April 28, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I’ve been waiting months for Armond’s DREAMGIRLS tirade (even though I loved the movie). So glad he didn’t disappoint.
Other than seeing Eddie Murphy, who always entertains, I have very little interest in Dreamgirls.
Like Billy Corgan once said, if I die before ever hearing another Motown record, it will be too soon. Perhaps it’s because I come from the generation that grew up with the sound of Motown being the soundtrack to every white babyboomer film out there (Chris Columbus, The Big Chill, Stand By Me etc.), Kleenex commercials, Raisin commercials etc.
Based on what I have read, this review by White does seem a little over the top. Then again, so does much of the praise that is coming this films way.
I won’t at all be surprised if this film wins a slew of Oscars. I will be surprised if anyone still watches it in 5 years. It seems like a passable timefiller, nothing more, nothing less.
White vastly overstates his case it would seem, but I agree that this film and the culture around it seem much more in tune with white baby boomers than anything resembling the black experience in American music.
I also think Beyonce will turn away as many people as she turns on.
I appreciate that DP has linked to Armond’s review – he’s always shown respect for his writings – but I also notice that he seems to have done so in order to diminish and laugh off the criticisms of the movie, rather than engage them.
Anyway, Armond’s review of The Good Shepherd is a lot more interesting to me.
Do you think this review is actually of the film or of the core material to which Armond objects, Jeff?
Oddly enough, your comment seems to be about me and not about the review also.
Hmmmm…
I definitely think Armond is reviewing the film as much as he is the culture of the film. There’s no denying that DREAMGIRLS has a life that starts well before you walk into the theater, and your exposure to the play or Jennifer Holliday or the Oscar buzz or whatever is certainly going to color the way you see the film.
I had a friend once who loved to watch SHOWTIME AT THE APOLLO, and every time one of the plusher black women would get up to sing, he’d say, “And I Am Telling You” before they would even open their mouths.
He was right more often than wrong.
And yet, as much as the song is a sort of a standard, it’s a strange one precisely because of the subtext of it when you see it in context. Effie is debasing herself in that moment, and it’s that emotionally bare quality that makes the song so electric when you finally get to it in the show. Effie isn’t a complete victim in the film. She earns some of the anger. When Glover says to her later, “You’re going to have to start proving it, just like everybody else,” that’s the moment where she finally starts to put herself together as a person. The film is a critique of everyone, not just Curtis or Deena. Effie is a diva, and her sense of entitlement is a real problem with the talented. When you see some young something splashed all over the tabloids, out of control and starting to fuck up their work, the shame of it is is the sense of entitlement. These jobs we get doing the things we love are privileges. Any time someone wants to pay you to do something that you would do anyway because you have to, that’s a win.
Lorell is the closest thing to a real hero in the group, but even she has her moments. She knows full well what she’s getting into with Jimmy, and she spends eight years in a relationship that can’t work.
Armond thinks in absolutes about characters too much sometimes. I think Condon was canny enough to know that these characters aren’t saints, and they aren’t meant as simple one-to-one corollary, either. Curtis Taylor Jr isn’t Berry Gordy. And Deena Jones isn’t Diana Ross. Not directly. Sure, the show took some big cues from real life, but the film invents quite a bit that makes these characters more than just simple code for a hatchet job on the history of Motown.
What I like about Armond’s review is how it made me assess why I think he’s incorrect. I think DREAMGIRLS is quite good, but hearing it attacked with surgical precision like this really underlines what I think its merits are.
DP, I am unable to write about the movie because I haven’t seen it yet – like 99.99% of the population.
And how is reviewing ‘the core material’ not relevant to Armond’s review? Because he didn’t talk about the cinematography or the production design? If he had reviewed a really well-done musical version of a bubble gum wrapper, I would expect him to talk about the meaninglessness of the bubble gum wrapper if that was his primary objection.
I should emphasize, I see ‘fun read’ but I also see no small amount of mockery in posting this review – I would really be interested in seeing a proper response to Armond’s comments, unless you think they’re _that_ unworthy.
David,
There is nothing more insulting than just dismissing a review out of hand because of this condescending “oh its just Armond being Armond” attitude of yours.
There is more to film criticism than just bandwagoneering and guessing how many Oscars a film will win, what its BO potential is, and how it affects the principals next deal. Actually trying to assess the film’s content and the intellectual and emotional response it causes is what good film criticism should be.
“Like Billy Corgan once said, if I die before ever hearing another Motown record, it will be too soon.”
I didn’t need another reason to hate Billy Corgan, but thanks anyway.
The music in DREAMGIRLS is not Motown. It’s Broadway. And dismissing an amazingly varied catalogue of music just because some of its biggest hits were travestied by annoying commercials and Hollywood overuse is silly. So you don’t have to hear “I Heard It Through the Grapevine” again for the rest of your life (I don’t agree, but for the sake of argument, fine); what about “Your Precious Love”, “Ain’t That Peculiar”, “You’re the Man”, etc.? Life wouldn’t be worth living if I didn’t get to hear that unbelievable, behind-the-beat bass work on “Got to Give It Up” every now and again. The Baby-Boomers ruined a lot, but I’d never let those fuckers take Marvin or Motown away from me.
