Why "Dreamgirls" dumped

email this story
read comments (30)
post a comment

"It's obviously possible for a movie to get nominated for Best Picture without its lead actors getting their own nominations. But is it possible for a film to be a Best Picture contender when its lead performances were widely panned, even by people who otherwise liked the movie? I'm referring, of course, to Beyonce Knowles, Jamie Foxx and Dreamgirls.

"Let's face it -- as much as everyone seemed to like Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson, and as much as you could legitimately call this an ensemble picture, Jamie Foxx and Beyonce Knowles were the ostensible leads. The fact that they didn't register in their roles might not entirely be their faults; look at the script. But whoever should be blamed, those are two pretty big holes right at the center/forefront of the film.

"Can anyone remember another Best Picture nominee about which most people said, 'Yeah, I really loved that movie, even though the two leads were no good?' I can't even come up with a non-nominee right now that had viewers saying that en masse.

"For me, there were lots of other reasons why Dreamgirls was a failure, but I think that one had to at least subliminally factor into the voting among people who liked it a lot more than I did.

"I'm pleased with its omission. I can remember, after one of the very first screenings, when you quoted one lone naysayer to the effect that it was possible that it wouldn't even get a nomination. That seemed far-fetched at the time, given the love, but when I shortly thereafter caught a screening, I wrote in wanting to affirm whatever hesitations you were having, just as another reality check.

"And I'm glad you've been temperate on the movie all along. I don't think it deserves major hate, and I don't begrudge you or anyone who liked it a little more than me for having some good things to say about it. But the idea that anyone really thought this was Best Picture material still floors me. Of course, I thought that about Crash, too. Nice to see the gods of rationalism prevail this time.

"Go, Departed. Go, Peter O'Toole. I don't hate Little Miss Sunshine but please, God, don't let it win." -- Los Angeles based journalist, in an e-mail received around 9:30 ayem.

DiCaprio double credit<< previous | next >>Current front-runner?

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on January 23, 2007 at 9:29 AM

comment #1

Kristopher Tapley says ...

So is it your aim to make Hollywood Elsewhere the one stop "down with 'Dreamgirls'" shop today, Jeff?

Posted by Kristopher Tapley at January 23, 2007 9:39 AM

comment #2

Walter Sobchak says ...

Am I the only person who thought "Babel" sort of sucked? (1/3 of a good movie)... I know it "feels" important, but please. Are you people on dope?

Posted by Walter Sobchak at January 23, 2007 9:45 AM

comment #3

qwiggles says ...

How are they the leads, exactly?

Foxx is the villain and Knowles is the not-underdog. In other words, Hudson's character is clearly offered up by the screenplay as our lead if anyone has to be -- neither Foxx nor Knowles has the kind of part that classifies as such, the former being the one who causes many of the negative events and the latter basically serving as a replacement for our real lead, the one who gets the big musical centrepiece.

There's certainly a point to be made about how the last hour gives them a lot of screen time despite lacking major character arcs, but then, that's another thread.

Posted by qwiggles at January 23, 2007 9:50 AM

comment #4

Mark says ...

wow. talk about rationalizing to explain an outcome after the fact.

Not to mention that you only have to go back all the way to last year, and question if anyone enjoyed Cheadle and Bullock as the name leads in Crash. Or was there any love for Bana and Rush in Munich?

Posted by Mark at January 23, 2007 10:05 AM

comment #5

le corbeau says ...

Best Picture nominee despite terrible lead performances?

Sure, it's called Star Wars.

Posted by le corbeau at January 23, 2007 10:08 AM

comment #6

Mike Ock says ...

Babel is a terrible movie. It's boring, pretentious, depressing. The director seems like a pompous ass as well.

Posted by Mike Ock at January 23, 2007 10:11 AM

comment #7

kammy says ...

Whilst Murphy and Hudson gave stellar performances in "Dreamgirls", the ones from Foxx and Knowles nearly ruined the movie for me.

