![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatThe film Dreamgirls, which is the newest Bill Condon musical based on an old Broadway show, is an interesting if flawed film. For a more thorough critique of its flaws, go read ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
buffyannatator's post on it Here.
The film and the musical that proceeded it are loosely based on the history of the The Supremes - or Diana Ross's all female singing group before she took off and became a solo gig. The film borrows heavily from well-known factoids about Ross's life, such as her relationship with the Jackson Five, here the Campton or Campil Five. And notably, the fact that Ross took over the lead role of The Supremes from Flo Ballard and later or possibly during this period had an affair with Berry Gordon, head of Motown records at the time. Flo Ballard's tale is one of Motown's tragedies and the inspiration for the musical. The musical is not "Diana Ross's" story but rather "Flo's", a realistic Cinderella tale about racism and the power of looks over talent in the music business - which to some degree, and this is a flaw in both the source material and the film, over-simplified to make a point. Reality is never as clear cut as fiction, good guys and bad guys tend to blend together and are less definable. [For another take on Diana Ross, Flo Ballard and the Supremes go Here courtesy ofpetzipellepingo where Ballard's sister Jenkins speaks on it.]
If you look at the photos of the Supremes, you'll note the resemblances to the actresses playing the roles of Deanna, Lorita (not sure what her name was), and Effie to the actual Supremes. Also that much like Diana Ross, Deanna could pass for "white", she was lighter in skin tone, had thinner facial features and had what they called a "cross-over" voice - it wasn't as deep and well-rounded as Flo's, higher in pitch, more "pop" less "rhythm and blues". Ross, however, is an amazing singer and actress and won an academy award for portraying Billie Holiday opposite Billy Dee Williams in Lady Sings The Blues. But the film version of Dreamgirls emphasizes how the music producers attempted to change the sound of their performers in order to attract a broader, whiter audience at the expense of their soul. There's a sequence early on in the film where the Supremes cut their first record - only to have it stolen by a "white" group. Determined to push his way into the "mainstream" audience and onto the charts - Curtis Hanson, played by Jaimie Fox in the film and loosely based on Gordon, changes the way his girls look, straightens their hair, pushes Effie to the rear, and provides the audience with "pop" singers that look good on "TV". We bring our music to the rest of the world by changing it to fit what the rest of the world loves, watering it down as it were.
The musical depicts what this does to the overall "quality" of the music or its heart, practically having Effie and Deanna sing the same song back to back at different points. The "rhythm and blues/soulful version" vs. "the bubble gum pop glitz". And, trust me on this, Effie's rendition blows Deanna's out of the water.
Each time Effie's on stage, the screen lights up. Her voice pulls your heart out of your throat. While Deanna's just acts like an earworm - reminding me of the difference between Britney Spears and Christine Aliguerra - one popcorn, one meaty. The fact that Effie is portrayed by Jennifer Hudson who was booted off American Idol, only to come back in the final round as a wildcard pick selected by judge Randy Jackson, adds to the racial subtext of this story. In American Idol - Jennifer Hudson, LaToya, and Fantasia - the three black divas were at the bottom in on of the rounds - a selection that Elton John, a guest judge that season, described as racist since they were clearly the most talented on the stage. Beyonce Knowles who portrays Deanna, meanwhile is on the Billboard pop charts, light skinned, straight hair, and has won a few Grammy's - she was also originally with Destiny's Child, the fairest member of Child, until much like the character she portrays, she broke off to do a solo gig and get the lead in Dreamgirls.
When you watch the credits, it takes a while to get to Hudson - who is listed last and after the words "Introducing". Yet, Jennifer Hudson owns this film. Her's is the voice that sticks with you long after it is over. I'm not a huge fan of Mowtown. But Hudson had me in tears.
Every time she sang, a chill went up my spine. Every time she is on screen, you are riveted.
In fact the film is at its weakest when she isn't onscreen. You find yourself looking for her. Waiting and hoping for her return. Everyone onscreen looks better when they are opposite Hudson.
Effie's by no means a perfect character. Self-absorbed, filled with bravado, and stubborn - you can see why the others feel the way they do. But, but, she is the character you care the most about and possibly the most well-rounded. I knew the most about Effie. I found myself despising Jamie Fox's Curtis and Beyonce's Deanna, who were are told little about outside of the fact that they share the same ambitions. Both left me bored and irritated whenever they were on screen. With the possible exception of one sequence - Beyonce's "Listen" which she delivers on key and it does move you, but no where near as much as Hudson's voice does.
