Dreamgirls

[dirac]

The buzz on the new movie version of ‘Dreamgirls’ is very good, or so says The New York Observer.

http://www.observer.com/20061204/20061204_...coverstory1.asp

Mr. Geffen’s reluctance to have the film made, Mr. Mark said, had to do with the fear of damaging the reputation of the show or Mr. Bennett, who died of AIDS in 1987. “So often, the movie version of a stage musical gets screwed up, and that somehow tarnishes both the reputation of the musical itself and the creator. David didn’t want to run that risk.”

[papeetepatrick]

and Dirac--I had meant to report when I went to see 'Babel,' that the preview of 'Dreamgirls' I saw was my first knowledge of it. I was surprised, because I think I have been hearing about doing a 'Dreamgirls' movie since at least 1996, but I think well before that--so I just thought they were never really going to do it. From what I could tell from the previews, I might go even though you can't tell all that much, but I enjoy this sort of thing about pop musicians even when it's far from perfect: I recently watched the often pedestrian 'Why Do Fools Fall in Love' and had a wonderful time just because of the good bits (esp. Halle Berry); but I also thought Kevin Spacey did a really moving job on Bobby Darin and Sandra Dee in 'Beyond the Sea' and that people did not pick up on it at all. It was a real labour of love--and one of the nicest things was that Ms. Dee got to see it a few months before her death, and called Spacey to tell him how much she liked it.

Anyway, I hope 'Dreamgirls' is as good as they're predicting, because this kind of musical can be one of the best kinds.

Edited to add: and even by the 'chicago' people, I think it will be a lot better, because the music will be the center and has to be good. (In 'Chicago', the dance had been the center and should have been good, and wasn't--no sense in doing a Bob Fosse show and throwing out the Fosse.) But Knowles and Hudson are clearly going to deliver the goods all the way here. Yeah, I'll pay for this one.

[dirac]

and Dirac--I had meant to report when I went to see 'Babel,' that the preview of 'Dreamgirls' I saw was my first knowledge of it. I was surprised, because I think I have been hearing about doing a 'Dreamgirls' movie since at least 1996, but I think well before that--so I just thought they were never really going to do it. From what I could tell from the previews, I might go even though you can't tell all that much, but I enjoy this sort of thing about pop musicians even when it's far from perfect: I recently watched the often pedestrian 'Why Do Fools Fall in Love' and had a wonderful time just because of the good bits (esp. Halle Berry); but I also thought Kevin Spacey did a really moving job on Bobby Darin and Sandra Dee in 'Beyond the Sea' and that people did not pick up on it at all. It was a real labour of love--and one of the nicest things was that Ms. Dee got to see it a few months before her death, and called Spacey to tell him how much she liked it.

Anyway, I hope 'Dreamgirls' is as good as they're predicting, because this kind of musical can be one of the best kinds.

Edited to add: and even by the 'chicago' people, I think it will be a lot better, because the music will be the center and has to be good. (In 'Chicago', the dance had been the center and should have been good, and wasn't--no sense in doing a Bob Fosse show and throwing out the Fosse.) But Knowles and Hudson are clearly going to deliver the goods all the way here. Yeah, I'll pay for this one.

I agree - I have hopes for this in a way that I certainly didn't for 'Chicago,' which lived up to my low expectations, alas.

I also thought Kevin Spacey did a really moving job on Bobby Darin and Sandra Dee in 'Beyond the Sea' and that people did not pick up on it at all.

I was initially put off by the notion of Spacey as Darin, but I went anyway and was glad I did - a very underrated picture. Hadn't heard that Dee had seen it and liked it, but I'm glad to know that.

[Anthony_NYC]

I heard from someone who saw a preview that Dreamgirls is "fabulous" (his word). It better be. He also told me--can anyone verify?--that the first-run movie theaters showing it will charge $25.00 per ticket!

[dirac]

Yup, it's true:

The opening run is only available in a few theaters including the Ziegfeld in Manhattan, and single theaters in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Along with your seat, the ticket will get you a 50-page color souvenir program, and access to a lobby exhibition of costume and set designs.

