Dreamgirls is a nightmare. Actully, it's not that bad, but that statement was too funny for me not to open the review with. On to the real review-_______________________________________________________________
When the Academy Award nominations were announced last week, Dreamgirls made history- it is the first time the film with most nominations (8) was not nominated for Best Picture. Since long before its release, the film was considerd to be Oscar-worthy or Oscar bait, depending on your point of view. And indeed, it does seem like the worst kind of thing the Academy usually rewards, which why it must be comended for not falling for the bait. Dreamgirls looks great, has a social message, and is well acted, which is all the voters usually pay attention to but the movie is extreamly underwritten and shallow.
Based on a supposedly beloved musical (which I had never heard of, nor did I recognize any of the songs), Dreamgirls recounts the rise of the black soul trio The Dreams, obviously modled after The Supremes. Lacking any other sucess, the group begins their professional career by singing backup to James Thunder Early (Eddie Murphey, who unfortantley does not perform "Party All the Time"), but soon their manager Curtis (Jamie Foxx), gets them a solo gig and bribes DJ's to play their music, and the group hits it big, but with a price- their music must unpolitical and somewhat bland to appeal to white audiences. Tensions build in the group when Curtis forces lead singer Effie (Jennifer Hudson) to backup, not because she is untalented, (in fact her replacement, Deena (Beonce Knowls) has a weaker voice) but simply because she is overweight and Deena looks better on television. Pressures between Effie and Deena grow until Effie is forced out. Meanwhile, Curtis becomes more and more ruthless in his pursuit of power and money.
Many critics have commended the movie for its social commentary- how black artists were forced to whitewash their work in order to become popular, or indeed, even have a chance to become popular. I agree with the movie's sentiment, but object to the obvious and shallow way it presents it. Its case is somewhat awkwardly presented because The Dreams are just singers and do not write their own matieral. Furthermore, the film expects us to be shocked that show business is shallow and sometimes the most talented person does not suceed because of their physical appearance. This is indeed unethical, but I doubt that few will find it surprising in these days.
Of course, narrative problems in musicals don't mean much if the songs are there (i.e. West Side Story) but this movie has one of the most boring song scores I have heard, and certainly one of the longest. In Dreamgirls songs stop for dialouge instead of other way around. Kristen G. Gorlitz was correct when she commented that this almost like a concert film. It is particulary annoying at how the song The Dreams are performing always seems to just happen to also describe their emotional state.
What that film's admirer's have gotten right is the quality of the performances particulary from Hudson and Knowls, who both have extreamly strong voices and can carry the dramatic material. It unfortanate that their huge efforts and creativity is wasted on such shallow material.
I do not totally understand what the people who love this film see in it beyond glitz and glamour. Rolling Stone's Peter Travers called it "The story of America". I think that he is reading more sophistication into the movie that is there. Like the overproduced pop the film comdemends, Dreamgirls is consumatley professional, but empty.
Dreamgirls (2006)