| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
 Posted - 02/07/2007 : 09:32:20
|
I agree with demonic that the story is ordinary and the singing out of place is annoying, but I still loved it. What you say about Hudson seems like an accurate description, but nevertheless I found her extremely engaging and moving. Since I am not much into music, I don't think I was hugely swayed by that. Blanchett is good, but I really think that it is the story and Dench that are that film's strongest points. I can imagine that plenty of others could have taken on the Sheba role perfectly well.
B.B., I agree with everything you've said, except that the Chechen parallel has passed me by and I am glad the film came now. This is because I hope there is now a stronger contrast between what opportunities are like for black performers then and now. Beyonce's presence (and Hudson's for that matter) ensures that the audience is reminded of this. I agree that realism is not necessary (although I still dislike sung speech) - a particular example of this is the white version of Cadillac Car(?). I may be being naive, but I don't think that white rip-offs of black songs would have been quite that hyperbollically rubbish! |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/07/2007 10:12:16 |
 |
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 02/08/2007 : 04:10:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
This is an interesting take, Demonic, but I wonder if you've concentrated a bit too much on too realistic an interpretation.
That's very possible. But also as a musical I took it at face value and tried to view it mainly as an entertainment but in many areas it let me down. You reminded me actually talking about the socio-political situation how poorly I thought they integrated the history, particularly the riots into the story - it was so tagged on that it didn't affect any of the characters and was never mentioned again.
quote:
Personally, I think Hollywood took too long to make Dreamgirls; I think its optimum moment was about 10-15 years ago. Because popular culture has moved on so far from Eyen's roots. And from his obsessions. Today we take his themes for granted, we don't actually ask those questions anymore.
I think you are spot on there; I knew about this musical and had heard many of its songs about ten years ago, so it seemed to me when I heard they were making the film when it hadn't even had a major production since the original Broadway a little bit like locking the stable door etc.
quote:
I disagree that her performance only hits one note. Her sass and bombast are her defense mechanism from the insecurity of a woman who first suspects then has confirmed that her lover's been cheating, that they both know she's the better singer but that her face and form don't fit the tv-age image. The scenes when she has to swallow her pride to provide for the child of that union prove she has range, especially in the way she handles the inability of the character to sell herself out even at her lowest point.
This is all true too, and well considered, but finally for me I found her so unlikeable it was impossible to care too much about her. I know some very talented singers and actors, but if they were ever so loathsome and self-obsessed I would have no hesitation in avoiding them entirely. Perhaps I didn't see enough of that insecurity behind the bombast.
quote:
The only way to judge fairly would be to have a play-off: give every actress the same role, let every violinist play the same piece.
That's not too far away from saying could the performers do as good a job if they switched roles, which is one way I look at it when trying to make those all but impossible qualitative decisions. Obviously Hudson has one up on every other nominee in her voice for her role, but I don't think Hudson would have the acting chops to handle a really complex character role sans vocals.
quote:
I'm going to shut up now.   
Why would anyone want that! Please don't shut up.   |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/08/2007 : 09:27:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
You reminded me actually talking about the socio-political situation how poorly I thought they integrated the history, particularly the riots into the story - it was so tagged on that it didn't affect any of the characters and was never mentioned again.
This is true, although I think that the prejudice against black artists at the time is completely clear while rightly not needing to be as explicit as to show white radio station managers etc. rejecting them. Similarly, a possible explanation for the flimsy inclusion of the riots could be that the film-makers felt that everyone is already quite educated about the civil rights movement and does not need spoonfeeding about it. It might therefore have even been best to dispense with that scene altogether. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/08/2007 09:28:36 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/08/2007 : 09:30:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
This is all true too, and well considered, but finally for me I found her so unlikeable it was impossible to care too much about her. I know some very talented singers and actors, but if they were ever so loathsome and self-obsessed I would have no hesitation in avoiding them entirely. Perhaps I didn't see enough of that insecurity behind the bombast.
I think it comes down to personality preferences then. I like bad-tempered, difficult, stubborn people with good hearts and I think that's what the character is. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/09/2007 : 09:38:23
|
| I saw most of it again last night. (I went to see a film that I thought was at 7:00 but which was at 6:30, so I had to use up a couple of hours before the 9:00 showing.) I enjoyed it, but I didn't find it particularly moving this time, so it's gone down in my estimation a bit. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 03/06/2007 : 03:48:07
|
Oh, hey, yeah, this film.
Was awful. I have to say, I find musicals to be both bizarre and fascinating, but this one is simply no good at all. There are surface things wrong with it -- the non-performance musical numbers are awkward as all hell, the acting is uneven, particularly from Jennifer Hudson, who is neither a good singer or a good actress. Jamie Foxx, too, turned in a surprisingly halfass performance. I was more impressed with Eddie Murphy and, surprisingly, Beyonce, who does well with a role that hits close to home.
But moreover, the movie's perspective is more than problematic. Most movies about a specific music scene in time celebrate it -- Velvet Goldmine was in love with '70s glam rock, Almost Famous loves its classic rock. But Dreamgirls is only interested in throwing mud at Motown's legacy, and it scrambles key plot points to make its fictionalized Motown look worse than it actually was.
I mean, there's room to hate Motown, because it was in fact the smoothed-out version of black music to sell to white people, so you do have room to call it music for sellouts. But then why does this movie try so hard to sell itself, to make the music as good and the dance numbers as impressive as they can possibly can? The movie is like -- this music sucks, this music is awful, isn't it a shame what happened to black music, SPLENDOROUS MUSICAL NUMBER!
And it never really tells the stories of its characters either, they get shoved aside for musical numbers. So much important information gets shoved to us in shorthand. Not a good movie, not a good movie. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Dreamgirls
