Current Thinking from Brad Gibson

From today through Wed. Feb. 21, I'll be taking a look at Dreamgirls, the show, the movie and the art. Today we kick off with an overview and a perspective on Dreamgirls rebuke by members of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences.

In 1981 Michael Bennett brought Henry Krieger's and Tom Eyen's Dreamgirls to life after a period of workshopping in the late 1970's. For Bennett, Dreamgirls was not a necessary ingredient to define a successful career; A Chorus Line had cemented that, but it became the determinant in defining his greatness on Broadway. Dreamgirls did not win Best Musical at the 1982 Tony Awards but who hums songs from Nine in the shower these days? Within a couple of years of its opening, Dreamgirls had established itself as the premier musical of its era and stands as one of the greatest American musicals of the last 30 years.

Content in this post originates from www.bradfordgibson.net.

Dreamgirls the movie has lived as a promise since the early '80's. While various production attempts have been launched only one has succeeded in creating a finished product. As the 25th anniversary of the musical loomed, David Geffen leased the rights of Dreamgirls to director Bill Condon. The results speak for themselves. While most movie musicals of the past 25 to 30 years have been disappointing, Dreamgirls the movie, captures both the artifice and the attitude of the era it represents as well as the era in which it was produced. There will be no Best Picture award for Dreamgirls at the Oscars in 2007 but good art does not need an Oscar. Too often, the Oscar does not represent the epitome of art or creative insight. The Oscars exist in a complex web of political wrangling and PR hype. This year, Dreamgirls hype machine went overboard and caught a backlash from Academy members. One can only be thankful that the PR flacks cannot retroactively alter the results on screen.

It is probably worth reflecting upon why the shameful huckstering of Dreamgirls PR team was necessary. Why were so many put off by the intensive lobbying and the carpet bombing of the ads, the notices and the promos? In 1983, the Dreamgirls PR campaign would probably have caught fire but it was so relentlessly old school and so completely ignorant of modern social interactivity that it just smacked of arrogance. That said there were some master strokes in the concepts, one being the payment of all performance royalties by Dreamworks for amateur companies performing Dreamgirls in 2006. In the final analysis however, PR blather resulted in a net loss for an astonishing piece of big box office art. As consumers, we are not the losers as we still got to see the picture and can return again and again. No, only the star making machinery of Geffen's world is the loser and I scarcely think the Ferraris will be repossessed in anyone's driveway on Mulholland as result of going over the top of even Hollywood's elongated tolerance for marketing guff. So let's forget the Oscar's and look at the art.

Tomorrow: Dreamgirls, Hollywood and Art

dreamgirls