As Far As It Goes

email this story
read comments (26)
post a comment

As Far As It Goes

I predicted last August that Dreamgirls (Dreamamount, 12.15) would be a huge thing for costar Jennifer Hudson, who has the role (i.e., Effie White) with the most soul and punch and heartache. I was right. The Best Supporting Actress Oscar is probably hers for the taking. But my feelings are otherwise torn about Bill Condon and Larry Mark and David Geffen's period musical, which had its first big preview Wednesday night at the Academy theatre.

I was delighted with it in spurts and pieces -- it has a knockout feeling from start to finish, and delivers an adrenalized rush that's either going to get you or it won't. It's one dazzling, machine-gun-edited musical number after another that "sells" itself like there's no tomorrow, and the sum effect is like something washing over you.

Like, say, a 100-gallon vat of Red Bull and 7-Up. Okay, with a little whiskey and heartbreak thrown in, and a lot of cigarettes and some bad substance abuse on the side.

This is the story of the Supremes -- how it all began and came together, and then took off and went sour and finally shook down. It's recognizably real and yet fast and fizzy -- another of those hard-knocks, rough-and-tumble showbiz sagas, this time seasoned with heavy doses of Motown-Broadway pizazz.

But it didn't feel to me like it really and truly sank in. After a while you feel so soaked with the stuff it's selling that you start to go a little bit mad. It didn't make me angry at all -- this is not Chicago but somewhere around the half-hour mark I began to say to myself, "What's with the push-push, go-go, pop-pop all the time? Why can't we downshift and quiet down here and there, so we can possibly hear someone's heart beating?"

That's not the deal, I realize. This is essentially Michael Bennett's vision of Dream- girls re-dreamt and re-launched, and I knew what that probably would be. And I wanted to feel great about it. I really did.

It didn't feel to me like a real river of a movie (and I trust I don't have to explain that one -- some films have a primal gravity feeling that tells you in a dozens of different ways that you're into something earthy and fundamental) but for some, like those cheering and whooping in the Academy theatre last night, the razzle dazzle will be enuf.

I "liked" Dreamgirls, for the most part. I didn't feel hostile in the least. I was entran- ced and smiling and going with a feeling of being among some very good and talented people who are doing everything they can to make me feel it (which I did, as far as it went). I had a much better time with it than I did with Chicago, which I despised to the depths of my soul. But at the same time I felt something missing.

I was going to sort out my feelings and shake it out before writing anything (it won't open for another 29 days), but then I woke up this morning to a giddy bungee- jumping David Poland rave, and some of the things he said made my brain go into spasms. And then Roger Friedman jumped in, and then Tom O'Neil. But let's bang up against the Poland.

"Dreamgirls landed in Beverly Hills...last night, and left a giant crater in the Oscar season," he began. My idea is that it was more of a meteorite that hit and then careened off and then hit and hit again, like a stone skimming across a pond. Dreamgirls is a wowser and not just in a spirited or "technical" sense -- it's a full-tilt, full-throttle thing all the way. It will no doubt turn a lot of people on (it definitely got me from time to to time) but I was there in the room and the feeling during the after-party was not that one of standing at the edge of a huge crater and going, "Wow...big one. I can still feel the tremors."

The feeling was a mixture of some delight and merriment, contentment ("I went with it," a journalist friend said) and a kind of "let's talk this out" therapy session. I wasn't confused but I felt a wee bit unresolved. I knew I had enjoyed it as much as I'm capable of enjoying an obviously first-rate Motown glitter-funk gay man's extravaganza, but I was going from person to person and saying (with variations), "It's not that I didn't like it -- I did for the most part and it's a great sell. I loved Jennifer Hudson to death. But it feels like a two-hour sketch."

I realize that there's something inherently sketchy about all musicals -- you're never going to get Long Day's Journey Into Night with songs -- but for me, Dream- girls is too pat. Everything is in shorthand. Nothing is off or raggedy or haphazard. It doesn't feel like Detroit, or like the '60s or '70s even. It feels like it's happening in director-writer Bill Condon's head, and that's fine. There's no one who respects his talent and chops more than I.

"The film was everything promised and more," Poland said. I would say it was everything promised and somewhat less. Not a crashing disappointment, but a film that simultaneously roused and satisfied in several ways, but didn't quite bring it home.

Dreamgirls is a highly-charged moviefication of a hot stage musical that was (I'm told) all songs and sparkle (which benefitted from Michael Bennett's inspired staging), and nothing really acted or spoken. Condon has, I've been told, added narrative tissue and emotional intimacy and made it more of a people thing and less of a big, brassy presentation. I can half-see that, and I respect the effort.

