for better or worse, this movie is a generic underdog story.
Wwwooowww... I guess the stuff about the protagonist's determination to end the pattern of black fathers abandoning their children and trying to make it in America despite sociological setbacks went right over your head, huh?
Perhaps you took away from the film what you can identify with, but there's very little that's generic about this story.
i guess i did miss the part where will smith says that he is keeping his kid to buck the racial stereotype. what are you talking about? the actual movie or the real events that led to the movie? i wasnt talking about what i could "identify with" or interpret, but what actually was discussed in the movie. if race was such a major factor why was it completely ignored?
I haven't seen the movie discussed, but its worth noting that a great deal of art never directly addresses the underlying themes - they are implied
It wasn't an overt "race" film, as in, there were no direct confrontations. It was subtle, but still apparent. The reason I was talking about parts you could probably identify with is because there are two layers in the film. The first being similar to what you stated: "the generic underdog story". But for anyone who has a more informed understanding of race in America, there's a second layer. For example: African-Americans are a grand total of 1% of the financial services industry. It's basically a "good ole boys club". I don't expect you or anyone else to know that off the top, but it's a fact (my pops is one of the few). I mean, do you even recall seeing another black person in the Dean Whitter scenes? (That in itself should be a red flag). Knowing something like that adds to the complexity of not only "generic person achieving the American Dream", but breaking down sociological and professional barriers in a racial sense. And to answer your last question, I think, if anything, the race factor was suppressed in the film because most white folks won't pay to see a film primarily dealing with that issue (smart business move). So, I'm not completely disagreeing with your original statement, but a lot of context is removed from the story in your description/interpretation of it. I'm sure Chris Gardner would attest to that, as well.
my point was that they intentionally left race out, despite the fact that it was surely a major factor in gardner's journey. this wasn't a subtle movie by any stretch, so that second layer you refer to was something you had to read into. gardner's bosses were patronizing and his supervisor kept sticking him with shitty erand jobs, but the movie never confronted these things as racism. if they wanted it to be an issue, don't you think gardner would have said at least one word about it (even if it was to himself or his son). as you said, the reason it was left out was probably because they thought a generic underdog story would sell more tickets. i liked the movie and don't need a blockbuster film to teach me a history lesson on the regan era and the lack of opportunities for minorities. this wasn't a film set in 1850 that ignored slavery. it still got a good message across and i assume black people are taking their kids to see this film.
My sister recently agreed to be on the judges panel for the British Academy of Film and Television awards, so I've had the good fortune in the last week of watching recent releases from the comfort of my sister's living room.
I stopped watching Dreamgirls about an hour in. The vocal performances were decent enough, but the absence of 60's/70's production ruined the film for me. That the film was based on a 1981 Broadway show is, IMO, immaterial; making a movie about Motown without Motown production is just silly.
And, although I'm generally a big fan of his, I felt Jamie Foxx's performance in the film was pretty listless.
My sister recently agreed to be on the judges panel for the British Academy of Film and Television awards, so I've had the good fortune in the last week of watching recent releases from the comfort of my sister's living room.
I stopped watching Dreamgirls about an hour in. The vocal performances were decent enough, but the absence of 60's/70's production ruined the film for me. That the film was based on a 1981 Broadway show is, IMO, immaterial; making a movie about Motown without Motown production is just silly.
And, although I'm generally a big fan of his, I felt Jamie Foxx's performance in the film was pretty listless.
my2??
I wouldn't disagree with much said above. Foxx was, by far, the weakest link in the ensemble chain. I also agree with the chorus of criticism that has noted that the show (original and film) has some of the weakest impersonations of "Motown"-style songs you can find anywhere. To be fair though, it's not easy to just knock out a bunch of original Motown-style classics, let alone for Broadway. No excuse for the listlessness of many of the songs though (relative to how great Motown was).
This said - I don't know if the majority of viewers are going to come out of the film with that complaint.
A story about a Black man and his son, suffering under the economic changes of the 1980s, is going to be about race whether the narrative makes it obvious or not. It may not be as racially infused as say, "Do the Right Thing" but that doesn't mean that race isn't an underlying issue.
By the way, since when does "a film about race" have to equal "a film about racism"?
If anything, the fact that the film seems to (as Keith notes) go out of its way from mentioning race/racism only highlights race.
