Dreamgirls - The Flaws- Page 2

[hannahshule]

Posted: 12/29/06 at 4:31pm

"I kept expecting Neely O'Hara to wander in looking for a vodka."
Oh wouldn't that have been nice

I guess I felt that sometimes when they started singing out of the blue (Effie's "What about me?" but in particular), because even though it is a movie musical, I never felt like it completely embraced the genre. it felt like most of the musical numbers were either on stage or in a recording studio or other kind of musical setting. I have never seen the stage version and was not too familiar with the music, so I can't really compare, but this is what I noticed. However, some of the smaller things that you all have mentioned went over my head, but looking back, I certainly agree with most of what you've alol said.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 12/29/06 at 4:39pm

I think maybe they could have shown Deena writing the lyrics to Listen and then have Curtis walk in as she is singing it in the studio. I know that we don't know if Deena has any ability to write, but leaving us with the assumption that Curtis picked that song for Deena to sing makes no sense. He wouldn't have allowed it.

I also don't know if it is because I am so used to Eddie Murphey in a comic role, but even when he is singing a ballad, I wanted to giggle. It's like he was doing a parody of someone else.

I cannot wait to see it again.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/29/06 at 4:50pm

If only "Listen" had more musical and emotional weight. It's such a Beyonce number, and it seems to go on forever. Way too long in the booth.

But the inconsistencies within the genre are what hold the movie back and keep it from being truly great. I like the story,style, and feel of DREAMGIRLS much better than CHICAGO, yet CHICAGO will be remembered as the greater movie musical because the musical conceit is so totally embraced (in the head of Roxie). I just wish even more of the recitative material had been incorporated from the top, then the first act crescendo "And I'm..." would be of a piece. Now, the entire sequence with "It's All Over" stands out as being stylistically at odds with the on-stage only approach to almost everything that preceeds it. It's far from a fatal flaw -- we barely notice it -- but the movie isn't seamless.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 12/29/06 at 4:55pm

When I heard Listen on the soundtrack, I thought it was too Beyonce for my liking. Once I saw the movie, I fell in love with it.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 12/29/06 at 4:57pm

I can accept "Listen" because it moves away from the soft "love" songs that the Dreams were singing. I think that it mirrors a more harsh reality that Diana Ross was heading toward with "Love Child". "Love Child" was a lot harsher than the Supremes regular music.

[ggersten]

Posted: 12/29/06 at 7:53pm

Not ALL the songs in Chicago are in Roxie's mind. Mr. Cellophane is outside the conceit.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 12/29/06 at 8:01pm

True.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 12/29/06 at 8:04pm

That's incorrect, ggersten. If you watch the movie again, as Roxie is being led from the hospital into the paddywagon, Amos is among the crowd shouting, "I'm the father! I'm the father!" but no one seems to notice him, except for Roxie. As she is being driven away in the paddywagon, you get a view of Amos from her point of view, which dissolves into CELLOPHANE. Thus, Roxie envisions Amos in an empty theater.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 12/29/06 at 10:43pm

Curtis almost comes off kind of ridiculous to me in the movie. If he was really going on all the time about how perfect Deena is and how music is meant to sell the way he does in most of his scenes then one of the other characters would've bludgeoned him to death with a microphone stand eventually. He's just too one dimensional.

[Luscious]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 9:41am

Well... I saw it last night and found it to be flawless. Or at least as flawless as any movie gets. It's perfection! I've waiting 25 years to see this movie get made... and it was worth every minute of the wait seeing it get made right!

Updated On: 12/30/06 at 09:41 AM

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 1:53pm

I just came from watching the first showing of the day in DC. Can't beat that for $5!! I liked the movie, but did not love it. I felt the energy in the film dipped right after "And I'm Telling You..." After that, all of a sudden Deena's a star. It left out the progression so wonderfully played in the original Broadway production. I also missed the fashion sequence and Deena's portion of the song in "When I First Saw You".

Beyonce really surprised me, especially her book scenes.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 1:59pm

Luscious, I'm the first to admit this is a nit-picking thread on a board that specializes in them. The film is so wildly enjoyable, and generally soars over its bumps without leaving you time to catch your breath.

And underappreciated: I think Condon managed to make the first 30 minutes particularly stirring and authentic. Everything from Beyonce's non-eye-make-up to the cigarette squashed in Jimmy's sandwich contribute to a gritty milieu that feels both close to the genuine era, and stlyized enough to say "but this is a feel-good musical, folks." That's not easy to accomplish.

And unlike Alan Parker's EVITA, Condon knows where to put the camera at key musical moments. Like Michael Musto, I'll never forgive Parker for cutting away from Madonna on the balcony during "Don't Cry for Me..." There's complexity to the equivalent sequence -- "And I'm Not Telling You..." but Condon gives us the money shots we want at key turns. Just when you fear he might stay on Foxx's Curtis too long, or fail to move in from a medium or long shot, he makes a just-in-time cut. That's both attributable to his editor, and the way the sequence was shot and "covered." He knows what to show, and when -- and you can't always say that about Marshall's work on Chicago, which for many purists is too cut up.