And yet Hudson aside, I didn't feel much for anyone. They're all "on" and, as far as it goes, "terrific." But I wasn't rooting for Beyonce Knowles and her thin Diana Ross character, and as much as I liked watching Eddie Murphy, Jamie Foxx, Anika Noni Rose, Danny Glover, Keith Robinson and Sharon Leal, I felt pretty neutral about the fates of their characters.

Poland actually said (this was the biggest mindblower for me), "It's like the old question, is Chinese food in China 'Chinese food' or just 'food?'" A rave review should not, I feel, bring up this metaphor. The odd thing is that I don't feel this way about Dreamgirls. I feel that the "all" of it, in a certain sense, is quite substantial.

But it's not an emotional bath experience as much as an emotional car wash -- you're in a mint-condition 1970 Cadillac with the windows up and everything sealed tight, but instead of moving through the water and brushes and soap and hot air at 2 miles an hour, you're moving at 80 or 90 miles an hour and the car-wash tunnel is almost 185 miles long. I'm saying that for all the application of craft and feeling and kick-out soul, the emotional moisture never really penetrates.

But Jennifer Hudson, at times, is in the car right next you and she's the absolute real deal. I loved her. I love her now as I'm sitting here. I loved her hurtin' stuff. I loved her singing "what about what I feel? what about what I need?" I loved the way she sang "Love You I Do," a new number written by Henry Krieger. I loved the way she sang "One Night Only." But anyone who says she should be pushed for Best Actress is insane. She's the new kid and she's not in Helen Mirren's or Judi Dench's or Meryl Streep's class...please.

Poland has written that Beyonce "absolutely deserves" a Best Supporting Actress nomination. It won't happen. Her best moment comes when she sings another Henry Krieger song, "Listen," but her character (like the real-life Diana Ross) is mainly about opportunism and eyelash-fluttering and going for the gold. The only reason she turns is because Jamie Foxx's character turns into a shit and she feels she needs to go elsewhere to grow. But if he'd been a better, more sensitive partner, Beyonce's character would be about complacency from start to finish.

Poland thinks Dreamgirls is going to win for Best Picture. It might, but I spoke to people last night who were four-square against it and they were saying "no way." One guy even said it may not be nominated.

If it does win, I know I won't go into convulsions like I did when Chicago took it. I know that Dreamgirls doesn't have the human-condition current that makes films like The Lives of Others, Babel, Volver, Little Miss Sunshine, The Queen and United 93 truly special experiences. It has a musical current, yes, and that punch-it-out spritzy-wow thing, but....

I know that Condon has done as good a job at this kind of thing as anyone could. I don't pretend to fully understand or support it 100% -- I can only try to feel it as best I can and hope for the best -- but as far as this kind of musical goes, the heart and effort that went into it has my respect. Let's leave it at that. For now.

Larry and Bill<< previous | next >>Tracking

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 16, 2006 at 7:24 AM

comment #1

JD says ...

If you respect Condon's chops so much, why the hate for Chicago? I mean, I hate it too, but if you really were Condon's biggest fan...

Anyway, here's hoping more negative pieces get written about Dreamgirls and inspire Paramount to pull an Iwo Jima and release Zodiac in December. I know it'll never happen, but the Christmas movie season is looking more and more dead without it.

Posted by JD at November 16, 2006 12:58 PM

comment #2

Jesse Perry says ...

"if you really were Condon's biggest fan..."

And he said this where?

Posted by Jesse Perry at November 16, 2006 1:15 PM

comment #3

actionman says ...

god i hate this movie already

Posted by actionman at November 16, 2006 1:15 PM

comment #4

qwiggles says ...

This is a wonderful, tasteful, nuanced review, Jeff. Thank you.

Posted by qwiggles at November 16, 2006 1:27 PM

comment #5

MASON says ...

Poland is cracking me up more than usual today.

He writes an absolute rave, I mean just a gusher about Dreamgirls, then in of his blog comments he says it's not in his top five personally for the year, maybe not even in his top ten. It's such an obvious, transparent attempt to hide his bias toward this flick. I like DP's stuff, read it all the time, but he would have a hard time providing proof of one flick this year he's raved about more than Dreamgirls --and now, when he's accused of playing favorites, it's not in his top five or ten of the year?

Unbelievable.

Posted by MASON at November 16, 2006 1:35 PM

comment #6

Haiku Harry says ...

Dream may win the night,
but what will we think of it
ten short years from now?

Posted by Haiku Harry at November 16, 2006 1:40 PM

comment #7

JD says ...