Fox basically walks through his part, phoning it in. His Curtis, who is more or less at the center of the picture or its focal point, never really connects with you. Part of this is Fox's fault and part is Condon's, the director. Fox's performance is the weakest part of the film and the reason it drags in places. Eddie Murphy (Jim Early), Danny Glover (former promoter and Curtis' partner at one point), Hinton Battle (Curtis' partner throughout), and Hudson (Effie) work hard at animating him, but he seems to remain a smirking statue. When he and Beyonce are together, the life drains from the film - neither pull you in, which is odd, because both are charismatic performers. Murphy has fun with his role - even though he doesn't have that much to do, and clearly can sing. His Early is a sympathetic character, if a largely peripherial one.
Dreamgirls is worth the price of admission for Jennifer Hudson alone, and particularly for her performance of one song, which on its own isn't much but sung by Hudson pulls your heart into your throat and makes you weep. The audience applauded when she finished - in a movie theater no less. But you have to see the film to get the emotional resonance of the song and why her performance of it is moving. You can't just listen to it. It's a full bodied performance, which begins as a duet with Jamie Fox and becomes a solo number, in effect blowing Fox off the stage.
After this film, Hudson should have a full-fledged recording career at the very least. They'd be fools not to sign her - something I'm certain Randy Jackson figured out long before Simon Cowell did. I'd buy her albums. Her acting is uneven at times, but all the acting in this film is - when they aren't singing, the film drags and the actors look bored or uncertain (again the fault of the director not the actors - little known fact, when it comes to film - the director is in charge and bad acting can often be the fault of bad directing - since the director controls what shots get in the film and can order the actor to show more or less. I'm not sure why Condon had Fox and Murphy reign it in - when he asked Gere to do the opposite in Chicago, maybe he feared they'd overshadow the ladies? If so, it did not work.). The problem may also lie in the fact that the director is unwilling to let the show just be a Mowtown Opera. Not letting the actors "move", let them sing their lines as opposed to showing them wander about in a video montage a la Flashdance which started the trend, rapidly followed by Miami Vice. They stand around far too much.
That said, I enjoyed the film and do recommend it. But it is flawed and you do feel the two hours. See if for Hudson and Murphy. But mostly for Hudson, who does poor Flo Ballard justice.
buffyannatator's post on it Here. The film and the musical that proceeded it are loosely based on the history of the The Supremes - or Diana Ross's all female singing group before she took off and became a solo gig. The film borrows heavily from well-known factoids about Ross's life, such as her relationship with the Jackson Five, here the Campton or Campil Five. And notably, the fact that Ross took over the lead role of The Supremes from Flo Ballard and later or possibly during this period had an affair with Berry Gordon, head of Motown records at the time. Flo Ballard's tale is one of Motown's tragedies and the inspiration for the musical. The musical is not "Diana Ross's" story but rather "Flo's", a realistic Cinderella tale about racism and the power of looks over talent in the music business - which to some degree, and this is a flaw in both the source material and the film, over-simplified to make a point. Reality is never as clear cut as fiction, good guys and bad guys tend to blend together and are less definable. [For another take on Diana Ross, Flo Ballard and the Supremes go Here courtesy of
petzipellepingo where Ballard's sister Jenkins speaks on it.]If you look at the photos of the Supremes, you'll note the resemblances to the actresses playing the roles of Deanna, Lorita (not sure what her name was), and Effie to the actual Supremes. Also that much like Diana Ross, Deanna could pass for "white", she was lighter in skin tone, had thinner facial features and had what they called a "cross-over" voice - it wasn't as deep and well-rounded as Flo's, higher in pitch, more "pop" less "rhythm and blues". Ross, however, is an amazing singer and actress and won an academy award for portraying Billie Holiday opposite Billy Dee Williams in Lady Sings The Blues. But the film version of Dreamgirls emphasizes how the music producers attempted to change the sound of their performers in order to attract a broader, whiter audience at the expense of their soul. There's a sequence early on in the film where the Supremes cut their first record - only to have it stolen by a "white" group. Determined to push his way into the "mainstream" audience and onto the charts - Curtis Hanson, played by Jaimie Fox in the film and loosely based on Gordon, changes the way his girls look, straightens their hair, pushes Effie to the rear, and provides the audience with "pop" singers that look good on "TV". We bring our music to the rest of the world by changing it to fit what the rest of the world loves, watering it down as it were.
The musical depicts what this does to the overall "quality" of the music or its heart, practically having Effie and Deanna sing the same song back to back at different points. The "rhythm and blues/soulful version" vs. "the bubble gum pop glitz". And, trust me on this, Effie's rendition blows Deanna's out of the water.