This Variety review gives an idea of how the adaptation was approached:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117932225...egoryid=31&cs=1

As he showed in his "Chicago" screenplay, Condon's love of the movie musical is backed by an awareness of how tricky it is to make the genre work for film audiences no longer accustomed to characters spontaneously bursting into song.

In "Chicago," the numbers evolved out of the characters' fantasies. Here, the first few songs are performances anchored in narrative context. Condon reels the audience in before gradually embracing traditional musical presentation -- first with brief, music-vid-style inserts during a montage and then with full-blown sung dialogue exchanges as the emotional stakes are raised. The mix not only blends seamlessly, it provides footing in the twin camps of movie musical and performance-based music biopic.

[carbro]

He also told me--can anyone verify?--that the first-run movie theaters showing it will charge $25.00 per ticket!

Yup, it's true:

[richard53dog]

He also told me--can anyone verify?--that the first-run movie theaters showing it will charge $25.00 per ticket!

Yup, it's true:

Yikes, there better be second run theaters. No way will I pay $25 for a MOVIE.

It's just possible it will be a limited first run in order to qualify for Oscar consideration.

[GabbyN]

$ 25 previews will start 10 days(Dec.15th) before nationwide release at @ Ziegfield theatre in NYC.

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/103341.html

[carbro]

Thank you, Gabby! Thank you.

:blush:

[GabbyN]

You are welcome

Related article

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12012006/enter...stadtmiller.htm

[dirac]

Has anyone seen it yet?

[sz]

I caught Dreamgirls at the Ziegfield a couple of weeks ago for $17...

It's a bit long, needs some editing... but it's entertaining... I didn't love it, but I thought it was good.

The new star, Jennifer Hudson, is definitely worth the price of admission... to hear her sing. She sings (rather rips open!!) that famous ballad, "and I am telling you...." Hudson will tear at your heart too! What an amazing set of pipes on that girl -- and she can act!!

Many of the other Dreamgirl songs lacked lyrics.... so I got tired of hearing one or two lines in each song repeated a dozen times over. That's not my idea of song writing.... But Dreamgirls is an enjoyable film.

I liked Chicago's film better even though it lacked the fabulous original Fosse choreography and dancing/dancers, and Bebe Neuwirth and Ann Reinking in the leading female roles!!! Whose decision was that???!!! I'm so happy that I saw the real thing on B'way!!!

[papeetepatrick]

Thanks, sz, I'm not at all convinced it's worth it for even less than 17. Other reviews have gradually been eroding my interest, but you've clinched it. Money better spent on Fried Calamari or Amaretto...

[dirac]

Thank you, sz, for that report. Seventeen dollars, my God.

It just turned up in my area this weekend, so I may see it. (It’s already been playing locally for weeks in the Multiplex So Big It Ate New Jersey but I loathe those places and won’t go. Once the two little area miniplexes shut down, as they are due to do shortly, I’ll be waiting for a lot more DVDs.)

[sidwich]

I'm going to try to see it this weekend. My sense is that it will be good becuase Condon is a good writer (the story itself is powerful and relatively difficult to destroy), but how good is an open question, especially with Condon's relative inexperience as a director. Kind of the same way I thought "Kinsey" was good because of the story and cast involved, but still suffered in some of the directorial aspects and "Dreamgirls" is much more complicated from a production perspective.

I am very happy for its success, though, as it seems to be helping to pave the way (along with "Chicago") for other high-profile musical projects. (Meryl Streep in "Mamma Mia!" meep!)

[papeetepatrick]

I have nothing against it, I just think it can survive the transition to the smaller screen, and I'll be happy enough with a library DVD. Too many other things competing with it. Cinema prices are truly idiotic by now, and I won't go unless I think it is something that will offer something other than all that booming sound you always get by now, which screams 'COMPELLING!!!' to you, as in all those previews, and as if each one was the most unique phenomenon in history. I do not like moviehouse sound anymore, it's almost like being in a club.

[scoop]

I wasn't enamored with much of the music, except for the showstopper "And I Am Telling You ..." which just kills. The performances, though, are quite wonderful, especially Eddie Murphy, who displays a surprising depth, and lack of inhibition and all the Dreamgirls are fab.