Jesse, I was referring to this quote:

"It feels like it's happening in director-writer Bill Condon's head, and there is no one who respects his talent and chops more than I."

I guess it's possible that we're intepreting this differently but, as far as I'm concerned, "biggest fan" and "no one respects his talent and chops more than I" are pretty much the same thing.

Posted by JD at November 16, 2006 1:47 PM

comment #8

Geoff says ...

Great review Jeff. I was in the same boat as you were when "Chicago" came out. At least I now know it will be a better film than that one.

Posted by Geoff at November 16, 2006 1:57 PM

comment #9

MASON says ...

Zodiac trailer is up at comingsoon.net

Looks pretty damn good.

Posted by MASON at November 16, 2006 2:01 PM

comment #10

thatmovieguy says ...

I actually feel a little sorry for Beyonce. She's supposed to be the leading lady, but she is outshone every step of the way by the magnetic Hudson (whose rendition of AND I AM TELLING YOU... got cheers from the crowd I saw the film with and whose appearance in the end credits was applauded so heartily you would have thought she was in the theater). LISTEN is a calculated attempt to give Deena a bit of depth, and while Beyonce sings the hell out of it it's not exactly a magic moment. I will certainly give her this much, however: The woman obviously studied up on Diana Ross, since her moves in the hilarious fashion-shoot segment were pure MAHOGANY and her phoney-gracious speeches to the concert audiences and well-rehearsed posturing were also right on the mark. It won't get her an Oscar nomination but it will get Miss Ross mighty steamed when she sees it.

Posted by thatmovieguy at November 16, 2006 2:03 PM

comment #11

Melquiades says ...

Poland's comment about Chinese food was re: whether this is a "black movie" as opposed to a movie that happens to be about black people. In terms of it being the Oscar frontrunner, that is.

I predict Jeff will sour on this movie over time, as other critic's chime in with raves, and by the time the Oscars come along he'll be ripping it the way he did Chicago.

His initial review of Chicago was so-so... nothing like the venom he spewed later.

Posted by Melquiades at November 16, 2006 2:13 PM

comment #12

le corbeau says ...

The "black movie or movie about black people" thing is irrelevant. Hollywood is in major guilt mode about black actors and actresses lately and gives them Oscars any chance it can. I have to think it will likewise gravitate toward any black-oriented movie it sees as a reasonable Picture contender.

Posted by le corbeau at November 16, 2006 2:41 PM

comment #13

actionman says ...

thanks for the heads up Mason. now THAT looks AMAZING...i cannot believe that it's being dumped in February....what's the deal?!?!?!?!

Posted by actionman at November 16, 2006 2:48 PM

comment #14

T. S. Idiot says ...

Actually, I'd like to see Long Day's Journey into Night: The Musical. What about Angela Bassett and Sam Jackson as the parents, Foxx and Murphy as the brothers?

Posted by T. S. Idiot at November 16, 2006 4:21 PM

comment #15

p.Vice says ...

All flash, no substance? Sounds like a Best Picture winner to me.

Posted by p.Vice at November 16, 2006 4:51 PM

comment #16

Ju-osh says ...

Mgmax: Would you care to name 6 black actors and/or actresses that have won Oscars in the past, oh, 12 years? 5 in 10? 4 in 8?
Yeah, the Academy sure is doing its part towards making reparations...

Posted by Ju-osh at November 16, 2006 6:48 PM

comment #17

Theatrbuff says ...

I saw a screening last night as well and let's just say I wasn't blown away by the movie as I'd hoped to be.

It was rather disjointed with some heavy-handed direction at times (Effie running out into the artifical looking Detroit riots, Curtis' bizarre and annoying discovery of his daughter), and not a lot of true soul (very much one dimensional) with the exception of Hudson.

Toward the end I felt kind of like I was watching "Valley of the Black Dolls."

But Jennifer Hudson was definitely a standout. She thoroughly owned "And I'm Telling You." That scene will probably stand up there with some of the greatest filmed musical numbers of all time. Very reminiscent of Barbra Streisand's "Don't Rain On My Parade" in Funny Girl (HER first film).

Ironically though, Ms. Hudson just may follow the same fate as Ms. Holliday. I mean, how many film projects are out there waiting for an overweight black actress whose singing skills outshine her acting?

Ms. Holliday ended up doing disco tunes and performing in small gay bars (where I initially saw her, and it was pretty incredible). Let's hope that fate doesn't await Ms. Hudson, even if she does take home the Oscar.

Eddie Murphy was pretty good too, although his character appreared to represent several decades worth of black musicians ranging from Little Richard to Marvin Gaye.

