Hairpray "isn't noxious like Dreamgirls, but it isn't nearly good enough," declares N.Y. Press critic Armond White. "Based on John Waters' 1988 satire of civil rights-era nostalgia, this movie-musical adaptation makes the same mistake as the 2002 Broadway incarnation -- it domesticates Waters' parodistic anarchy into general-audience silliness. All of Waters' ideas about social conventions, race and sex rebellion are flattened; the characters representing subversive ideologies are broadened into caricatures."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on July 20, 2007 at 2:44 PM
comment #1
le corbeau
says ...
Wow, a Broadway musical took the edge off its source material? That's unbelievable!
Posted by le corbeau
at July 20, 2007 3:12 PM
comment #2
MilkMan
says ...
Armond White says that Back to the Future is the best-written film of the 80's. I'm sure many of you will agree, so instead of being a troll and saying how asinine this is, all I want is for someone to explain to me why, since Armond White doesn't.
Posted by MilkMan
at July 20, 2007 3:13 PM
comment #3
George Prager
says ...
My parents will see it and I'm glad for that. They couldn't stomach KNOCKED UP and there aren't enough inspirational sports movies out right now.
Posted by George Prager
at July 20, 2007 3:28 PM
comment #4
bachelorcool
says ...
"All of Waters' ideas about social conventions, race and sex rebellion are flattened; the characters representing subversive ideologies are broadened into caricatures."
Yeah, I bet that would gone down a bomb with the packed early evening performance I saw of this tonight - largely teenage girls with a few boyfriends dragged along who all seemed to enjoy it as much as I did. It may well be adulterated for the masses, but it still gets the main points of the original across and is one of the most exuberant movie experiences I've had in years.
Posted by bachelorcool
at July 20, 2007 3:35 PM
comment #5
BurmaShave
says ...
He begins his review with the idea that DREAMGIRLS was "noxious", which even those who disliked it would admit is an absurb statement.
As for you Milkman, BACK TO THE FUTURE is a great film, but I could never quite stomach the stuff with the Libyans, which was cartoonish, implausible, and offensive at the same time, so I really can't agree with him on that. But where we're going, we don't need explanations.
Posted by BurmaShave
at July 20, 2007 3:43 PM
comment #6
Noah
says ...
How was the stuff with the Libyans (which was such a tiny part of the film) offensive, Burma?
Posted by Noah
at July 20, 2007 3:48 PM
comment #7
christian
says ...
i found BACK TO THE FUTURE a wonderfully made piece of reagan era propaganda. like too many of the films of the mid-decade.
Posted by christian
at July 20, 2007 4:00 PM
comment #8
Joe B.
says ...
Well, it has a 97% from the majors on Rotten Tomatoes, which is pretty big for a summer film, Hollywood film, remake, OR musical adaptation. Wells just picked out one of the rare ones that supports his grouchy opinion.
Posted by Joe B.
at July 20, 2007 4:56 PM
comment #9
jeffmcm
says ...
The Libyans are a screenwriterly convenience; it's the ending of the movie where the McFlys are rewarded with a nice house and Marty has a huge truck that really feel Reaganesque, and Zemeckis and Gale are fully aware of this these days.
But the bulk of the movie is pretty un-propagandistic.
Posted by jeffmcm
at July 20, 2007 4:59 PM
comment #10
NYCritic
says ...
Bless him, but I think Armond sometimes just writes this stuff because he knows he's being contrary. He has such intriguing taste and I know I usually disagree with him. In his mind Pan's Labyrinth (which I loved) was on par with Tideland (which I loathed). He disliked both.
Waters is an executive producer on the film and he has a cameo in it, so if he really felt that the musical was so horrendous, why would he be associated with it. He could have just washed his hands and cashed the checks. Clearly, he doesn't have a problem with it. He's even allowing the same book writers (Thomas Meehan and Mark O'Donnell) to adapt Cry-Baby for the stage.
Posted by NYCritic
at July 20, 2007 5:17 PM
comment #11
Rod32303
says ...
To White I say shut the fuck up. No one wants that shit in a bubbly, phony, fun summer musical (remember the bomb that "Hair" was financially back in 1979, cause I do). And it didn't exist in the movie's PRIMARY SOURCE, which was the Broadway show.
I saw it today at a sold out 4:30 performance, with a BUNCH of folk, teenage girls, their boyfriends, OBVIOUSLY their parents (I was there with my blessed mother who is 69) and it was the first film I can remember where the audience members APPLAUDED MUSICAL NUMBERS and applauded at the end. People walked out singing and smiling, full of joy.
Blonsky is bulletproof in this - she's awesome. Travolta grows on you (his duet with Walken is priceless), all the kids are talented, and Pfeiffer chews up the fucking scenery with gusto. John Waters didn't have a problem with the Broadway show (far less enjoyable to me) and he's IN THIS dang thing, along with original cast members Jerry Stiller, Ricki Lake and Pia Zadora.
As of today's Rotten Tomatoes, 137 positive reviews and 7 negative. People like it, and good for it. It ain't the soulful experience of "Once," and it doesn't pretend to be. It's more than fine on its own.
Posted by Rod32303
at July 20, 2007 5:25 PM
comment #12
D.Z.
says ...
Rod: Hair did badly, because it came out a decade too late, and, by that time, Americans were ready to bomb brown people again. But I will admit that Waters' dialogue for Hairspray seemed a tad antiquated. I'd be cool with checking the new one out, if the reviews are really that positive.
Posted by D.Z.
at July 20, 2007 5:52 PM
comment #13
le corbeau
says ...
"it's the ending of the movie where the McFlys are rewarded with a nice house and Marty has a huge truck that really feel Reaganesque, and Zemeckis and Gale are fully aware of this these days."
Jesus, does everyone have Armond White Disease today?
Posted by le corbeau
at July 20, 2007 8:22 PM
comment #14
Larry
says ...
Back To The Future is one of the best screenplays ever. It's built like a fine Swiss watch, every bit playing its part in a perfectly timed whole. It's even got five climaxes in a row, each one properly prepared for yet not obvious. And it tosses of smart ideas left and right as it goes along. On top of which, it's even edgy, with some eccentric characters and the central concept of going back in time and having your mom want to marry you.
I loved the movie version of Hair, but I agree with DZ, it was a decade too late. (That's still no excuse for him saying tired nonsense like "Americans were ready to bomb brown people again." Just cause he can't got beyond race doesn't mean everyone else shares his problem. America fought in quite a few wars against whites in its first 170 years--do you think we were less racist then?)
Posted by Larry
at July 21, 2007 4:07 AM
comment #15
Rod32303
says ...
I loved "Hair" too, but I remember seeing it at 15 years old in an EMPTY theater...maybe the message and examination was a decade too late, or maybe people didn't want to see a MOVIE MUSICAL about such a serious subject. Whatever the case, when it comes to traditional musicals, which "Hairspray" certainly is, people want...uplift...or fun. (Even "Moulin Rouge" with its downer ending, wasn't THAT successful in its first run).
Posted by Rod32303
at July 21, 2007 5:10 AM