But did anyone else have the problem I had: The build-up to the "I Am Telling You" song was very weak, and took away from its power. SPOILER ALERT FOR ANYONE WHO HASN'T SEEN IT: Except for a little flirting, I didn't see that Effie and the Jamie Foxx character had become a couple. I also didn't see the diva behavior, ie, the showing up late at rehearsals, that is referred to in the song. So when the song comes up -- and Effie just unleashes this immense, emotional storm over being dumped, romantically and professionally -- it just doens't seem justified. (Although as a song and a performance, it's pretty amazing, the theater just erupted in applause!) I even thought maybe a reel got dropped by accident (which actually may have happened since I was just thinking about a clip I saw on Oprah that I didn't see in the movie)!

[dirac]

I have nothing against it, I just think it can survive the transition to the smaller screen, and I'll be happy enough with a library DVD. Too many other things competing with it. Cinema prices are truly idiotic by now, and I won't go unless I think it is something that will offer something other than all that booming sound you always get by now, which screams 'COMPELLING!!!' to you, as in all those previews, and as if each one was the most unique phenomenon in history. I do not like moviehouse sound anymore, it's almost like being in a club.

That’s particularly true in the very big multiplexes, where the individual theatres are smaller and there is stadium style seating. The sound level is hideously loud and when I saw Chicago in one such place it was as if the performers were singing right in your face.

Regarding price, I still think that movies are a relatively good deal compared to other forms of entertainment-at least around my area, where the price is between $9-10. Wouldn't go much higher than that, though.

scoop, thanks for the review. Keep 'em coming, people.

[papeetepatrick]

Regarding price, I still think that movies are a relatively good deal compared to other forms of entertainment-at least around my area, where the price is between $9-10. Wouldn't go much higher than that, though.

I have to pay $11 or $11.50, typically, unless I can get to the first show of the day, which never happens. Most I've paid was $13.50 at beautiful ArcLight in Hollywood, but I was on vacation and didn't care so much--still think movies should not be getting into these ranges. Agree that $10 should be tops.

[Anthony_NYC]

I finally got to it last night--it was sold out the previous two weekends--and enjoyed it quite a lot. The acting from the men and the singing from the women are just sensational and well worth the price of admission. Eddie Murphy won new respect from me--he's terrific. Beyonce Knowles is a better singer than actor (though her acting isn't bad), and the camera loves her. The movie is done with a lot of verve--costumes, sets, lighting, choreography are all bigger than life in a really fun, escapist way, and work together beautifullly with the somewhat stagey dialogue and fearlessly over-the-top performances. (This is a movie made to be seen on the big screen, and with an audience.) The energy level is high throughout. There aren't many quiet moments, but I was touched by occasional brief shots of Jamie Foxx or Danny Glover just listening with real, honest enjoyment to their women sing.

The biggest drawback to the movie as a musical is that the songs themselves are imitation R&B, not as good or as thrilling as the real thing can be. The performances overcome that to a large degree. Frustratingly, however, during many of the numbers the director cuts to bits of dialogue or other scenes that are supposed to advance the plot, thus relegating the movie's main event to background music. What's the deal? When he does let a number go from beginning to end, gives it a chance to build and us a chance to lose ourselves in it, the audience breaks out in cheers. Throughout, there was too much MTV-style editing for my taste, but I guess that's the style nowadays. (Afterwards, talking about Hudson's big number, the friend I saw the movie with reminded me of the end of "Funny Girl," where the director, trusting the power of his star, simply trains the camera on Streisand and let's her deliver.)

All in all, not a great movie, but a good one. I would love to see these performers get another chance at a movie musical.

[sidwich]

First of all, the movie looks amazing. The overall design is simply stunning.

That being said, I came away from the film disappointed. I'm not as familiar with "Dreamgirls" as I am with a lot of other musical material, but my sense was that in cutting down a musical that was probably closer to 3 hrs in length to modern feature-length and attempting to make the material palatable to audiences, a lot of material that filled out the characterizations were lost. There are some major leaps of characterization throughout the film. (Actually, my filmmaker brother who had no knowledge of the material other than that it was based on the Supreme came out of the theatre and said to me, "That movie made no sense!").