Beyonce had a nice moment with "Listen," the song written specifically for the film, but never really stood out. It was more like she was modeling the varied looks of Diana Ross through the decades.

It will be interesting to see who the audience (if there is one) for this film turns out to be.

Posted by Theatrbuff at November 16, 2006 7:06 PM

comment #18

Hallick says ...

Hi Mgmax!

2005 - One black nominee (Terrence Howard) out of the 20 actors and actresses vying for a trophy. the Hollywood conspiracy to prop up African-Americans shoots itself in the collective cloven hoof by mistaking Phillip Seymour Hoffman for an octaroon.

2004 - Five nominations out of 20 (Heavens to Hell!), two wins in the actors categories, but a pyrrhic victory for white guilt since they had to deny two other black nominees in the same categories.

2003 - One empty-handed black nominee (if you count Maoris, then two). But in a stunning display of win-win triangulation, an African-American does walk away with the best actress trophy - Charlize Theron in "Monster".

2002 - One black nominee (Queen Latifah) out of 20 again. Zero winners out of 20 again.

2001 - Three nominees, one black actor beat another black actor (Denzel Washington vs. Will Smith), and Halle Berry won best actress. The deluge begins...

So summing up Mgmax, by defining â€œlatelyâ€ as the last five ceremonies, out of one hundred acting nominations, those bleading-heart BASTARDS got 11 black contenders, who took home four out of the 20 statuettes.

Theyâ€™re so bloody obvious about it, and thatâ€™s what galls me the most! The blatancy of their bias!

G'night Mgmax!

Posted by Hallick at November 17, 2006 12:09 AM

comment #19

KamikazeCamelV2.0 says ...

Haiku Harry, the gives a damn about how a movie will be seen in ten years.

Theatrbuff, Hudson is "overweight"? Jesus Christ.

Posted by KamikazeCamelV2.0 at November 17, 2006 7:21 AM

comment #20

KamikazeCamelV2.0 says ...

Oh, and I must say. It sounds (from reading this and your initial Chicago thoughts) that you don't like musicals that much. Yes, there are plenty that are all about the human spirit or whatever, but some of the best are big ol' song and dance numbers and you should be judging films based on the film not on their Oscar credentials (which is what somebody up there was criticising Dave Poland for doing)

Posted by KamikazeCamelV2.0 at November 17, 2006 7:23 AM

comment #21

Midwest Doug says ...

So is Dreamgirls like a more accomplished, musical, soulful Ocean's 11? That's a movie I could admire to a degree, but I never felt like I was in its current. It never resonated.

Posted by Midwest Doug at November 17, 2006 8:37 AM

comment #22

MASON says ...

Judging from the reaction on the web, it sounds like the majority of folks aren't as high on this flick as Poland is. Good, entertaining, but not even a lock for a best picture nomination -- much less the winner.

Posted by MASON at November 17, 2006 9:50 AM

comment #23

count.olaf says ...

I still think the interesting story is how removed from American Idol Hudson got so quickly. It's an albatross around contestants' necks forever...every article about Kelly Clarkson, even though she has made a good little career and grammy wins on her own, still mentions her American Idol win/involvement.

Hudson got something like 5th a few years ago which meant she still had to do the tour and everything, so she should still be mentioned as "Former AI contestant Jennifer Hudson" by most other standards, yet somehow her PR people have mostly found a way to remove it. Or critics don't know her past. Or both...

It's just an interesting story how much they are ignoring the AI "juggernaut" although I'm sure FOX will have Ryan Seacrest play it up when the show returns in January.

Posted by count.olaf at November 17, 2006 10:11 AM

comment #24

bipedalist says ...

That is interesting Olaf, however I will bet that only the winners, perhaps even the final four have to make that contract where they mention AI every time before. It actually is greatly to Hudson's benefit that she was only a runner-up because she doesn't have to overcome it as much as, say, Fantasia would have (who would have been GREAT in that part, btw).

It will be interesting to see whether all of this buzz will carry her to an Oscar win - crikey, can you imagine how popular AI will be? Kelly Clarkson's success was one thing, then Carrie Underwood sticking it to Faith Hill, and now this? Simon, Paula and Randy are powerful players indeed. Hm.....

Posted by bipedalist at November 17, 2006 11:03 AM

comment #25

Arthur101 says ...

Great review - where else can we hear stellar names like Dench, Streep, as the reason not to rush into nominating an actress, but then like...examples of stellar human interest best pics would be... "United 93"? Hardly.

Posted by Arthur101 at November 19, 2006 1:05 PM

comment #26