It wasn't an overt "race" film, as in, there were no direct confrontations. It was subtle, but still apparent. The reason I was talking about parts you could probably identify with is because there are two layers in the film. The first being similar to what you stated: "the generic underdog story". But for anyone who has a more informed understanding of race in America, there's a second layer. For example: African-Americans are a grand total of 1% of the financial services industry. It's basically a "good ole boys club". I don't expect you or anyone else to know that off the top, but it's a fact (my pops is one of the few). I mean, do you even recall seeing another black person in the Dean Whitter scenes? (That in itself should be a red flag). Knowing something like that adds to the complexity of not only "generic person achieving the American Dream", but breaking down sociological and professional barriers in a racial sense. And to answer your last question, I think, if anything, the race factor was suppressed in the film because most white folks won't pay to see a film primarily dealing with that issue (smart business move). So, I'm not completely disagreeing with your original statement, but a lot of context is removed from the story in your description/interpretation of it. I'm sure Chris Gardner would attest to that, as well.
my point was that they intentionally left race out, despite the fact that it was surely a major factor in gardner's journey. this wasn't a subtle movie by any stretch, so that second layer you refer to was something you had to read into. gardner's bosses were patronizing and his supervisor kept sticking him with shitty erand jobs, but the movie never confronted these things as racism. if they wanted it to be an issue, don't you think gardner would have said at least one word about it (even if it was to himself or his son). as you said, the reason it was left out was probably because they thought a generic underdog story would sell more tickets. i liked the movie and don't need a blockbuster film to teach me a history lesson on the regan era and the lack of opportunities for minorities. this wasn't a film set in 1850 that ignored slavery. it still got a good message across and i assume black people are taking their kids to see this film.
A story about a Black man and his son, suffering under the economic changes of the 1980s, is going to be about race whether the narrative makes it obvious or not. It may not be as racially infused as say, "Do the Right Thing" but that doesn't mean that race isn't an underlying issue.
By the way, since when does "a film about race" have to equal "a film about racism"?
If anything, the fact that the film seems to (as Keith notes) go out of its way from mentioning race/racism only highlights race.
you guys are tripping!! this movie had every opportunity to at least discuss race or even make it somewhat a part of Gardner's identity (or predicament) but they chose not to. the guy is a mathematical genius but he never went to college? why? all his superiors at and fellow interns are white. all the kids in his sons daycare are minorities. his bosses are condescending in the creepiest way.
the movie skirted around race but dropped enough hints so that critics couldnt accuse the studio of intentionally making it a non-issue. again, this is not a subtle movie. they didn't want it to be about race.
This said - I don't know if the majority of viewers are going to come out of the film with that complaint.
Update: I just read in today's paper - the film earned a 95% favorable rating based on polling after screenings and had the third biggest opening for a Xmas Day release. It could still fizzle (happened to "Ali" and "Rent") but we'll see what happens this weekend.
Comments
I haven't seen the movie discussed, but its worth noting that a great deal of art never directly addresses the underlying themes - they are implied
my point was that they intentionally left race out, despite the fact that it was surely a major factor in gardner's journey. this wasn't a subtle movie by any stretch, so that second layer you refer to was something you had to read into. gardner's bosses were patronizing and his supervisor kept sticking him with shitty erand jobs, but the movie never confronted these things as racism. if they wanted it to be an issue, don't you think gardner would have said at least one word about it (even if it was to himself or his son). as you said, the reason it was left out was probably because they thought a generic underdog story would sell more tickets. i liked the movie and don't need a blockbuster film to teach me a history lesson on the regan era and the lack of opportunities for minorities. this wasn't a film set in 1850 that ignored slavery. it still got a good message across and i assume black people are taking their kids to see this film.
I stopped watching Dreamgirls about an hour in. The vocal performances were decent enough, but the absence of 60's/70's production ruined the film for me. That the film was based on a 1981 Broadway show is, IMO, immaterial; making a movie about Motown without Motown production is just silly.
And, although I'm generally a big fan of his, I felt Jamie Foxx's performance in the film was pretty listless.
my2??
I wouldn't disagree with much said above. Foxx was, by far, the weakest link in the ensemble chain. I also agree with the chorus of criticism that has noted that the show (original and film) has some of the weakest impersonations of "Motown"-style songs you can find anywhere. To be fair though, it's not easy to just knock out a bunch of original Motown-style classics, let alone for Broadway. No excuse for the listlessness of many of the songs though (relative to how great Motown was).
This said - I don't know if the majority of viewers are going to come out of the film with that complaint.
By the way, since when does "a film about race" have to equal "a film about racism"?
If anything, the fact that the film seems to (as Keith notes) go out of its way from mentioning race/racism only highlights race.
you guys are tripping!! this movie had every opportunity to at least discuss race or even make it somewhat a part of Gardner's identity (or predicament) but they chose not to. the guy is a mathematical genius but he never went to college? why? all his superiors at and fellow interns are white. all the kids in his sons daycare are minorities. his bosses are condescending in the creepiest way.
the movie skirted around race but dropped enough hints so that critics couldnt accuse the studio of intentionally making it a non-issue. again, this is not a subtle movie. they didn't want it to be about race.
Update: I just read in today's paper - the film earned a 95% favorable rating based on polling after screenings and had the third biggest opening for a Xmas Day release. It could still fizzle (happened to "Ali" and "Rent") but we'll see what happens this weekend.