« WTC: The Trailer | Main | What I Was Talking About... »

May 19, 2006

Dreamgirls On The Croisette

There was some joy in CannesVille tonight (they’re 9 hours ahead of L.A.), as DreamWorks/Paramount offered a sneak peak at their Oscar candidate and, they hope, the second big commercial movie musical success story of recent years, Dreamgirls.

The studio coughed up four songs, a verbal tap dance by writer/director Bill Condon, and a terrific three minutes trailer-style clip reel to a fifth song in the film.

First on tap, the Dreamettes get their first professional gig, singing back up to Eddie Murphy’s James “Thunder” Early, the show’s take on James Brown, Jackie Wilson, and Marvin Gaye. The number, “Fake Your Way To The Top” dazzles as the girls mature into pros and relationships manage to develop before our eyes, even without words.

My favorite unspoken bit is when Murphy’s Early (a performance that stinks of Oscar, even in this small quantity) wants two back up singers, but accepts the three, figuring without a word that there is the beauty, the singer, and the one to whom he is immediately attracted and that if the girls were forced to drop one member, his hoped for lover would be the one to go. And of course, this is an early echo of what is to come in the film.

Next, there is the scene when Jamie Foxx’s Curtis Taylor lets the Dreamettes know that they are going to go off on their own as The Dreams… and that lead singer Effie (Jennifer Hudson) is going to have to back up beauty Deena (Beyonce Knowles). That leads into the song, “Family,” sung first by Effie ("What about what I want?"), who is then joined by her brother, CC (Keith Robinson) and then by the rest of the girls and Curtis.

Condon uses a completely different camera style covering this song and the contribution of Broadway lighting legends Jules Fisher and Peggy Eisenhauer becomes apparent, as they and his DP Tobias Schliesser and production designer John Myhre rock a simple white background on an empty theater stage. Beautiful.

Next, it’s Jamie Foxx singing “When I First Saw You” to the now Diana Rossified Deena/Beyonce. There is more magic, beyond the performance, as the number is constructed around massive photos of Deena in that 70-‘s Mahogany/Eyes of Laura Mars style that those of us old enough to remember will remember. And Sharen Davis' costumes, which are good everywhere else, are Rossian to a crossed t here.

Finally, we get the title song, “Dreamgirls,” which is set on some kind of showroom stage, the lights of which become the starlight in which our Dreamgirls will float.

That was intoxicating enough. But then, there is a brilliantly cut three-minute trailer – though it may not be a theatrical trailer at any time, though it should be – built around Jennifer Hudson singing, “One Night Only,” which you may remember, starts slow and then builds into Beyonce's/Deena's version, which sounds like a monster disco hit.

The images that flash before is in the tightly cut part are almost shocking at times, ranging from what looks like black and white to gold lame suits and some great butt bouncing to the young girls to the aging cast, from love to hate, from fun to fear.

The combination is undeniable. It’s not a Miramax slap-dash con job where all you see is a quick cut reel so you really can’t see the impact. It also doesn’t try to tell the whole story and I imagine that only a handful of people are left in the press who saw the show on Broadway all those years ago. But with four full numbers and the “trailer,” you get the breadth and the width of the film. And it couldn’t be much more exciting.

I am, no doubt, a little hungry for quality these days. And this is only a snack. But my hunger has been well sated for now. And any fears or questions I had about where this project was going have been answered in a great way. Terrific.

(Images from the red carpet)

Posted by poland at May 19, 2006 09:00 AM

Comments

You seem to want/wish this movie to be fantastic with every ounce of your being.

Posted by: grandcosmo [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 01:46 PM

Not really.

I saw what I saw. And I am enthusiastic.

Am I supposed to be bland about it? When you see it, I think you will see what I am describing. I have no idea if the whole movie will follow suit. But this material is pretty sensational.

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 01:51 PM

I think what Grandcosmo is reacting to is that this film seems to have gotten an inordinate amount of attention, from casting now into production and marketing, from you, more than lots of other movies coming out at the end of the year, and for no apparent reason.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 01:57 PM

If I had any materials on the Eastwood movie, they'd get a lot of attention too.

If I had Babel materials, they'd be here.

If I had Margaret materials, they'd be here.

If there is stuff up, it's because there is stuff happening and materials available.

Geez, I don't have stuff on Miami Vice and I would kill to be running things on any Mann film...

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 02:05 PM

So there have been things happening and materials available, for this movie more than for any other fall release, for months now?

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 02:27 PM

Have you seen a teaser trailer for any other holiday movie... besides Happy Feet... in theaters since Christmas? Have any of the holiday films had set events for the L.A. press corps?

There have been six Dreamgirls entries in the last year, starting 5/12/05 with Jamie Foxx getting hired. Six.

Whose agenda are we really discussing here?