Posted by kammy at January 23, 2007 10:11 AM

comment #8

The Winchester says ...

Walter, thank you. I saw Babel, and recognized the filmmaking as technically superior, but I just didn't think it worked. Each individual story was better than the grand total. (Japanese story was the best, in my opinion). While I wouldn't say it sucked, far from it, I don't think it's as strong as his previous films.

Posted by The Winchester at January 23, 2007 10:13 AM

comment #9

K. Bowen says ...

I think Hudson's Effie White is clearly the lead performance. It's her story arc that has the element of tragedy and redemption. For a movie that beomans the way that appearance trumps talent in our telegenic society, does anyone else find it a bit unsettling that Beyonce was given top billing and campaigned for as the lead, while the clear lead got pushed to the supporting categories?

Posted by K. Bowen at January 23, 2007 10:15 AM

comment #10

The Movie Man says ...

I skipped "Babel". I think movies that "feel" important is sort of that director's thing. I hated "21 Grams" and "Babel" felt like more of the same.

Posted by The Movie Man at January 23, 2007 10:23 AM

comment #11

Walter Sobchak says ...

YES!!! Ha! In your face, "Dreamgirls"! Sucks to be you! Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey, goodbye! In the Best Pic category, you got nuthin'! NUTHIN'! How's THAT taste, biatches?! See ya, wouldn't want to be ya! Wells - 1. "Dreamgirls" - 0! DENIED! (enacting inpromtu victory dance)

- Jeffrey Wells

Posted by Walter Sobchak at January 23, 2007 10:35 AM

comment #12

Melquiades says ...

Have to agree that Hudson was clearly the lead in this film, with Foxx, Beyonce and Murphy all supporting.

Also, I thought Foxx did a great job as the villain. And Beyonce was perfectly fine in the Diana Ross role. It didn't require tremendous acting chops, and she had the performance aspects of it down.

Babel was a beautiful film... not perfect, but splendidly acted, shot, edited and written. I'm pulling for The Departed to win, but I'll be more than happy if Babel pulls it off.

The Queen was quite good but I'd feel pretty blah if it takes the prize. Sunshine was enjoyable but doesn't belong here.

Where is Children of Men?? Volver?? United 93??

Posted by Melquiades at January 23, 2007 10:40 AM

comment #13

JD says ...

Yes, Babel is mediocre. But Arriaga and Inarritu aren't. That's what's so terrible about this. After making two subtle, complex, difficult films, they're rewarded for making a preachy, shallow, and manipulative movie. They may never recover from that.

Posted by JD at January 23, 2007 10:41 AM

comment #14

dobbsy says ...

I feel so good here, I'm gonna stay here all day. Yes, yes, yes as Molly Bloom would say, BABEL is a pretentious dishonest load of multinational blarney. Glad to see others agree.

But now we live in terror until they tear open the envelopes. There are three good films in that race, Departed, Iwo Jima and Queen and then two turkeys.

All together now: I shall not think bad thoughts...

Posted by dobbsy at January 23, 2007 10:56 AM

comment #15

wholovesya says ...

Ya know, this site has been the centerpoint for Dgirls hating for sometime (which is partially Poland hating as well). At this point can we just let it go? Yes, many straight white males HATED Dgirls. We got it. Really. We got it!

But let's not forget that lots of other people across the country LOVE it. And perhaps there wasn't enough of them in the Academy. Hey, it happens (didn't we all think John Kerry was going to get elected president that Nov. day?) Was it rare to run into a white straight member of the press who liked the movie in LA or NY or anywhere? Hell yeah. But, please, come off it. The movie is an all African-American PERIOD MUSICAL that is going to get to $100 million in the U.S. and couldn't break into an Oscar field that has become increasingly indie and increasingly serious (LOTR recent win aside). So, all in all, that's an incredible achievement, even in 2007. So, can we just let it go?

