Honeydripper
Honeydripper (2007) is what I thought of as “a movie” when I was a child. After seeing my first movie, Gunfight at the OK Corral, and after hearing older folks say things like “We’re treating ourselves: the two of us are going to the movies,” I thought films like Honeydripper were what cinema was all about. Soon I learned that there were all kinds of other movies—deep, philosophical, brooding movies; experimental movies pushing the boundaries of film-making conventions; angry social criticism—and the list goes on. Honeydripper has a simple overarching plot, characters you can identify with, some suspense, no graphic violence, no big sex scenes, no titillating depravity, no cinematic innovations, and a pretty interesting sound track.
Whether you like Honeydripper depends largely on whether you are satisfied with a more traditional movie or whether you want something more sophisticated or daring. While Honeydripper receives an average score of 69% fresh tomatoes (a mediocre rating), an average of 69% can result from two very different sets of reviews. In one scenario, nearly every critic may say that the movie has some strengths but also some weaknesses, say, a great characters but a boring, predictable plot. Statisticians would call this a normal distribution. In the other scenario, however, approximately half the critics might love the movie, saying for example that they are delighted to see an old-fashioned movie, while approximately half the critics might hate the movie, saying for example that it has all been done before. Statisticians call this a bi-modal distribution. For us deciding whether to see a certain movie, the above distinction is crucial because if 69% reflects a normal distribution, we will likely find the movie mediocre; but if 69% reflects a bi-modal distribution, we will either love the movie or hate it. The reviews of Honeydripper are largely bi-model.
The overarching plot is predictable. Try it: A struggling bar owner tries to save his club by bringing in a big name musician, but the big name does not show. A young man has come to town hoping to make it as a guitar player and singer in the new electric blues style. Do you think the young guy will be a success and the bar owner will be able to pay the rent? Of course! But along the way, there are dozens of points in the plot where you don’t know what is going to happen. Will the bar owner’s wife get serious religion and leave him to tend bar by himself? The person I saw the movie with guessed yes; I guessed no.
Some critics have said the music is really good. I think this short-changes the movie. The point is that the music is usually not that great—as it should be! The gospel singers in the revival tent sing out of tune—as they should. Do you think the Staple Singers would be performing in a tent on the edge of a dusty little southern town? When the young man gets his big break on stage, he opens with “Good Rockin’ Tonight.” Everybody in the pick-up band is together, and the tune is enjoyable, but it does not hold a candle to the original by Wynonie Harris—nor should it. The kid’s guitar solos are simple and repetitive and primarily rhythmic—as you’d expect. One of the strengths of the movie is to provide music that is slightly amateurish yet still enjoyable to listen to. The most polished pickin’ is by Keb Mo playing a blind, itinerant blues musician—and he turns out to be imaginary.
I thoroughly enjoyed myself at this movie.