For Colored Girls

Tyler Perry’s latest, For Colored Girls, opens to a dancer (Anika Noni Rose) accompanied by a piano and violin. As the dance intensifies we hear snatches of a poem, narrated by each of the main women in the cast as we flash to them at small moments in their lives. It’s not a slight at the film that those five minutes are the most beautiful of it all because there is one inherent problem with For Colored Girls. It’s a musical, but it doesn’t have a score – only lyrics. Someone unfamiliar with Ntozake Shange’s original play would probably find the monologue-breaks jarring, but I’m inclined to think that For Colored Girls deserves the same suspension of belief we give to book-musicals where characters break out (injudiciously it seems, sometimes) into song. The very fact that Perry takes a collection of soliloquies and turns them into a cohesive drama is praiseworthy enough, but For Colored Girls manages to transcend his earlier work – unevenly, but still not without a payoff.

There’s always an issue with films that decide to tackle ensembles in the way that For Colored Girls attempts to. A group of unrelated people need to have a connection to make an ensemble work – sometimes the vignettes are broadly painted, I’m not a fan of Crash but I’ll admit that the linking of the stories is easily its strongest attribute. And for Tyler Perry, For Colored Girls could claim that strength too, for the most part. The segues in the first half work beautifully, as Anika Noni Rose’s dancer just happens to make a donation after receiving a pamphlet on religion from Whoopi Goldberg’s charlatan. It’s those light connections that make buoy the realism. The ironic thing is, as the film develops in the second half and the characters have reasons to interact the film begins to get a little disingenuous. The first half, the rising action, is beautifully orchestrated but there’s something about the fall that feels inadequate. The thing is, the screenplay is simultaneously responsible for helping the film and damaging it. But I’ll be Perry’s champion and say that it never reaches the depths of horror that he always ends up being connected with. It’s not praise to say that Perry is far from the worse director, but I have a feeling general prejudices prevents the average critic from seeing For Colored Girls with an unbiased vision. There are moments of uncertainty, but just as quickly as he’ll fall into a rote choice he’ll surprise you with something poignant.

But it’s the performances that are the true treasure of For Colored Girls. It makes you realise just how many talented black women are lacking roles. She doesn’t get the strongest role, and she doesn’t deliver the strongest performances but I was entranced by Anika Noni Rose who has such a winning charm that I’m confused as to why she’s not in more movies. Theatrical would be a word to describe her, and it makes me think of all the performances. For some reason theatrical has imprudently become a synonym for melodrama. Inaccurate. What’s more, theatrical doesn’t mean “bad”. For Colored Girls is theatrical – and so is life at times. The monologues reach greater importance because the voices of these women is literally what defines them. It’s no surprise then that Loretta Devine* with her potently “theatrical” (interpret it as you will) delivers the strongest monologue, even if her character is painted in the broadest strokes. That final scene is jarring, but like the entire film its root is in the women it portrays and there’s something about the melange of talent there that’s difficult to resist. It’s foolish to accuse For Colored Girls of seeing one side of the story when it immediately tells you it does. It’s not that movie is only for “colored girls”, but the story is theirs....and what a story it is.

B- (the Acting: A, the writing: B-, the direction, C/C+, MVP: Thandie Newton)

       

*A/N: I find it vaguely interesting that Loretta Devine played Lorrel Robinson in the Original Broadway Production of “Dreamgirls”, the role Anika Noni Rose recreated on film.

Everyone's A Little Bit Racist

With all the recent [and deafening] buzz surrounding the prospective chances of Precious taking home a crap load of prizes at next year’s Oscars I couldn’t help but assess the cultural implications of a potential win for the film. There are two things I’ve been hearing about for ages since I’ve been taking notice of that guy called Oscar. One is that Oscar is homophobic. Two, Oscar is racist. I'm not gay, so I can’t fairly assess the former. But as a black person I’ll look at the latter.

It is a fact that the number of black persons who have been Oscar winners and nominees is a small fraction of the white winners and nominees but I don’t see how this is proof of the Academy’s racism. I’ve heard the fact that losses of Eddie Murphy, Whoopi Goldberg, Cicely Tyson, Viola Davis, Angela Bassett and countless others are all proof that Oscar hates the blacks. But as a black person myself, I really don’t see how this claim can be substantiated. The number of black actors (directors, writers etc) is much smaller than the number of whites. There is a reason that black people are regarded as a minority in America. And notwithstanding, if it comes down to two performances of equal merit, should Oscar reward the black person just because they’re black?

                   

Writing this, the topic of Denzel Washington came to mind. I don’t like him much. The guy has two Oscars, he’s a good box office draw and he’s well liked and famous. When I told this to a classmate of mine that I didn’t like him [but liked Pitt, Depp, etc] she said I was a racist – yes I’m black. But my dislike of Washington has nothing to do with his race. If for some inexplicable reason I was contestant on Jeopardy and for some reason Alex Trebeck’s clue was “The white Denzel Washington” I’d promptly answer Tom Hanks. I don’t like him either. The two actors are different sides of the same coin for me. Both are popular, two Oscars each, and bland as far as I’m concerned. But at least Washington stars in good films. Most of the time, at least. Which I can't really say for many black actors.

Isn’t the lack of blacks at the Oscars a reflection of lack of substantial good performances? Sure, Oscar isn’t omniscient and we don’t always agree with some of the choices that they make but I can’t remember when a film or actor has been snubbed completely for being black – I can’t remember it seeming like that either. And no, Dreamgirls cannot be an example. Yes Condon and Company [mainly white] were snubbed in the main categories, but Hudson [who was less deserving that Condon and Co. would have been] was nominated and went on to win. And if we’re going to talk about Dreamgirls being snubbed despite a mass of nods what of They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? or The Poseidon Adventure or even The Dark Knight. They each earned multiple nods with no correlating best picture nod. Nothing to do with being black.

                           

Precious isn’t at the top of my list as far as the possible Oscar contenders I’m yet to see goes but I wouldn’t grudge it if it wins. But I hope it doesn’t win it doesn’t turn into a march against Oscar’s racism. Who knows? Maybe, I’ll see it and think it’s perfect but perfection doesn’t always win. So I wouldn’t throw the race factor into it. To be honest though, all the recent buzz for it has made me hope it doesn’t win the Oscar. This reminds of last year when in the thunderous rise of Obama I was hoping that Hillary  Clinton would pull an upset. Not only because she turned into the underdog, but I just liked her more. I remember people saying I was a bad black person. Obama's black, a win for him would be historic etc, etc,  so I should like him. But I’ve never been one to defend something based on race. But the whole issue has become somewhat exacerbated by the comment I read where someone said that you should like Precious because it’s excellent and if you don’t you’re a racist.

                      

I mean, WTF? But who knows? Maybe I’m racist. What do you think?