I think perhaps, there may have been some transitions that Michael Bennett was able to finesse onstage that Condon couldn't make on film, either because of the difference in medium or because frankly, Condon isn't that good at some things. I definitely can't lay it all at Condon's feet because some of it is undoubtedly due to the half-dozen major people working on the film (I'm sure David Geffen had no little say in some of it), but I do think there are some very clunky directorial choices and some of the pacing felt odd at times. I, for one, was not thrilled with his combination of musical pieces that were sung as show numbers, sung as traditional book numbers, and MTV-style sung over pieces.

And I'll lay it down that my favorite performance of the Dreams was Anika Noni Rose, and I also thought that Eddie Murphy and Danny Glover were excellent. (Actually, I'd much prefer the choice of buying a Jimmy Thunder Early album over the soundtrack.)

[dirac]

I, too, saw it this weekend. Anthony_NYC and sidwich make excellent points with which I agree for the most part.

All in all, I actually prefer “Chicago.” (I loved “Gods and Monsters” and looked forward to what Bill Condon would do next. I was disappointed by “Kinsey” but it’s closer to where he should be headed than this, I think.)

sidwich writes:

I'm not as familiar with "Dreamgirls" as I am with a lot of other musical material, but my sense was that in cutting down a musical that was probably closer to 3 hrs in length to modern feature-length and attempting to make the material palatable to audiences, a lot of material that filled out the characterizations were lost. There are some major leaps of characterization throughout the film. (Actually, my filmmaker brother who had no knowledge of the material other than that it was based on the Supreme came out of the theatre and said to me, "That movie made no sense!").

No, it certainly didn’t. I’m not familiar with the stage production, but it did seem clear that there a) must have been some major cutting and/or b) Michael Bennett worked a miracle of staging. In this version, too many important matters happen offstage while we watch endless montages to mediocre-to-terrible music. (It’s really quite relentless; as soon as I’d recovered from one assault, another music cue started up.) As scoop noted, it’s not at all clear until quite late exactly what’s going on between Effie and Curtis; we don’t see what’s developing between the two of them and we don’t understand what’s going on later between Deena and Curtis until we’re told about it in some awkward exposition. The movie tells, it doesn’t show.

Anthony_NYC writes:

(Afterwards, talking about Hudson's big number, the friend I saw the movie with reminded me of the end of "Funny Girl," where the director, trusting the power of his star, simply trains the camera on Streisand and let's her deliver.)

I was reminded of the same number but not in a good way. (I thought Streisand’s rendition of “My Man” overstated and devoid of true emotion.)

(I always thought “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going” would make a splendid theme song for Monica Lewinsky in “Impeachment: the Musical.”)

The mediocrity of the songs wouldn’t be so bad, except there are so many of them and also that a major theme of the movie is the sanitizing of African-American music for mass consumption -- the score supplies several items that could qualify as Horrible Examples of the phenomenon the film is supposed to be deploring. As a Supremes fan, I found this all rather offensive.

Regarding the performances – Jamie Foxx has nothing to do except stand around looking crafty, the girls as written are all undercharacterized ninnies – even Effie. Jennifer Hudson got on my nerves. Danny Glover came off best, IMO. Beyonce Knowles looks beautiful in her Diana getups but she’s not up to a dramatic situation. (She is also given a new big number toward the end of the film, to remind us that she’s the star and so it will be clear that She Doesn’t Really Sing Like That.)

Anthony_NYC writes:

Throughout, there was too much MTV-style editing for my taste, but I guess that's the style nowadays.

I thought was well done, really. The cutting is fast but fluid. I looked for the editor’s name at the end – it was Virginia Katz.

The movie really does look great. Just put cotton in your ears.

And for the record, Diana Ross is a goddess.

Please continue commenting, everyone.

[papeetepatrick]

Anthony_NYC writes:

(Afterwards, talking about Hudson's big number, the friend I saw the movie with reminded me of the end of "Funny Girl," where the director, trusting the power of his star, simply trains the camera on Streisand and let's her deliver.)

I was reminded of the same number but not in a good way. (I thought Streisand’s rendition of “My Man” overstated and devoid of true emotion.)