One point on which I can agree with Armond is that too few people have seen SPARKLE, which hits an emotional high at its midway point (kinda like DREAMGIRLS) with an amazing performance of “Something He Can Feel”. I had no idea it’s coming out on DVD just in time to cash in on the DREAMGIRLS craze. Maybe that helped put him in a bad mood.
Many good points.
But I don’t think I am dismissing Armond out of hand, GrandC. I read every word of the review and read it again and I do think it was mostly about what he felt about the show long before he ever saw the film. There were a few specifics about Hudson’s performance, but basically, he feels the whole thing is born-and-bred Aunt Jemimaism.
For me, that is equivalent to calling Cuaron a sell-out for making a Harry Potter movie or being enraged over The Running Of The Jew.
Or do you think I am wrong?
The “there’s more to life than Oscars” whine is old and unfair. I cover a literally hundreds of movies each year without any Oscar focus at all. I spend at least 50 days a year at festivals with no real focus on Oscar, except for a half dozen Toronto movies each year. So you can stow that.
As Drew said, Armond is always a fascinating read. He does make you think. But you have to admit, he does throw the House Negro thing at almost every popular black-themed film… no?
And GrandC… do you have anything to say about the film?
Jeremy speaks the truth. DREAMGIRLS ain’t Motown. It’s Broadway. And if you are truly sick of Motown take a look at STANDING IN THE SHADOWS OF MOTOWN. If you come out of that without a renewed love for that music then you’re beyond help and something has died inside you. (Which I definitely wouldn’t rule out for Corgan.)
Nicol, you of all people shouldn’t let a bunch of over-privleged white folks ruin something beautiful and important for you. The boomers screwed up society with their insistence on equal rights and the end of the male-dominated power structure and you haven’t given up on it, have you?
I’m one of those who wince everytime a piece of music I love is sold out commercialization. I hate having my boomer memories bought and sold to the highest bidder.
But I’ll draw the line at being upset when the music is used in a film to set a mood or add depth to what one is experiencing. That’s what music is for, isn’t it?
The more “people” tell me I gotta go see and love Dreamgirls, the stiffer my back gets against it. I hate being told what to love. I’d rather find it myself.
I think that the feel of force-feeding is a real problem for this and other films, Hatch.
On the other hand, they need to sell the movie and those of us who can count the mentions and raves are a very, very, very small part of the community.
Me personally? You don’t have or love anything I love or hate anything I hate or whatever, as far as I’m concerned. I wish everyone had the experience of a virgin experience with movies as often as I (and many others) do. It not only allows a true feel, but if you don’t go shooting your mouth off to everyone you know, it allows your feelings to evolve before you have to discuss the film in any depth. (Of course, 90% of films are one note and ready to piss out before they are half over.)
I agree with David here. Armond is a great writer but sometimes he can get so lost up in himself–in what feelings he brings to a movie–that he ends up not engaging with the movie, in both viewing and reviewing. I thought it was highly ironic that he railed against “Half Nelson” with the exact same observations that the film itself was making. He thought it was a slap in the face to make a movie about a white man trying to uplift the children of the black community. Sure, that’s the set-up but how it plays out is pretty much akin to White’s own misgivings about the concept. Heck, there’s even that line Anthony Mackie utters–“So what’s white is right?”–that’s used to undercut the teacher and think about what he’s really trying to do.
“I thought it was highly ironic that he railed against “Half Nelson” with the exact same observations that the film itself was making. He thought it was a slap in the face to make a movie about a white man trying to uplift the children of the black community. Sure, that’s the set-up but how it plays out is pretty much akin to White’s own misgivings about the concept. Heck, there’s even that line Anthony Mackie utters–“So what’s white is right?”–that’s used to undercut the teacher and think about what he’s really trying to do.”
I thought Half Nelson was unintentionally ironic. It pretended to be critical of people like Dan, and then patted itself on the back towards the end of the film.
The ultimate feel good film for all folks like Dan Dunne!
A big second to Argen re: STANDING IN THE SHADOWS OF MOTOWN. Dreamgirls may be about something, I don’t know and don’t care, but Motown it ain’t. Granting that Jennifer Hudson could probably sing the phonebook and give me goosebumps, or a Barry Manilow tune for that matter, oh boy, if we had something as creative and musical and basically relevant as Motown was, we’d be blown away.
The music, and especially the musicians, in SITSOM are amazingly sophisticated. The bass line and harmonic backing on “What Becomes of the Brokenhearted” made me realize I’m not 1/4 the musician I thought I was. By all means check it out for some real background on the era.
>>>And GrandC… do you have anything to say about the film?
I don’t as I haven’t seen it. I even suspect that there is a good chance that I will disagree with what White has to say about the film even if I don’t like it myself. There are many many times I disagree with him.
My point was more that I found your response to his column as being very dismissive.
As far as being Oscar-centric in the way you approach your criticism you are correct about most of your work but on this film you have been Oscar-myopic since the film was announced.
It seems like White’s problems are with the Dreamgirls stage version. Was the movie a good adaptation of that? I can’t quite tell from his review because he beliefs about the characters and about their ancestory seems to be the focus of his review.