There are flashes of great art in Dreamgirls that leave the student slack-jawed with awe. The movie is framed by one such piece that is both perfect in its symmetry and poetic with its foreshadowing. At the start of Dreamgirls four sisters sing together at a talent show, they are not the Dreamgirls. At the end of the movie we see four different women -- four "sistahs" -- singing together and they are no longer the Dreamgirls; they are saying goodbye. The movie says hello and goodbye with startling clarity and a clear sense of purpose. This movie has been made with a goal in mind and with devotion to the source material. Another elegant touch can be found in the lyrical twist built into the two versions of "One Night Only". In Effie's offering, she sings about how her lover of one night does not have any more time for her. In the Dreams rendition by Deena Jones, the lyric is turned on its ear; now it is the singer, Deena, who doesn't have any more than one night for her latest conquest. While this touch does exist in the original Broadway musical, we would expect Hollywood to squelch a detail like this -- they are lacking in so much of what we watch in movies now -- it almost seems like a bonus when somebody bothers to put the effort into making the small touches that render real symbolism in the story.

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

One of the performers who seems so willing to accept the significance and depth of the roles in Dreamgirls is Eddie Murphy. Murphy has astounded for years with his ease and flow on screen and yet he has never appeared in anything great. James "Thunder" Early is Murphy's greatest role, a perfect showcase for a man who should have and should be taking better parts. Murphy almost succeeds in erasing his most questionable choices of roles with his redemptive performance. His Early is tragic, sympathetic and conflictingly comedic. Murphy's skill is in his understanding and ultimate surrender to the part; it stands in perfect contradiction to the dumb-founded Jamie Foxx, who, as in Jarhead, seems utterly incapable of determining what he is doing; in the part, on screen and in the overall context of the story.

A similar criticism has been leveled at the acting ingenue Beyonce. Here, however, Condon found the right person. Beyonce's on-screen quizzical looks perfectly fit the climbing ambitions of the thin and "perfect" Deena. Beyonce never comes close to establishing a relationship with her audience beyond the lense, she is in love with the camera and herself, unwittingly she plays a uniquely correct Deena. Beyonce's reedy voice and undisciplined lack of breath control have been superbly exploited by the director and musical producers.

In contrast Jennifer Hudson does not even seem to notice the camera, she connects and offers compelling visuals throughout the movie. Hudson's voice is also exemplary, although her ability to interpret some of the songs is questionable. Where her interpretation and power could not encompass the universe of the original Dreamgirls themes, the cinematography steps in to render a new interpretation. In the later parts of the And I'm Telling You... scene, a flat-footed, bare legged and bruised Hudson performs for an empty room. Amidst the mirrors, the lights, the stage Hudson is not an iconic performer, she becomes a frail and angry child in an adult body. She is scorned and scornful at the same time and takes And I'm Telling You in a more personal direction. It has been reported that four versions of the song were interpreted by Hudson, the team chose the right one for her on screen. In all, Dreamgirls fulfills an essential requirement for great art, it creates a cohesive link between the story, the lyrics, the music, the times and its cast. Dreamgirls, the movie combines smaller pieces of art and design into a more complete whole.

Tomorrow: The Jennifer

dreamgirls

In an industry so utterly devoid of an ethical center, a humanistic soul and a purposeful mission, Dreamgirls astounds with an artful combination of flash, brilliance and truth amidst a sea of dis-belief suspending artifices. Why shouldn't it? Dreamgirls is ostensibly about the entertainment industry and about the only thing the entertainment industry ever gets right is itself. Remember how perfect everything felt about the era in Cameron Crowe's, Almost Famous? Well Dreamgirls is a genre picture like that with nearly maniacal dedication to art and symbolism thrown in for good measure.

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

Of course there's more to Dreamgirls than the Hollywood treatment the original musical gets. There is, of course, the terribly important, gut wrenchingly important, important importance of it all against the back-drop of the greatest disease culling artistic terror since the Black Death. Can we ignore what Jennifer Holliday's monumental rendering of And I'm Telling You... has come to symbolize with the passing years? Rendered in honour of the memories of both lyricist Tom Eyen and director Michael Bennett it has become an anthem of love and loss but posited against an era of AIDS deaths it is an anthem. To ignore what Dreamgirls has meant to so many communities -- from opening night in 1981 -- and subsequently, to everyone that has been touched in some way by AIDS -- which is everyone -- would be to deny truth.

Now that we no longer live in the age of the blockbuster, Dreamgirls is as close as we can get to knowing that a community of artists, technicians, producers and financiers can still execute on a real dream. A big dream. Dreamgirls carries within it a reasonable facsimile of historic truth with the punch of artistic symbolism. We can no longer posit about what it might have done if released "on time" in 1984 or 1987 or 1991 or 1995. It didn't get released because it wasn't made then. We can't stop to think about how this picture compares in box office to Grease or Sound of Music or West Side Story because it has been released now, in the age of the long tail, the first era after hits were made. Somehow it seems fitting and with the silver anniversary of the Broadway musical a distant memory for many of us and completely unknown to a large percentage of its viewing audience, Dreamgirls -- the movie -- now delivers context to a different era. Think of how different it is. How many of us would have imagined the startling change in acceptance of gay marriage and adoption there has been. For most of us in Western societies -- save for America -- it doesn't matter anymore and it never should have. So Dreamgirls is about a memory of how it was; for women in the the '60's and the entertainment industry, for African Americans, for other minorities. It's all a memory isn't it? Things are better now aren't they? Say that and think of the things that still don't make any sense. The pitiful official response to tens of thousands stranded in New Orleans. The unwillingness to be moralistic in the Sudan while engaging with gusto elsewhere. The persecution of legitimate travelers and legal immigrants against a back-drop of nationally sponsored religious fervours. No, there really is nothing left for the classic story of Dreamgirls to tell us anymore, is there?

