Dreamgirls

When I first went to see Chicago, I didn't know going into it that it was a musical. It was only 20 minutes and 3 musical numbers later that I finally realized what I'd gotten into! But when all was said and done, I was left reasonably impressed with Chicago—though going into Dreamgirls, after all the Academy Award hype (not to mention the controversy surrounding Jennifer Hudson's Oscar win), I fully expected to hate Dreamgirls. But rather, I was surprised at how well it was executed, how epic its scope is, and how full of heart and pain the story is.

With the aforementioned Chicago as my major comparator, I expected a much bigger musical experience—i.e., musical numbers and highly choreographed dance scenes running every 5 minutes. Dreamgirls certainly had plenty of music, but there was plenty of room in between numbers for story and character, which is actually the way I prefer it: a medium amount of musical numbers, so that way the plot doesn't become secondary to the music. Spanning what I'm guessing is about 10 or 15 years, Dreamgirls follows a group of singers known as the Dreams/Dreamettes as they move from lounge to soul to pop/disco/Motown. Jamie Foxx's Curtis was always talking about a "fresh new sound", and in a very unique way, Dreamgirls was almost educational in how it illustrated the growth and changing face of music as the years went by—not to mention how the artists themselves had to adapt to the changing times.

One thing I noticed right away is that Dreamgirls wasn't very subtle about who the various groups were supposed to personify: the Dreams/Dreamettes were clearly supposed to be The Supremes, Eddie Murphy's James "Thunder" Early was most likely supposed to be James Brown or Little Richard, and I got a good laugh out of the group of young kids who were clearly supposed to be The Jackson Five (complete with a young Michael). And Beyoncé Knowles's character Deena Jones . . . can it be any more obvious who she's portraying? Deena—Diana? (On another note, I was surprised to learn that Diana Ross herself authenticated the historical accuracy of Dreamgirls—i.e., the story told in Dreamgirls very closely resembled the real-life story of The Supremes.)

The acting, all around, was very impressive! Filled with plenty of acting talent, including Danny Glover, Jamie Foxx, Beyoncé Knowles, a surprise cameo by John Lithgow, and even a brief appearance by Jaleel White (known to the rest of the world as uber-nerd Steve Urkel), everyone stepped up to the plate and hit it out of the park! I think that's more because of the roles themselves, which seemed to be quite deep and complicated—not to mention conflicted and pained. Eddie Murphy's performance as soul singer James "Thunder" Early was very refreshing, because for so long I'd been seeing him only doing hit-or-miss family comedies, and while I love Murphy as a comedian (particularly his '80s comedy, when he was fresh off of Saturday Night Live), I gladly welcomed his return to serious, dramatic acting. And if I'm not mistaken, Murphy used to sing during the late '80s, so his turn as a soul singer was quite authentic to me.

Jennifer Hudson's Effie White was really the focal point of Dreamgirls, though, as the story was largely about how Curtis relegated her status in the Dreamettes to backup, even though she had the best voice of the group. Effie's pride and stubbornness didn't react well to this, and coupled with emotional heartbreak and betrayal from Curtis, sent her into something of a downward spiral as she eventually broke away from the group. I still would have preferred Rinko Kikuchi to have won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar this year, but after watching Dreamgirls, I can definitely see why Hudson won: on the strength of her singing and on the physical presence of her character Effie. Some of her songs were very powerful indeed (the girl can sing, no doubt about that!), and even though this was her first acting role, she seemed to convey the drama and the pain equally as well—even during the non-singing moments. I've heard many complaints about her acting (or her perceived lack thereto), but to be fully honest, I found her to be very impressive as Effie White.

Jamie Foxx, though, delivered a somewhat wooden performance, which I wasn't expecting. I don't know if that's because of the way his character Curtis was drawn (as the manipulative, controlling manager), but I guess I was just expecting more passion and depth from his performance, because that's how all the other characters were: they commanded a strong physical presence that was almost electric. Like when Murphy's James "Thunder" Early was on stage, it may as well have been James Brown himself.

After watching Dreamgirls, I'm quite surprised that it didn't receive a Best Picture or Best Director nomination! If this isn't Best Picture material, I'd love to know what is. Because Dreamgirls delivered with unbelievable heart, gave superlative performances from its actors, and had flawless directing by Bill Condon. Why Best Picture and Director were denied Dreamgirls is really beyond me. Though the three nominations it received for Best Original Song actually puzzled me, largely because there wasn't one that stood out more than the others—i.e., there didn't seem to be a "signature song" to Dreamgirls. Though the songs themselves were quite well written and performed! (For all its simplicity, I can still hear the lyrics to "Cadillac Car.")

I give Dreamgirls a 9 out of 10. The acting was superb, the songs were delivered flawlessly, and it's a shame it didn't receive the Oscar attention it deserved. On another note, the other day when I went to BestBuy, I found a DVD of Cleopatra . . . and I checked to see if it starred Diana Ross (it was Elizabeth Taylor). You'll know what I mean by that when you see Dreamgirls. ;)