUMETARY. There was nothing underhanded done because it wasn't about him in the first place. I don't understand why Sievey fans are blaming Abrahamson for failing to make the life-bio pic that he never envisioned to make. If you want a Sievey biography so badly, then make that YOUR little side project and let Lenny pursue whatever HE wants to artistically achieve.
reply
share