"Dreamgirls and the blings

email this story
read comments (30)
post a comment

For the first ten days of the run of Dreamgirls (i.e., Friday, 12.15 to Sunday, 12.24), which is strictly a New York, L.A. and San Fran thing, interested parties will be charged $25 a ticket on a reserved-seat basis. The high-prestige movies used to open in New York and L.A. on a reserved-seat "roadshow" basis back in the late '50s and '60s. Still...$50 bucks for two people plus popcorn and whatnot?

DreamWorks is looking to create an aura of specialness with industry and media types by doing this, but cash-wise they're basically looking to attract gays and the "bling" crowd. This is a bucks-up, all-black musical, after all, and they know that the blings like to flash the cash and parade around, and that most of them will probably leap at the chance to see Dreamgirls on this basis because of the ostentatious "statement" factor.

The blings have taken over the bar at the rear of the Beverly Wilshire. Weekends there are like New Year's Eve in Dubai...gangstas and ho's...guys with socks on their head or Iranians with shaved heads pulling up to the valet in $75,000 rich-ass- hole sports cars. The Beverly Wilshire used to have a touch of class...no longer.

Borat revision<< previous | next >>"Happyness" is sinking

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 12, 2006 at 11:44 AM

comment #1

Gabriel says ...

Buying two tickets at $25 a pop for last night's AFI premiere of "The Fountain"? IS NICE! Paying the same amount to see "Dreamgirls"? Ah.....not so much.

Posted by Gabriel at November 12, 2006 12:18 PM

comment #2

Mike Ock says ...

Wow Jeff, you never cease to amaze me. The "bling" crowd? Is bling a synonym for rich N word?

If you're referring to gangsta rap types, then say that.

Me thinks the real audience for this is the " Light mood piece/tonic for the soul" crowd, who didn't show up this weekend to see A Good Year. They wisely stayed away from that piece of shit, and now have an extra $11 to watch Dreamgirls with the blings.

Posted by Mike Ock at November 12, 2006 12:20 PM

comment #3

Daniel Fienberg says ...

"This is a bucks-up, all-black musical, after all, and they know that the blings like to flash the cash and parade around..."

Dude. Did you *seriously* just write that?

Did you mean "bucks" as a racial pejorative as well, or was that just an added bonus?

-Daniel

Posted by Daniel Fienberg at November 12, 2006 1:28 PM

comment #4

Dan Revill says ...

I guess Jeff still smarts from the time the "bling" crowd didn't let him share a table in the high school cafeteria.

Why not just call 'em aristocrats or the bourgeoisie? That'd be more in line with the entitlement that you seem to abhor when it comes to $25 tix.

Posted by Dan Revill at November 12, 2006 1:36 PM

comment #5

jeffreywells says ...

Wells to Daniel: Hold on...a new insight into Beverly Hills social customs of 2006 is uploading. Let me understand clearly -- you're saying there's no such thing as men of a somewhat tanner, darker pigmentation with lots & losts of cash who feel a need to assert or confirm their social status by wearing flashy clothes and driving flashy cars and overdoing the bling thing to levels that would be comical if they weren't vaguely pathetic...you're saying these folks DON'T EXIST? New money types always seem to feel insecure, and they always flash it around...people who've had it all their lives and are secure in their wealth don't do this -- it's the nouveau riche who feel the need to make the Big Statement...who've done it all along. The blings -- people with absolutely no taste who wear garish rings, bracelets, earings, etc. -- are the under-cultured nouveau riche banner-carriers of the big cities over the last six or seven or eight years...gimme a break. And you're saying I'm making this up, or I'm guilty of violating some p.c. law for referring to this social class as "the blings"? No...you can't be saying this. You must mean something else.

Posted by jeffreywells at November 12, 2006 2:02 PM

comment #6

T-maker says ...

During contentious moments like this I like to calmly reflect on the quiet dignity of the Hiltons and their old money brethren.

Posted by T-maker at November 12, 2006 2:10 PM

comment #7

MikeSells says ...

I'm still confused about the "bling" crowd.

"Bling" is a term commonly associated with African-Americans.

But from your description of the "Bling crowd," Jeff, it sounds like you're referring to the wealthy Persian Jews who live in Beverly Hills and frequent places like Cut, the uber-expensive new Wolfgang Puck steakhouse at the Beverly Wilshire.

For some reason, I don't think that is the primary audience for the Dreamgirls road show.

The road show is not just a NY and LA thing...It's also happening in San Francisco. So I imagine the plan is to lure in gay audiences with sufficient expendable income. That said, while $25/ticket is a lot of money, it's not exactly outrageous or prohibitive, since tickets at the Arclight are $14 anyway. And apparently this program features some souvenirs and what not.