I am glad to hear someone else say this, dirac. I liked 'My Man' well enough, but the subtlety had been that 'The Music That Makes Me Dance' was the more gorgeous song about the song 'My Man'. I could not believe that they would leave out this song, as well as 'Cornet Man', and 'Rat-Tat-Tat-Tat', all of which were part of one of the last great scores written for a Broadway show (and the critics of the times did not pay this score nearly enough homage; it was in the same year as 'Hello, Dolly!' and is light-years beyond it--and yet a much better film was made of 'Hello, Dolly!' in my opinion.) Nor did they do a fully Ziegfeldian version of 'His Love Makes Me Beautiful'. It's true that 'Don't Rain on My Parade' is wonderful in the film, but with a score like that, you should not fool around and throw out great numbers. In any case, 'Funny Girl' should have been much more like the stage version, because it is about the stage--and that would have kept it from being boring, which I hate to admit that it is, in large part.

[sidwich]

I could not believe that they would leave out this song, as well as 'Cornet Man', and 'Rat-Tat-Tat-Tat', all of which were part of one of the last great scores written for a Broadway show (and the critics of the times did not pay this score nearly enough homage; it was in the same year as 'Hello, Dolly!' and is light-years beyond it--and yet a much better film was made of 'Hello, Dolly!' in my opinion.) Nor did they do a fully Ziegfeldian version of 'His Love Makes Me Beautiful'. It's true that 'Don't Rain on My Parade' is wonderful in the film, but with a score like that, you should not fool around and throw out great numbers.

I haven't seen "Funny Girl" in a while, but as I recall (and my memory may be shaky on this), "Cornet Man" and "Rat-tat-tat-tat" were used in the stage version of "Funny Girl" because the producers were unable to obtain the rights to some of the period songs Fanny Brice was famous for singing. When the film producers were able to get those rights (and the rights to "My Man"), the decision was made to use those original songs instead of the pastiches and "His is the Only Music..."

As far as "Funny Girl" vs. "Hello, Dolly!," while I prefer listening to the score of "Funny Girl" a great deal, I think "Hello, Dolly!" is still an overall better show, and much of that is due to the superior book written by Michael Stewart based on the Thornton Wilder. I really think it's one of the best books ever written for the musical theatre, and much of why "Hello, Dolly!" is rather indestructible and lives on in regional theatre, community theatre and high schools to this day. (I don't love the film, though). The "Funny Girl" book has some troublesome spots, and I do think that some of the cuts that were made in the film were beneficial either because those moments would have dragged in the film or because the songs wouldn't have really worked in the cinematic medium. For example, I think clipping down "Henry Street" and the changes to "Sadie, Sadie" were probably good choices.

I think one of the problems with "Dreamgirls" is that more of the score (love it, hate it, whatever...) is shoehorned in than works in a feature film at the expense of cutting some of the actual story it's trying to tell.

[papeetepatrick]

The 'Funny Girl' book was never very good, but it didn't need to be, it was about a great theater figure and is a cross between the numbers musical (even if the songs are original in the play) and the integrated-music show. Of course, the show is essentially a worthless property, because it is unique in having no identity outside the star. I don't think this 'role-ownership' ever happened to quite this degree, much moreeven than with 'Gypsy', obviously. They never considered anybody else for the film of Funny Girl). 'Hello,Dolly!' is identified with Carol Channing, but not to that degree, for all obvious reasons, and then a hundred ladies did it.

That's interesting information about the original songs --I can certainly see why they could hardly resist using them-- but the original songs are even so not up to the level of great Jule Styne songs, and I wish they could have been true to the original. And having to write a Ziegfeld-style song was something he has done in 'Funny Girl' in a most inspired way--and several times. The whole Broadway score doesn't have a weak song in it, even the light little things. They did add the title song to the play during its run, and that one is perhaps a little weaker, but even the overture on the cast album is quite exciting. It's the only other overture I find distinguished other than 'Candide', which is the best one. They may have put more of the Ziegfeld originals into the movie, but the show was a lot more about Fanny Brice than the movie was. The movie really had nothing to do with Fanny Brice. Thanks for discussing it, though, because I hadn't realized just how far the show moved in just a few years due to that startling Streisand fame. I know this is mostly Forgive me.

By the way, I loved the Supremes too, and I also like Diana Ross in 'Mahogany', no matter how corny.