[BwayTheatre11]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 2:13pm

I thoroughly enjoyed Peggy and Jules' lighting design for the movie, but it bothered me at times...just didn't fit the period. The instruments used, such as a giant intelligent light wall for the disco, just didn't fit.

[Kringas]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 2:30pm

I loved the movie. Loved it. That being said...

I agree the timeline seemed a little skewed and gooey. It's always seemed that way on stage, too, though. In the movie the marquee in Las Vegas says 1966, so I'm assuming it's New Year's Eve 1965 into 1966. That makes the Deena/Effie reunion happen in 1974ish. Oddly, though, I think the "I'm Somebody" film Deena watches puts the beginning of the movie's second act at 1973, but I seemed to remember the math not working out in my head. At any rate, that does mean that two years or so pass at times between scenes.

I said this in another thread, but the introduction of a father for Effie and CC really lowers Effie's stakes, and makes it hard to believe that in all those years no one back at the Dreams machine found out Effie had a child.

All the extra nods to the Supremes are either jarring (if you know the backstory) or go over your head (which makes for superfluous filmmaking). Half the people I saw it with didn't realize that that was Michelle being pulled in to be Rainbow's secretary. If the audience isn't making the connection that Effie's replacement came from within, what's the point? It seems the point is that it's simply another nod to the Supremes mythology, because reports state the Berry Gordy did similar things (pulling people off the street like that work for Motown if they had the qualification he needed at the moment).

If it's Deena's, and a case is made in act 2 that it is, then why isn't she more active -- a true player -- in "It's All Over?"

I think that's another flaw in the screenplay. The entire scene preceding "It's All Over" is so different onstage and works a lot better, from CC sniping at Deena to Deena storming out of the dressing room. I'm still really surprised that "Wake up, baby, a star is a slave" was cut. I know that it was Jimmy's line and that he was cut from that scene (also a mistake, I think) but I always thought that was one of the most important lines in the show.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 2:40pm

Krigas, I wondered if the girl pulled from the crowd to become a secretary with Rainbow was in fact Michelle.

[gumbo2]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 2:41pm

I agree with the fact that they put in the "book singing" far too late, and it really felt weird. There was that awkward shot of the guys during "Bad Side" where I guess they were singing...it was just out of place. And then when people start singing in real life later it's jarring. I think they should have established the book singing right away so the audience understands that it's going to happen. Either that or make every song kind of like a soundtrack, which would be weird.

[Kringas]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 2:47pm

But you had some familiarity with the story already, though, right, Dottie? I knew that Michelle was going to be introduced earlier because of what I'd read, but it was unclear to people who didn't know the show. At the least the people I saw it with.

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 2:56pm

Kringas, I was familiar with the original production of Dreamgirls, but not that familiar with any of the "inside" similarities to Diana Ross and the Supremes.

[dirty rotten guy]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 3:35pm

1. Jamie Foxx.

[Raviolisun]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 3:54pm

For those of you who said that you weren't emotionally connected to Eddie Murphy's character, and didn't feel anything when he died: I don't think you were necessarily supposed to. I think the sadness of the moment was Lorell, and how she wasn't able to see his body.

[Pinguin]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 4:46pm

"Family" was by far the worst scene in the movie...It had me wondering why nobody went, "hmmm...which of these scenes does not belong?" 'cause it was SO awkward.

And I think Jamie Foxx's character was misconceived...if he had been somewhat likeable or less greedy seeming at the beginning of the film, maybe he would have been a more interesting character.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 4:56pm

Maybe it was just the sound in the theater I was in but it sounded to me like Jamie Foxx was whispering his lines.

The main things I hated were John Lithgows hair and the WAY too cheesy ending with Magic and Curtis. When Deena said that Effie White was there and then Effie came out I got the chills, but then the second they started showing the Curtis/Magic thing the whole moment was ruined for me.

Also can someone clarify this for me. I saw the show a long time ago and I have no recolection of Jimmy dying, but my friend says he did die in the stage version. Has he always died or did they add it for the film?

[hannahshule]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 5:55pm

I couldn't understand a word Jamie was saying because he was muttering through either clenched teeth or talking so fast. I know it was supposed to be part of his ytough-talking character, but come on, I just gave up by the end.

Updated On: 12/30/06 at 05:55 PM

[Funny Face]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 9:13pm

I'm pretty certain Jimmy doesn't die in the play.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/30/06 at 9:35pm

I've talked to a number of people today who felt the late entrance of book recitative was jarring, and suprising for a concept stickler like Condon. I want to pull out my actors fund recording and hear some "book singing" earlier. I recall the show always feeling of a piece, even though it was strangely weighted to give more emotional heft to Effie's crises than anyone else's. Has one song's relative "weight" ever affected a story's shape as much as this one?