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 02:54 PM

So your answer to my question is "yes", which is fine. And it's also ok, DP, to just admit that it's a movie that you're eagerly anticipating. No harm in that.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 03:00 PM

Just to let you know, Poland, that they're not the only ones who've noticed your inordinate enthusiasm for this film. There's nothing wrong with being excited for a film. Even though you're a journalist you'll allowed to pick favorites.

Posted by: Wrecktum [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 03:12 PM

Yeah, I think everyone has noticed your massive hard-on for this film. Not that there's anything wrong with it. You're allowed to look forward to stuff, it's just an unexpected choice.

I always thought there must be someone working on this film that you're close to and you have a vested interest in seeing it succeed, especially since you knew so much about the budget and talent negotiations way back when.

Posted by: James Leer [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 03:25 PM

Dreamgirls is Dave Poland's own Crash. Next up, it will be compared to Dickens in some way.

Posted by: waterbucket [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 03:25 PM

To have this entire thread be about me is silly. But isn't "inordinate" determined by whether it my enthusiasm is appropriate?

Anyway, I don't quite get it. Superman, Da Vinci, WTC, U93, and others have gotten more ink from me than Dreamgirls. Is there some debate the Dreamgirls is not one of the handful of films currently towards the front of the awards pack? Do I qualify for not being "inordinate" by never writing about the movie again? Help me out here.

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 03:28 PM

Those four movies are: a hugely expensive summer movie, an expensive and controversial movie that was just released, and two contentious 9/11 movies. Those are the titles that you are right to be spending ink on. By contrast, I think most of us consider Dreamgirls to be just one of a dozen or so awards-contending movies that won't be out for six months, by an interesting but hardly cult-worthy director, and with no more starpower than several other projects.
Maybe your audience is just geekier/less Motown than you are, DP.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 03:46 PM

And six blog entries in a year is a cult now?

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 03:47 PM

And six blog entries in a year is a cult now?

Really, we should get this bickering done, because I would expect there will be other mentions of Dreamgirls (and everything else) over the next six months.

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 03:48 PM

You're mixing my words around. I said 'cult' because Bill Condon is not a director anyone's excited about, the same way people are for Scorsese, Mann, Shyamalan, etc, hence it seems odd to be excited about a Condon film.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 03:51 PM

Poland is needlessly defensive here. I think he should take this as good-natured ribbing, for the most part.

I think most people couldn't give a rat's ass about Dreamgirls and that's why they notice how much it's been mentioned on this blog.

Posted by: Wrecktum [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 03:57 PM

We're just teasing, DP.

What's your personal history with Dreamgirls? Did you see it on stage? It's obviously made a big impact on you.

Posted by: James Leer [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 04:56 PM

Dreamgirls, DP wishes he knew how to quit you.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 04:58 PM

(in the melody of that Dreamgirls song)

YOU'RE GONNA LOVE IT!

Posted by: palmtree [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 05:00 PM

Jeff Wells is sooooooooooo pissed that DP beat him on this Dreamgirls scoop. From the USofA no less. You can read it on his site.

Made my day.

Posted by: THX5334 [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 05:04 PM

Dave,

You had Dreamgirls as #2 on your first _40 Weeks to Oscar_ list before you had even seen the sneakpeek and now you are saying that Eddie Murphy's performance "stinks of Oscar" just from watching a minute long clip.


Nothing wrong with looking forward to something especially with how bad the first major releases of the summer have been.

Posted by: grandcosmo [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 06:10 PM

I've also noticed a real interest in this film for awhile now on this blog. It struck me as odd, mostly because I'd never heard of it.

But I'll also echo the "nothing wrong with it" comments... if I had a blog, I'd be writing everything I could about Babel.

Posted by: Melquiades [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 06:19 PM

Talk about mean spiritedness, right here, it practically feels like it’s bordering on censorship. A big, flashy movie is being treated like a media-driven specialty film. I'd like to see that become a trend. (And, if you haven’t already, check out Wells. He gets dizzy writing about it. I’m fine with that and his pictures of pretty girls from Cannes.)

Posted by: T. H. Ung [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 07:21 PM

DP has been crowing that Eddie Murphy will win the Oscar for this film before they even started shooting, or had finished casting for that matter.

Posted by: James Leer [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 07:35 PM

Poland's stage-to-screen premature ejacuation track record:

Phantom 2004...

Producers 2005...

and now Dreamgirls.

This movie is officially doomed.

Posted by: Crow T Robot [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 08:49 PM

Just for the sake of accuracy, Crow, even if you are teasing...

The Phantom thing happened after seeing the movie and lasted two weeks.

Producers always had the issues that were brought up and it failed. The studio also sat on it completely until just weeks before release. If I had seen four numbers from Producers, the failure would have been clear.

