Dreamgirls or: How to Stop Discussing It and Talk - About Something Else

[OscarGuy]

I won't say that Zeta-Jones was the best of the year...I did like Moore in Far from Heaven...

I do however think Zeta-Jones was quite good.

And quite frankly, I've never felt anything when listening to Fiona Apple or Christina Aguilera, but what Jennifer Hudson did in Dreamgirls made me feel every last ounce of her passion and sadness...

[Okri]

Am I the only one around here who likes Zeta-Jones in Chicago? I found her performance electric, a ferocious star turn -- some said she was merely playing herself, and that indeed may be the case. But if so, it's one of the most perfect fusions of actor and role in the past few years. And her comic timing is hilarious, to boot.

I love it.

(Not that I'd go so far as to say she performed rings around Zellweger, who's also pretty terrific.)

I would - I found Zellweger pretty much unwatchable in that role

[Akash]

Fiona Apple? Really? Well, you just summed up your musical tastes right there. If that's what you consider the epitome of good vocals, I guess there's really nowhere else to go. I can't stand her whiny, preening, vacant voice.

And you just summed up yours as well. There's a diference between pleasant and innocuous and actually conveying something original through subtle inflections and vocal permutations. I also listed Nina Simone but I guess you couldn't come up with a way to deify Hudon against Simone in a way that didn't sound silly

How is the Aguilera comparison not worthy? Other than their reputations (Hudson seen mostly as a good girl, while Aguilera is often labelled a skank) which are filtered through our culture's sexist double standards, and a notion that sex = bad and church = good, other than that they're both pretty much the same in terms of vocal "talent."

[flipp525]

But for the most part not one of them has ever delivered something achingly real through vocals the way say Nina Simone or (to be more contemporary) Fiona Apple has.

Fiona Apple? Really? Well, you just summed up your musical tastes right there. If that's what you consider the epitome of good vocals, I guess there's really nowhere else to go. I can't stand her whiny, preening, vacant voice. And I've never been able to erase the image of her rubbing her face all up and down P.T. Anderson's shoulder when he lost for Magnolia at the Oscars.

I do agree with Anon, that Billie Holiday and Nina Simone, legends in their own right, would not be huge hits today. They were both products of their own time and underappreciated at that. I'd compare Jennifer Hudson more to Mahalia Jackson if you want to go with that time period.

The Christina Aguilera comparison is original but hardly a worthy one.



Edited By flipp525 on 1167936022

[The Original BJ]

Am I the only one around here who likes Zeta-Jones in Chicago? I found her performance electric, a ferocious star turn -- some said she was merely playing herself, and that indeed may be the case. But if so, it's one of the most perfect fusions of actor and role in the past few years. And her comic timing is hilarious, to boot. (Not that I'd go so far as to say she performed rings around Zellweger, who's also pretty terrific.)

Re: Hudson. She doesn't have many award-worthy straight-acting scenes, but it's not like she's incompetent. It's just that her performance doesn't really start to shine until she opens her pipes. (Although one absolutely heartbreaking line has stuck with me: "Am I ugly to you, Curtis?") Still, I must break with the Cult of J. Hud and disagree with those who think Oscar voters' membership should be revoked if they choose anyone else, even in jest. (A friend the other day told me that if Hudson lost the Oscar, there should be rioting in the streets. Um . . .) I like Hudson, but in this year of great supporting females, I can pretty easily accept that someone with very good taste would have a different opinion. (In the same way that, though I'm rooting for Mirren, I still don't like to see her run the boards in a year with so many other wonderful lead actresses.)

I'll save revoking membership for the people who vote for Bobby for Best Picture.

[criddic3]

LOL! Mister Tee, I love that you found a way to tie Catherine Zeta Jones, Bush and LMS together. And of course, I couldn't agree more.

I'm steering clear of this one.

[Anon]

But for the most part not one of them has ever delivered something achingly real through vocals the way say Nina Simone or (to be more contemporary) Fiona Apple has.

Oh no, you didn't, Akash! :p But since you did, I suppose I should respond:

None of these truly fascinating and showy divas (Mariah, J. Hud., Celine, even Whitney) could ever come close to Nina Simone (and of course Billie Holiday is untouchable).

But, let's also be clear: neither Nina Simone or Billie Holiday, were they functioning in today's era of pop divas or razzle-dazzle cinema, would ever have a hit recording. Their raw talent is just too subtle to appreciate (neither was their talent really appreciated in their own time, to be honest - nothing like years and death to bring out your talent, eh?).

So, all this is to say: comparing Jennifer Hudson to a Nina Simone is like comparing apples and oranges. They're both fruits, but they're not really growing on the same tree.

[Akash]

LOL! Mister Tee, I love that you found a way to tie Catherine Zeta Jones, Bush and LMS together. And of course, I couldn't agree more.

Renee Zellwegger is a horrid singer and dancer but she managed to imbue her character with nuance and somehow, despite the limitations of the film, gives a full performance. I didn't like Chicago at all but I thought Zellwegger deserved her nomination. Watching Chicago, I was surprised at how empty and soulless Zeta-Jones was - especially since in some ways she is given a lot more room to be extraordinary.

Hudson similarly is given the MOST room to be extraordinary, but still seems empty to me. I maintain that giving her an Oscar for this role would be like giving Christina Aguilera an Oscar for her false heart tugging and calculated note hitting in "Beautiful."