Oh and one more thing, if you want to vent your hatred anywhere, vent it at the prognosticators who started the Dgirls drumroll oh, so long ago. It wasn't DreamWorks who claimed it was a best picture nominee, it was the PRESS (no, not Terry). So, if you want blame them and the members of the media who pay WAY too much ATTENTION to them (sorry Jeff, but it's true). Give the people who love the film and those who worked on it (which doesn't include myself) some freakin' slack.

Really, Jeff...posting all this constant refrain doesn't make you look any classier.

Posted by wholovesya at January 23, 2007 11:26 AM

comment #16

cobhome says ...

I am stunned that Dreamgirls missed o ut on the significant awards - while I did not think it much more than a entertaining film - it still is a shocker - just goes to show how unpredictable these things really are - but - was this so much a rejection of Dreamgirls or a reflection of the voting pattern - could it be that every one who voted - had Dreamgirls on their ballot - but in the number 4 or 5 place

Posted by cobhome at January 23, 2007 11:26 AM

comment #17

MarkVH says ...

JD, really couldn't have said it better myself. Innaritu and Arriaga have been an incredible team, and their work on Amorres Perros and 21 Grams is stellar in every respect. This is partly why, despite my reservations, I just can't bring myself to hate Babel or be upset about its nominations. I really do think that there's some brilliant stuff in there - especially in the Japanese segment - as well as (admittedly) some stuff that rates a 10 on the unintentional comedy scale (the Barraza segment). But because their track record has been so good, I'm ok with the nods for the film and the team. To dismiss them and the film as "this year's Crash" is to seriously undervalue their past work and what small victories they do acheive with this film.

Posted by MarkVH at January 23, 2007 11:45 AM

comment #18

rocco says ...

Poland and Wells both look like idiots...hey were both bitchslapped by their respective choices for 'Best Picture'. All this gloating over Dreamgirls, where's the introspection regarding Children of Men???

Posted by rocco at January 23, 2007 11:54 AM

comment #19

NYCBusybody says ...

"At this point can we just let it go? Yes, many straight white males HATED Dgirls. We got it. Really. We got it!"

I think the problem for "Dreamgirls", actually, was that I remember the mood among my friends (who aren't all straight, white, or male) in NYC during the December Dreamgirls-'A-Palooza-Fest-athon (especially at the Ziegfeld) was:

"Ok! Gay men and black women LOVE Dreamgirls! We got it. Really. We got it!"

Posted by NYCBusybody at January 23, 2007 11:57 AM

comment #20

NYCBusybody says ...

Point being, it got oversold and overhyped because it was distinctly and purposefully pitched at the beginning to a very segmented audience that would love it the most, and backlash inevitably follows hype.

Yes, it's done alright around the entire country, but there are lots of High school drama kids out there (and housewives, who know from musicals).

Posted by NYCBusybody at January 23, 2007 12:04 PM

comment #21

Chris Willman says ...

Note to C. Fontana: Wells didn't get "bitchslapped" by the Academy because he never suggested "Children of Men" would win best picture. He said it was HIS favorite picture. There's a big difference between a personal preference and a prediction, and I don't think JW writes in a way that makes it all that hard to distinguish the difference between the two.

Posted by Chris Willman at January 23, 2007 12:10 PM

comment #22

Matthew Lucas says ...

That's the best retrospective on this mornings nominations I've read so far. I agree wholeheartedly.

Right now I'm pulling for "Babel," but I would like to see "Letters from Iwo Jima" again before I make my final decision.

Posted by Matthew Lucas at January 23, 2007 12:12 PM

comment #23

rocco says ...

Chris: you're right, for the most part, Jeff never campaigned for it. Thought I had remembered Wells hyping it beyond his #1 movie of the year billing...although now that I think about it, I don't quite recall Jeff putting pen to paper for any film this year...lots of speculation about sentiment, but never a definitive statement re: the ultimate champ, which at least takes guts on the part of Polski (but how many more times can he be this far off the mark and still be taken even remotely seriously??)