Tomorrow: Symbolism and Performance in Dreamgirls, the Movie

dreamgirls

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

Sometime between today -- Jan 2, 2007 -- and the 2007 Academy Awards I will be declaring Dreamgirls Week at bradfordgibson.net.

Now for those of you who expect this site to be all about technology, business and podcasting... well it's my personal site too and you know that I have made forays into the musical realm before. I still get a significant number of site hits from the Google search string "I want to write a musical".

Before I dip my toe into the Dream Girls water I need your help. If you want to contribute then please get in touch with me. I'm talking to sound gurus like Derek K Miller (see you at Northern Voice 2007), food/wine/cinema critics like Ethan Johnson (whose simple "wow" is high praise indeed) and media divas like Leesa Barnes. This is my open casting call for essays and scholarship on one of the greatest artistic events of our lifetimes. How about some thought being put to:

Or if you can't hack the academic stuff, try comparing it to other earthquakes like Saturday Night Fever, Les Miserables or the birth of Jazz. If by some troubled route you know it's big but you just don't like it... well okay, I want to hear about that too.

And I'm Telling You, Go now and do your research. I am available by way of comment here, the "feedback" menu choice at the web site or GollyGeeMail... thebradcast... then use the at symbol then type in Gmail period com.

The Highland Gardens Hotel in Hollywood is best known for some of it's previous tenants and a sorry event in room 105. Now though, Steve Markle* has delivered a movie of illuminating charm and -- dare I say -- pathos that documents the Hotel's continuing role in the lives of Hollywood soldiers, both young and old.

The film has been out for about a year now and has previously been screened in Canada on Bravo and StarTV. It was on again recently and it is probably because the film has received at least two Gemini nominations.

Finally, a Canadian movie that doesn't have "bureaucrat" written all over it. If Markle does not win an award it will probably be because he hasn't been eating enough rubber shrimp with cinema wannabe civil servants at government sponsored posterior kiss-a-thons.

If you watch one Canadian film this year -- make sure it's not the one by that director -- it should be Camp Hollywood. This movie puts entertainment TV and reality shows in their place.

* Markle went $85,000 into debt making the picture, which probably explains the lack of a web presence and no web site for the film.

I recently had this fit of semi-Socratic logic:

Artists can be clever. People who are clever are not necessarily artists. Mash-ups are clever. Mash-ups are not art.

Creativity is artful and art is a blending of influences -- to wit one Paul Hewson, reflecting yet another artist, said "Every poet is a thief" -- but merely resequencing other artistic works in a furious technological cut and paste... Well, good on you if you think you're an artist.

All of this became clear to me recently as I looked at a video mashup by J.D. Lasica and others over at ourmedia.org. It not only uses copyright images and cultural iconography interspersed with popular music; but also, seems to imply that if it can be remixed it should be remixed. Is it right that if I can sample something then I can freely use it for mass distribution over the internet? Is making Charlie Schulz Peanut characters available with an alternate soundtrack -- a recording by commercial artists Outkast -- for free, a culturally relevant artistic endeavour?

Of course not.

In the comfort of my own home I can cut and splice to my heart's delight. That is personal entertainment. In America, that is fair use. Once I distribute the product of my remixing on the internet I need to be mindful of the source of my product. If I used copyright material without permission, I have just cut the artist off at the knees. It doesn't matter whether the artist makes 25 cents or $100 million dollars from their work; remixing is reuse and reuse without permission constitutes a major breakdown in the social-cultural contract.

I have heard all the arguments about large corporations controlling the cultural and copyright agendas. I have heard about how unfair it is that we can't play Led Zepplin on our podcasts. Big deal. Copyright law protects my nephew just as much as it protects Paul McCartney and I would like my nephew to earn a living as an artist. Copyright can be a force for good and, when combined with the internet, it can fuel thousands of really creative people with artistic careers.

Providing free "audience member" edits of commercial music and video is just a disrespectful stunt. Some people have a giggle when a politician is portrayed as a goof using heavily edited audio and video, but it's not a political statement, just a distortion. Directly inserting, cutting and pasting imagery from an animator or artist into a publically available "remix" just highlights a desperate lack of talent or resources on the part of the assembler.

Copying is not allusion and remixing is not an expression of influence. Public distribution of remixed mash-ups is a culturally equivocal and socially misdirected exercise.

Tonight I got a rare opportunity to spend some time with three major market TV News Directors. On behalf of the blogging and podcast "communities" can I tell you that there were no punches thrown? None of them had horns and no I'm not going to tell you what we talked about. For-profit TV stations are businesses and a business survives when it makes more money than it spends. That each of these three stations makes money means that they are servicing a customer base that values what they deliver, most of the time.
Does that mean that TV news is doing the right thing in local markets? Don't get me started. News Directors are people too, they know what they like, what they would like to do and what they have to do to attract numbers. Is there a willingness to accept some new ideas in TV and local news coverage? Yes and the timing could not be better for those of us who want to suggest some ideas. TV and Radio have noticed blogs and podcasts. They are willing to try some of these technologies within their traditional frameworks. While the mass media and the long tail may not be able to wag in unison; there is no need for them to beat on each other.
We can still find much to be critical of in each of our chosen media, but when there are ways to blend these technologies we should be working together. The results may surprise us.

Okay, so this is not MTV... Thank goodness for that.

As a special Easter bonus here's a little video introducing you to the fun of podcasting. It's the Making of Bradcast 5. Sorry, available in WMV format only.

See you next week.