Each time Effie's on stage, the screen lights up. Her voice pulls your heart out of your throat. While Deanna's just acts like an earworm - reminding me of the difference between Britney Spears and Christine Aliguerra - one popcorn, one meaty. The fact that Effie is portrayed by Jennifer Hudson who was booted off American Idol, only to come back in the final round as a wildcard pick selected by judge Randy Jackson, adds to the racial subtext of this story. In American Idol - Jennifer Hudson, LaToya, and Fantasia - the three black divas were at the bottom in on of the rounds - a selection that Elton John, a guest judge that season, described as racist since they were clearly the most talented on the stage. Beyonce Knowles who portrays Deanna, meanwhile is on the Billboard pop charts, light skinned, straight hair, and has won a few Grammy's - she was also originally with Destiny's Child, the fairest member of Child, until much like the character she portrays, she broke off to do a solo gig and get the lead in Dreamgirls.
When you watch the credits, it takes a while to get to Hudson - who is listed last and after the words "Introducing". Yet, Jennifer Hudson owns this film. Her's is the voice that sticks with you long after it is over. I'm not a huge fan of Mowtown. But Hudson had me in tears.
Every time she sang, a chill went up my spine. Every time she is on screen, you are riveted.
In fact the film is at its weakest when she isn't onscreen. You find yourself looking for her. Waiting and hoping for her return. Everyone onscreen looks better when they are opposite Hudson.
Effie's by no means a perfect character. Self-absorbed, filled with bravado, and stubborn - you can see why the others feel the way they do. But, but, she is the character you care the most about and possibly the most well-rounded. I knew the most about Effie. I found myself despising Jamie Fox's Curtis and Beyonce's Deanna, who were are told little about outside of the fact that they share the same ambitions. Both left me bored and irritated whenever they were on screen. With the possible exception of one sequence - Beyonce's "Listen" which she delivers on key and it does move you, but no where near as much as Hudson's voice does.
Fox basically walks through his part, phoning it in. His Curtis, who is more or less at the center of the picture or its focal point, never really connects with you. Part of this is Fox's fault and part is Condon's, the director. Fox's performance is the weakest part of the film and the reason it drags in places. Eddie Murphy (Jim Early), Danny Glover (former promoter and Curtis' partner at one point), Hinton Battle (Curtis' partner throughout), and Hudson (Effie) work hard at animating him, but he seems to remain a smirking statue. When he and Beyonce are together, the life drains from the film - neither pull you in, which is odd, because both are charismatic performers. Murphy has fun with his role - even though he doesn't have that much to do, and clearly can sing. His Early is a sympathetic character, if a largely peripherial one.
Dreamgirls is worth the price of admission for Jennifer Hudson alone, and particularly for her performance of one song, which on its own isn't much but sung by Hudson pulls your heart into your throat and makes you weep. The audience applauded when she finished - in a movie theater no less. But you have to see the film to get the emotional resonance of the song and why her performance of it is moving. You can't just listen to it. It's a full bodied performance, which begins as a duet with Jamie Fox and becomes a solo number, in effect blowing Fox off the stage.
After this film, Hudson should have a full-fledged recording career at the very least. They'd be fools not to sign her - something I'm certain Randy Jackson figured out long before Simon Cowell did. I'd buy her albums. Her acting is uneven at times, but all the acting in this film is - when they aren't singing, the film drags and the actors look bored or uncertain (again the fault of the director not the actors - little known fact, when it comes to film - the director is in charge and bad acting can often be the fault of bad directing - since the director controls what shots get in the film and can order the actor to show more or less. I'm not sure why Condon had Fox and Murphy reign it in - when he asked Gere to do the opposite in Chicago, maybe he feared they'd overshadow the ladies? If so, it did not work.). The problem may also lie in the fact that the director is unwilling to let the show just be a Mowtown Opera. Not letting the actors "move", let them sing their lines as opposed to showing them wander about in a video montage a la Flashdance which started the trend, rapidly followed by Miami Vice. They stand around far too much.