And what about my premature calls on A Beautiful Mind, Chicago, Lord of the Rings, Million Dollar Baby and Brokeback coming up short.

You know what movie is doomed. A bad movie.

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 09:37 PM

Well, Dave's recent track record missing the musical calls for Best Picture might just end this year. I recently read the script for "Dreamgirls," and I actually found it quite sensational. In many ways it reminded me of "Ray."

The only thing left to be seen is whether Condon can handle the material as a director. Rob Marshall was coming out of theater with "Chicago," and hence had the capabilities to direct a musical in tow. Condon is coming off of dramas, and might not have the most steady hand directing his script, however great the words on the page are.

In the meantime, you'll want to watch for Hudson in the Lead Actress race (even if she kind of nails it), Beyonce in supporting, Foxx as a lead at the Globes, but likely missing for Oscar, and, indeed, Eddie Murphy in the supporting race, something many have been looking hard at for a long time. He's had the juciest role from day one, and after finishing up the script, it seems to me he just seems primed for some awards recognition.

Posted by: tapley [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 19, 2006 09:50 PM

Crow: your humor is lost here.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 20, 2006 02:03 AM

Unlike a lot of you guys, I am eagerly awaiting "Dreamgirls"...the same way I awaited "Chicago" for years (through all the false starts and rumored casting).

I saw it on Broadway with the original cast. I have the cast album. I watched way too many drag queens lipsynch the big numbers in clubs. "Dreamgirls" is deeply embedded in certain parts of our culture and lots of us will turn out for it.

Whether it becomes another "Chicago" or "Evita" or...gulp..."A Chorus Line," a lot of people are going to line up for this one. Those people just don't write much in this comment section, so you're not aware of their huge interest in this film.

Posted by: adorian [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 20, 2006 05:07 AM

Oh Poland, you knows I love yas. But if you're gonna start guessing Oscars in May, you need to be a little goofier about it, because goofy it is (that column should have been one of your famous songs parodies).

Though I'm still marveling at that Brokeback call. Seriously, that was some Carnac shit there.

Posted by: Crow T Robot [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 20, 2006 10:24 AM

Adorian, what you say is why I suggested the crowd on this blog is 'geekier', because it probably skews young and male and more into action and sci-fi than for black-themed musicals. So Poland may in fact be more into the general audience's perspective than we know.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 20, 2006 01:31 PM

1) There is a lot of interest in this film.

2) It's a hugely important film for Paramount/Dreamworks. Nowadays, any film that studio does is going to be a big story, and this is their big Oscar contender.

3) It's rare for a non-sequel, non-action, non-animated film to get this big of a push (teaser, behind-the-scenes stuff, Cannes preview) so far out from the actual premiere. As Poland said, Paramount/Dreamworks has made a lot of materials available early.

4) Bill Condon's hardly a nobody...he's been on his way up for years, and this is his first big test.

5) The cast contains a recent Oscar winner (Jamie Foxx); a huge all-time box-office star in a rare dramatic role that may finally get him the credit he deserves as an actor (Eddie Murphy); and a huge pop star (Beyonce Knowles).

6) The casting hunt for Effie was a huge story: who could replace the legendary Jennifer Holliday, one of the rare Broadway sensations that ever entered the mainstream consciousness.

All in all, I would find it terribly curious if Poland were NOT covering this movie at the level he is.

Posted by: Anglophenia [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 20, 2006 02:48 PM

Who's Jennifer Holliday?
Bill Condon is an Oscar-winning somebody, but you're not going to see this movie sold with his name in the advertising. His name alone is little reason to get excited about the movie.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 20, 2006 03:53 PM

Jennifer Holliday was the choir singer on Ally McBeal who had an affair with the priest then sang about it. And who really should've had one episode not the 10 or so she ended up in. I honestly wasn't ever impressed.

And to hop on DP's back about this, I think the only reason everyone thinks DP has his hand up Dreamgirls' skirts is because the only even remotely negative comments were concerns about casting and budget. No "this could go awful." Almost every other movie has a DP caveat.

Posted by: White Label [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 20, 2006 06:15 PM

The one Dreamgirls call I have been dubious about was Jennifer Hudson.

And now, that seems to be a heedless concern. She seems strong in both songs in the preview. And the trio of women seems to mesh pretty well.

I knew she could sing. The question is, can she act? And we still are just one step towards that answer. We'll see.

You never know until you see the movie... and not always then.

But note, I'm not all over Clint Eastwood for hiring Paul Walker either and that is far scarier to me.

Generally, I am much more careful about pissing bile than offering hope and praise. Any asshole can be right 90% of the time by being negative about everything. But it's not a game to me.

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2006 12:17 AM

People should sorta be thankful that there's positive news about a movie that looks good instead of news about how a movie's budget has been blown, a studio head as stepped down or how a movie flopped.

i WANT to read about this stuff. It's setting us up for the bumper Oscar season.

