Adam brought up some interesting points in his response to my Dreamgirls review that have made me think more about the film.
The point about Jamie Foxx's character is a good one, and I think I would see it if I were more familiar with the stage show. All I have to go off of is the movie and I think a combination of Jamie Foxx's less than stellar performance and the fact that all the characters were a little underwritten in the film makes me ultimately think that the movie version of Curtis lacked the subtlety and depth of the stage version. Perhaps if Condon had given more than just a cursory nod to the social conditions driving the upheaval of the 60s and 70s. Or perhaps if he given Curtis more compelling action earlier in the film. Or maybe he just needed a better actor in the role. Whatever the reason, Curtis just didn't work for me.
I agree that Beyonce nailed "Listen" but by that point it was too little too late.
Ultimately, however, it was the lack of non-musical development that caused me to grade Dreamgirls so harshly. Even the characters I liked were underwitten, and the film ultimately felt like one well put together song after another. I think that is the cause of the other problems I had with the film, and its the reason I ultimately graded it low.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I definitely see your point. I think the casting of Foxx might have been a major issue.
Either way, I'd be curious to see exactly how Dreamgirls plays out on the stage, considering how much of the film relied on montage (probably my biggest gripe about a film I otherwise liked, flawed as it was).
However, in terms of "non-musical development", I'm not sure I can get behind that statement. I mean, so much of the original show is music--putting in too much extra non-musical stuff, I feel, could bog down the film (it may not be the best example, but would you say "RENT"--the show, not the movie--lacked non-musical development, which you wouldn't because there is almost no dialogue). This is especially true because the songs often give you so much to begin with. The songs themselves (with the exception of two of the three new songs--i.e. "Love You I Do" and "Patience") often offer insightful looks into the characters' perspective. My beef with Condon is not finding a more subtle way to handle it--it's like every other shot during a song was "Oh, so here's who they're actually singing about in THIS line", as if the audience is too stupid to figure that out. Also, converting some of the sung portions of the show to dialogue hurt some scenes (for example, the scene with Jimmy, Curtis, and Lorell after Jimmy's stunt on television was a song--also, Lorell had a solo song called "Ain't No Party" that got cut, which I'm still pissed about). Even worse, it took an otherwise decent song ("Cadillac Car") and made it limp and lifeless, without the sung portion that precedes it and gives the song a deeper significance.
Ugh, I can't do this. Just get on AIM some time and we'll chat.
P.S. Writers and Cinematographers announce tomorrow--get pumped and ready to speculate. Ballots are due in two days.
P.P.S. If nothing else, we should be able to agree that Crank is the second best movie of the year (after Snakes on a Plane, of course), and Chev Chelios is the king of all badasses.
Post a Comment