That said, I enjoyed the film and do recommend it. But it is flawed and you do feel the two hours. See if for Hudson and Murphy. But mostly for Hudson, who does poor Flo Ballard justice.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 07:22 am (UTC)Absolutely. I really didn't understand why they felt the need to take out the sung dialogue, and to almost always cut away from the songs. I know the original play quite well, and most of its plotting weaknesses are compensated by the fact that it is all sung, so it's in this heightened "Motown (rather than rock) opera" state. In a fully sung musical, it's okay if the characters aren't all three-dimensional, because the emotions are so broadly expressed through song. But taking away most of the music and having the actors speak the lines exposed the weakness of the characters and the flimsiness of a lot of the plot. I really don't understand why Condon was so afraid to just let this be a musical. Any time it isn't, like you said the actors seem uncertain. It's only when they're singing that the actors light up...and it's arguably only in Hudson's rendition of "And I Am Telling You" that the film completely transcends its flaws.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 02:32 pm (UTC)I think Condon was attempting to take the same approach with Dreamgirls that he did with Chicago - but it worked better with Chicago for a couple of reasons - Chicago is a combo musical, play/dance/music not an opera. Dialogue is not always sung. Also you can take the music in Chicago and put it in a fantasy sequence or overlay it - examples: Richard Gere tap-dancing in our heads, while in actuality he's questioning a witness on the stand. Here, Condon can't do that - the fantasy construct does not exist. So he's stuck and for whatever reason the distributors/marketers/producers believe the audience won't accept it as a "Mowtown Opera". Ironically they do to Dreamgirls the very thing Curtis does to the Dreams - they remove a key feature of the piece in order to reach a broader audience. Which further underlines the theme that sacrificing ones uniqueness to sell oneself to the nameless faceless multitudes - is akin to selling your soul to the devil creatively speaking.
Hudson's rendition of "And I Am Telling You" comes shortly after another moving song - which sent a chill through me - "We Are Family", both are sung as duets, with the dialogue changing from shouts to song. Demonstrating how it is more powerful sung. When they aren't singing, the characters, including Effie, feel like hollow puppets, when they do - you are blown away. Why didn't someone pick up on that either in preview screenings or in the initial editing stage? What worries me, is it is getting nominations and good buzz - which means that we may see other musicals done in this matter and I'm not certain that's a good thing. (eg. Sweeny Todd - which would be nothing without its music.)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 04:02 pm (UTC)Completely agree again. I liked Listen, as a song. But what was so odd about how they staged it was that the scene did not make sense in the context in which they had her sing it. If it was done as sung dialogue--her singing to him, at the table talking about Cleopatra, as you said--it would have made sense. But it didn't make sense that she could be expressing her thoughts to Curtis, through a song she's recording in the studio--a song he'd clearly never heard before and reacted badly to. Didn't he have full control of her in the studio? And who wrote this song for her? These are questions we wouldn't have to ask if they were done in the style of a true musical, where the song isn't literal, in the context of the story, but a character's expression of his internal thoughts.
re: Sweeney Todd, I actually have a contact with the movie, and he said that, as of now, Tim Burton's planning on retaining all or most of the score. Here's hoping that's the case. I can't imagine them deciding to remove so much of a Sondheim score, but then again, test audiences were the reason they removed some of the sung dialogue for Dreamgirls that was actually filmed.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-05 05:41 pm (UTC)You may have hit upon the core problem of adapting musicals to screen - "test audiences". I'm starting to develop a rolling hatred for focus groups and test audiences utilized by market research people to determine whether something will sell. These focus groups occassionally improve the product, but in most cases they destroy it.
Those "trailers" that reveal "everything" about the film before you see it? Blame focus groups and test audiences and marketing people who believe that "most" people won't go to a movie unless they know everything upfront. Same goes for tv shows - they test pilots and will often re-shoot or recast based on what the random sampling tells them. Willow was recast based on that. Often the final copy of a film the actors/director/etc loved and the one we see aren't the same.
Another key example is "BladeRunner" - they forced Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott under protest to reshoot a few scenes and provide a voice over narration after the film was completed. There are films out there - masterpieces - such as Once Upon A Time in America - which were so cut apart that they make no sense.
I can't help but wonder if that did not happen here to a certain extent. Catering to the "mainstream" mob much as Curtis does.
I can understand why they did it - most of my offline friends hate "traditional musicals" - they can't deal with someone bursting out in song. It breaks their suspension of disbelief. People often see it as silly in film, yet can handle it on stage. A live rock concert or performance? Sure. But a musical? No way. Wasn't always this way, just since the 1980s. Sad. I keep hoping someone will create something that convinces the PTB that there is an audience out there for the traditional musical. Just like there was in times past.
But it isn't going to happen with Dreamgirls.
Tim Burton might pull it off with Sweeny Todd. Depends on how much of the score he plans to keep and what he will focus on. Burton tends to focus a bit too heavily on atmosphere, design and style sometimes at the expense of the story - a weakness of many of his films. I'm hoping Sweeny Todd has more in common with his earlier works as opposed to some of the later ones in this regard. But we shall see.