By the way, I've seen the movie and think it delivers on the level of razzle-dazzle movie-movie spectacle more than anything else this year, with lots of emotional peaks and valleys and a big tearjerking moment at the very end. The story is def. less contained than the one in Chicago, but works very well on the level of an ensemble saga. Loved it overall.

Posted by MikeSells at November 12, 2006 2:15 PM

comment #8

MikeSells says ...

To revise and clarify my above comment, I think the target audience for the $25 tickets is the same audience that ponies up $100+ to see a musical stage production (not necessarily just gay people). I don't think this is the "bling" crowd, per se.

Posted by MikeSells at November 12, 2006 2:20 PM

comment #9

jeffreywells says ...

Why can't hoplessly ostentatious new-money types with zero taste in clothes, jewelry or cars of ALL tribal persuasions be considered "bling" types? Why does "bling" have to be an African-American thing only?

Posted by jeffreywells at November 12, 2006 2:32 PM

comment #10

MikeSells says ...

It doesn't HAVE to be I suppose. But "bling" is an urban term most often associated with rap artists (i.e. African-Americans). If you had just said "nouveau riche" or "new money" and left it at that, your original statement would have been more clear.

It really doesn't matter though, I get what you're saying now (although I still disagree with the general premise).

Posted by MikeSells at November 12, 2006 2:55 PM

comment #11

erniesouchak says ...

Universal tried a similar thing with "The Producers" when it first opened in NYC at the Ziegfeld -- tix were $12.50 each for the first 3 weeks. And you know what? It DIED.

Posted by erniesouchak at November 12, 2006 2:56 PM

comment #12

jeffmcm says ...

Wow, Wells's responses only crammed that foot deeper into his mouth.

Posted by jeffmcm at November 12, 2006 3:51 PM

comment #13

wholovesya says ...

The "Bling" conversation aside -- and really Jeff, don't you think the exclusive would be at THE BRIDGE if they were going for that audience? -- Check out the DETAILS of the roadshow people. With the ticket you get a 50 page color program -- and we're not talking flimsy playbill stuff here. The book on its own would cost more than the price of the tix.

Ernie, is someone from another studio paying you to rip on Dreamgirls before other people see it? Or are you just that negative on the movie? And how do we know you really saw it?

Posted by wholovesya at November 12, 2006 3:57 PM

comment #14

Wrecktum says ...

The Bridge is exactly where it should be to attract middle class African-Americans. Or is Baldwin Hills and Inglewood suddenly no longer black?

Either way, Wells' "bling" statements are entirely distasteful. Good thing he doesn't live back east where upperly mobile Italian Americans have been flashing gold and tackiness for generations; we'd probably get hostile posts about the "goobah greasers."

Posted by Wrecktum at November 12, 2006 8:07 PM

comment #15

JamesK says ...

Great - let's add "racist" to sexist, ageist, classist, homophobic, and misogynist on Jeff's list.

Seriously, Jeff -- the only thing worse than dismissing the "blings" is your assumption that all "gays" will want to see a big-budget musical. Coming off your support of Brokeback Mountain, it's a massive step backwards and downright offensive. Don't think you're being some kind of maverick - you're coming off as out of touch, dismissive, and downright unintelligent.

PS - you still never addressed Daniel's query as to your racial assumptions on the term "bucks". Nice sidestepping - worthy of a Red-State politician!

Posted by JamesK at November 12, 2006 8:56 PM

comment #16

Mr. Gittes says ...

Jeff, I think you've gone too far. I love your website and work, but c'mon, just a poor choice of words man.

Posted by Mr. Gittes at November 13, 2006 12:14 AM

comment #17

jeffreywells says ...

There's always a way to try & fry someone who's expressed a candid plain-ass view in a non-p.c., regular-Joe way. The aesthetic in writing this column is to say things that wouldn't raise an eyebrow if you said them to someone at a party after a glass and a half of wine, but in the context of print and minding your p.c. p's and q's might well be frowned upon. (As we've seen in this evening's reactions to the "blings" -- there are no blings!....blings who?...blings WHAT?) There are very few columnists who will write with this somewhat blurty mentality I'm speaking of. It's taken me years to get to a place where I can write with a one-and-a-half glasses of wine consciousness no matter what time of day it is, and I'm loathe to abandon it and return to tidy-up-the-copy, watch-what-I-say, broomstick-up-the-butt attitudes when I write this stuff. Sorry, but that's how it more or less is.

Posted by jeffreywells at November 13, 2006 1:32 AM

comment #18

Ian Sinclair says ...