Posted by rocco at January 23, 2007 12:31 PM

comment #24

Craig Kennedy says ...

So, if I was gay or black, the fact that the most interesting character in Dreamgirls dropped out for large chunks of the second half wouldn't have bothered me and I would've loved the movie instead of just liked it?

Good to know.

I don't take any joy in it not getting nominated, but the only reason I'm really surprised is because it had been crammed down my throat as inevitable for 8 or 9 months. I just assumed I was missing something, much as I missed the interest in Babel.

As for Wells, I find this morning's posts on Dreamgirls to be surprisingly restrained. I expected much more gloating, but really if you read all the things he's said about the film up to now, his opinions have been pretty moderate and mainly positive. He might be anti-Poland, but I didn't have the feeling he was anti-Dreamgirls. Most of his negative energy has been spent on Marie Antoinette and a certain other film I won't mention because I promised in another thread I'd let it go (but it rhymes with Ranger and Diction).

Posted by Craig Kennedy at January 23, 2007 12:43 PM

comment #25

NYCBusybody says ...

Not at all. I'm sure there are plenty of gay/black men/women who wouldn't like Dreamgirls.

In fact, I'd wager that even among those who were "dancing in the aisles" at the Ziegfeld, a lot of them were cognizant of such flaws, but willing to look past them just to celebrate a movie that spoke to them. Good for them. I think it's fine when a certain demographic segment finds a film that speaks to them more than to others - that's just how culture works.

I do think, though, that such overenthusiasm will lead to a backlash from other segments that don't necessarily see what all the hype is about.

Posted by NYCBusybody at January 23, 2007 12:49 PM

comment #26

NYCBusybody says ...

Case in point, "Walk the Line". Pretty standard biopic stuff, well done but nothing inherently great or unique, yet many country/rural/Southern/Midwestern viewers that I know thought it was very special and about people they'd always admired, and a lifestyle they know and love, and many of whom said they'd watch the Oscars because it was nominated.

Does anyone really think that "Walk the Line" had, or should have had, the same visceral reaction among black lesbians in Brooklyn? There's nothing wrong with that.

Posted by NYCBusybody at January 23, 2007 12:51 PM

comment #27

Craig Kennedy says ...

I'm not a country/rural/southern/midwestern viewer, but I love Johnny Cash and therefore enjoyed Walk the Line. Even so, I always saw it as a pretty run-of-the-mill biopic and nothing very special.

Interestingly, I love Motown but also found Dreamgirls to be pretty standard stuff. Jennifer Hudson's character was the most interesting, but her underdog theme didn't move me so much. The theme of what a person has to lose to get what they think they want is more powerful to me, but that part of the film was dominated by the two least interesting characters: Beyonce and Jamie Foxx. I thought Eddie Murphy's best work in the film was in the 2nd half but he wasn't given as much to do. Jettison Beyonce and Foxx and expand Murphy in the 2nd half and I might have liked the film better. I don't know. Just kind of thinking out loud.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at January 23, 2007 1:39 PM

comment #28

bmcintire says ...

I begrudge more of what went wrong with DREAMGIRLS on its insistence to disregard the actual story (both the film and the play). A Motown-inspired musical? Fill it with the whitest, blandest, mid-80's gay man's Broadway showtunes you can muster. An expose of the Supremes? Sugar-coat it within an inch of it's life - no Ballard destitution, alcoholism or untimely death, while Ross's character gets a final act dose of loyalty and humanity. Irredemably safe. Like the wankfest air-kiss to Dean-Witter THE PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS turned into.

Posted by bmcintire at January 23, 2007 2:41 PM

comment #29

K. Bowen says ...

One possible flaw of Dreamgirls that no one ever discusses .... are the songs really very memorable? Other than And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going, how many other songs stand out? Compare that to, say, Grease, where I would suspect the majority of posters here can sing a few bars of five, six seven songs. You may not like that fact, but I bet it's true.

Posted by K. Bowen at January 23, 2007 6:05 PM

comment #30