OG, I know I'm in the minority. It's a position I've become quite used to in America Want more heresy? (And I know Hudson fans will just blow their tops off at this one) I don't even think she's that extraordinary a singer. I think she clearly has a unique set of pipes and can hit a note like nobody's busisness. But I've never found bawling like a banshee a satisfactory replacement for subtlety - or the more intelligent and impressive act of contorting one's vocal delivery to intimate much more than the lyrics ever could. I know I know, she doesn't just bawl in Dreamgirls. But she's from that same school of singing as Celine Dion, Mariah Carey and yes, Christina Aguilera. The one thing these women all have in common is that they're all rather um (sorry there's no better word) simple. I'll give credit where it's due and say that Hudson's "And I'm Telling You" is better than anything the other three women have done. Easily. But for the most part not one of them has ever delivered something achingly real through vocals the way say Nina Simone or (to be more contemporary) Fiona Apple has.

[Penelope]

Catherine Zeta-Jones was entertaining in Chicago but there's no way she deserved to win that year. Julianne Moore's heartbreaking work in The Hours or Meryl Streep's at once hilariously entertaining and emotionally affecting role in Adaptation were both clearly better.

As well as CZJ's Chicago co-star, Queen Latifah.

[flipp525]

I agree with Tee that Rachel Weisz is actually one of the better winners from the last ten years. Personally, I would've voted for Michelle Williams or Amy Adams, but the Weisz victory can hardly be cited as an example of the Academy's bad choices.

Catherine Zeta-Jones was entertaining in Chicago but there's no way she deserved to win that year. Julianne Moore's heartbreaking work in The Hours or Meryl Streep's at once hilariously entertaining and emotionally affecting role in Adaptation were both clearly better.

[Mister Tee]

Not to open a can of worms, but I found nothing near extraoridinary in Catherine Zeta Jones in Chicago. Her dancing was wonderful (from what you can tell through Rob Marshall's rapid editing), but her voice was dull and her acting completely flat and uninteresting. I might call her the worst Supporting Actress of this decade so far, in a category that has given us some wonderful wins (Harden, Blanchett) and some bad ones too (Weisz, Zellwegger).

Well, FilmFan, you had me till Weisz, who's one of my favorite Sup. Actress winners.

But on the main point, I completely agree (as those who were around at the time might remember): I thought Zeta-Jones was a competent singer and dancer, but gave a totally vapid acting performance in Chicago. The notion that she performed rings around Zellweger (who gave, for me, easily the performance of her career) is one of those pieces of conventional wisdom that mystify me -- like, Bush is a likable guy, or Little Miss Sunshine is a delight.

[FilmFan720]

Not to open a can of worms, but I found nothing near extraoridinary in Catherine Zeta Jones in Chicago. Her dancing was wonderful (from what you can tell through Rob Marshall's rapid editing), but her voice was dull and her acting completely flat and uninteresting. I might call her the worst Supporting Actress of this decade so far, in a category that has given us some wonderful wins (Harden, Blanchett) and some bad ones too (Weisz, Zellwegger).

[OscarGuy]

Akash, you're quite a bit in the minority here. She's a great singer. I knew that from Americal Idol, so I was expecting that. The raw power of her performance though IS outstanding. You may disagree with the rest of us, but most of us would say that her performance WHILE singing is quite exceptional.

I think it's head and shoulders above anything done in a musical in decades.

Her acting while outside of singing wasn't the best in the world (early on only, though), but I think combined with her performance during the singing parts it is a stellar performance.

Now, you deride Zeta-Jones as not being a good actress in Chicago. I disagree. It has nothing to do with her superior singing ability. I think she did incredibly well as an actress in the film. Her character was so extraordinarily over the top that she slips quite well into it and gives it every aggressive punch it needs.

[Big Magilla]

The "acting" part of Jennifer Hudson's performance was certainly not great, though I thought she pulled off a pretty natural style. Regardless, her overall PERFORMANCE was pretty extraordinary, IMO, and I will be pleased when she walks off with the Oscar. She performed the hell out of her part, and this is a performance that will be remembered (enthusiastically) for aeons. I would argue that Joel Grey in Cabaret didn't do any extraordinary acting, but it is one of the great screen performances. While Grey's was the performance of a seasoned and polished actor, Hudson's raw performance seemed to come out of nowhere.

I completely agree.

[Akash]

Facile? What was easily done about it?

Facile also means "shallow or superficial, mild or pleasing in manner or disposition" which I think perfectly describes Hudson's performance.

I know we're not going to agree on this flipp and I agree that voters will find her irresistable. But that doesn't say much considering how often the Academy shows lousy taste and a preference for superificial posturing over real acting.

To me Hudson is a pleasant enough distraction but that was not a full peformance. People are responding to the singing which yes okay she has a great set of pipes, but that's really all. I said this in another thread but Hudson winning would be like Catherine Zeta Jones winning for Chicago. Both women are superior in the singing and dancing to their co-stars (how could they not be?) but their performances are limited and yes, facile.

If you want to see what a terrific actress can do in a sillier popcorn film and a less flashy role, look no further than Eva Green in Casino Royale who gave one of the best supporting turns this year. Now THERE'S a performance!