"In the meantime, you'll want to watch for Hudson in the Lead Actress race (even if she kind of nails it), Beyonce in supporting, Foxx as a lead at the Globes, but likely missing for Oscar, and, indeed, Eddie Murphy in the supporting race"

Kris, I would normally follow your thinking but are you serious about Jennifer and Beyonce's Oscar placings. It seems obvious to me (and quite a few others) that Beyonce is the bigger star so she will go Lead and Jennifer will go Supporting (even though she is the true lead).

Do we really need to list the amount of times the true lead of a movie has been shoved into Supporting merely because they're less famous. Scarlett Johansson (Lost in Translation), Naomi Watts (Mulholland Dr.), Jamie Foxx (Collateral), etc...

Jennifer will be Supporting and will be nominated and could very well win because they don't seem to give a rats arse about previous work in that category. Beyonce will be lead but may find being nominated harder (a GG win should be much easier). Actually, thinking back to Chicago, Jennifer and Beyonce could both go lead but Jennifer going Supporting for Oscar.

It also happened with the two men from Brokeback last year. Jake was submitted into Lead but didn't make it.

And BTW Everyone who knows the slightest bit about Dreamgirls knows that Eddie's role is Oscar bait.

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2006 01:15 AM

The talk on category placement has never been anything beyond speculation. While I could see Hudson slipping into the supporting slot, I can't imagine Knowles going lead ahead of her. Nothing in the script even makes the part look like a supporting hopeful, let alone lead.

And these roles are nothing like the co-lead nature of the Brokeback roles.

As far as Murphy is concerned, I don't think anyone ever contested the notion that the Broadway role was bound to translate its showy nature in the form of potential Oscar contender.

Posted by: tapley [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 21, 2006 06:54 PM

The last three films based on Broadway musicals--THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, RENT and THE PRODUCERS--have a combined domestic gross of just under $100 million (and PHANTOM accounted for slightly more than half). Plus unlike DREAMGIRLS, they're all still running in New York. Throw in the African-American cast plus a genre of music that's largely out of favor with black audiences (at least young ones), and this strikes me as far from a sure thing.

Posted by: Cadavra [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 22, 2006 02:16 PM

Cadavra I think you underestimate the AA audience. There are precious few mainstream movies about black history and this is one of them. It is filled with AA pop culture references and covers an extremely significant time period in the crossover of AA culture to broader appeal. Not to mention the stars. It's a bit condescending to suggest that AA audiences (even "the young ones")would not embrace it because the musical styles are not contemporary enough. Regarding box office, I for one think this will be a repeater. Its diva-glam-soul appeal will not move everyone but it will be heroin to some (as the show was). Finally, in contrast to every other musical or music-fueled biopic of recent years, this one has both broader market appeal (than, say, Rent) and an actual dramatic structure (vs., say, Ray or Walk The Line). This is an audience pleaser and I predict a monster hit.

Posted by: Rascal [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 24, 2006 04:13 AM

Oddly, I agree with Cadavra on a commerical level. There is a long way to go for this film to be a $100 million movie.

And don't think that The Academy is any more black friendly than "real" audiences.

But the flip side is that because this will play for 80% of the world as a new musical with popular stars, music that is often more pop than Broadway, and a strong story. Unlike the other two shows you mention, Cad, this is not just a filmed version of the play with bigger sets. And that is an advantage, I think.

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 24, 2006 11:12 AM

The problem with those three musicals that Cadavra listed is that there were no cool people in them. Who cares about those washed up Rent people? Who was even in Phantom? And, The Producers? Well, Uma pulls her weight, but outside of Broadway fans, nobody cares about Lane or Brodrick. Dreamgirls, however, has 3 cool people off the bat. Jamie Foxx = HUGE. Byonce = even MORE HUGE. Eddie Murphy = legendary. And that doesn't even include the push they'll make with Jennifer Hudson - who will no doubt have an album or a movie or something in the papers before Chirstmas. Plus the music is better. It doesn't SOUND like a musical. It sounds like old school motown rock - which is still very popular. I think this movie is gonna be the biggest musical ever. And I don't even like movie musicals.

Posted by: kerrigan [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2006 01:00 PM

I'd just like to say that Jennifer Hudson is THE STAR of Dreamgirls. She not only plays the lead role, she plays it excellently. Don't know why the media is making it seem as if this movie is based on Beyonce's character when it is not. People need to accept the fact that there are a lot of beautiful, multi-talented people out there, it didn't begin or end with Beyonce. Jennifer Hudson deserves all the accolades and should be recognized for her excellent performance. She deserves the Oscar for for the lead role - not a supporting role. Let's be fare and give credit where it is due!!!

Posted by: player7717 [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 11, 2006 01:42 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?