I think by the "bling" crowd Jeff means a certain uncouth, ignorant, tasteless, boorish and loudmouthed crowd that just so happens to be predominantly African-American. For the record, Oprah Winfrey is none too enamoured of that crowd either; for that matter, neither am I.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at November 13, 2006 5:07 AM

comment #19

Chuck Latovich says ...

I would politely suggest that it's possible to be honest and "blurty" without working stereotypes. Even after a glass of wine...what is this, the Mel Gibson defense?

Posted by Chuck Latovich at November 13, 2006 5:09 AM

comment #20

JWEgo says ...

It is a pathetic defense and I am ashamed of myself. Fact is I don't like the people who aint't white and I don't like the whites who don't give me free movie tickets. It is what I am saying is all.

I am Jeff Wells' Ego!

Posted by JWEgo at November 13, 2006 8:25 AM

comment #21

storymark says ...

"The aesthetic in writing this column is to say things that wouldn't raise an eyebrow if you said them to someone at a party after a glass and a half of wine, but in the context of print and minding your p.c. p's and q's might well be frowned upon."

If you'd made those comments to me at a dinner party, I would find someone else to talk to.

Posted by storymark at November 13, 2006 10:04 AM

comment #22

ArchiveGuy says ...

Any idea what the venue will be in SF? Because I can't think of a theater here (besides the Castro, maybe) that's worth that ticket price, regardless of the film.

Posted by ArchiveGuy at November 13, 2006 10:42 AM

comment #23

Ju-osh says ...

Jeff,
Nobody is saying that there is no such thing as "blings". No, they're saying that once again you're unintentionally revealing your ignorance about folks not in your social/economic/political/sexual/gender club of two (you and Micheal Mann). Maybe the intent was not to be or seem racist, but the FUMES of the piece...

Posted by Ju-osh at November 13, 2006 11:06 AM

comment #24

ben151 says ...

The text is what it is. Bling is tired-out as an insult anyway -- there's much better over on crunk and disorderly or other sites devoted to black pop culture. What cracks me up is David Poland claiming "I try to stay out of the Jeff Wells business. There are many reasons for me to stay away from him, his work, and his head space" and then, within hours of Wells' original post, posting his own enraged response.

Posted by ben151 at November 13, 2006 1:10 PM

comment #25

Ju-osh says ...

As a child of divorced parents, let me tell you that you're never supposed to take too seriously what either parent says about the other -- despite the fact that there's usually a whole lot of truth in it.

Posted by Ju-osh at November 13, 2006 2:13 PM

comment #26

Earl Hofert says ...

I'm guessing that by "one-and-a-half glasses of wine," you mean "one-and-a-half boxes"

Guys with bling, Iranians, women who laugh in public, fatties, anyone who bought a ticket to "POTC 2," Sofia Coppola and the people who didn't use the "fumes" quote on the "Miami Vice" ads--am I missing anyone else from Wells's hit list?

Posted by Earl Hofert at November 13, 2006 5:22 PM

comment #27

The Diva says ...

Jeff, is Paramount paying you to display the "For your consideration" banners in support of Dreamgirls?

I'm not sure they would appreciate that in light of all the nasty comments you've made.

Are you going to answer the "buck" question or not?

Posted by The Diva at November 14, 2006 10:35 AM

comment #28

utzworld says ...

Not only are you ignorant in general, you are also ignorant of Hollywood history.

The purpose for Paramount/DreamWorks releasing Dreamgirls in this manner is to invoke the classic Roadshow format of film distribution. It has nothing to do with "bling" and gays.

In the 50's & 60's, the studios used to release their big ticket flicks exclusively at 1 enormous theatre (much like the Cinerama Dome or Grauman's Chinese) in the city complete with souvenir program and other items to build up word of mouth before the film hit nationwide. Almost all of the classic musicals were released this way.

Go back and study your history, boy, before you go spouting ignorant racist, homophobic rhetoric!

P.S. I'm Black.
P.P.S. Do you find it ironic that a member of the "Bling" crowd had to take you to school on Hollywood history?

:o)

Posted by utzworld at November 14, 2006 6:28 PM

comment #29

kimi98 says ...

Posted by kimi98 at August 31, 2007 4:52 AM

comment #30

cheap corsets says ...

Although it is not brand name,wholesale lingerie can be very sexy. Most companies offer a variety of lingerie including bridal lingerie, chemise, thongs, bras, garters, corsets, panties, and others. Wholesale lingerie companies generally provide products for resale businesses. Some companies will not sell to you unless you give them proof that you have a business.

Posted by cheap corsets at April 18, 2012 12:05 AM