Don’t go to the movies much – don’t even watch too many films at home, unfortunately. I’m not sure why this is…but two recent viewings:

After Christmas, when David was here, he and I and Katie went to see Dreamgirls. Mostly because Katie wanted to see it, and at the time, it was being touted as Best Picture material, and David says he has a professional obligation to see all potential award-winners, just to keep up.

I liked what Barbara Nicolosi said about it: "If you like Dreamgirls….then I can you’ll definitely like Dreamgirls."  I was sort of amazed at what a structural and tonal mess it was. Which character’s story was it, anyway? Who could tell? "Plodding" sort of defined it for me, when you think of "plodding" as an image of a crew of folks dutifully marching from the beginning to the predictable end of the story that Must Be Told. The music, as many have noted, was disappointing since it was more Broadway Schmaltz than Motown. Jennifer Hudson, who is drawing raves, doesn’t, I think deserve them. I’m not a professional critic, and I’ve no idea how to describe really good acting, but it seems to me it is somehow reflected in the eyes. An excellent actor has it all together, including the eyes, the parts of the body which do reveal the soul, but which we cannot see ourselve. A lesser actor’s eyes betray, I think, the tiniest bit of distraction, of distance from the part – in the lesser actor’s eyes, we still see the actor, worrying about her presence, her acting – and not the character. That’s what I kept seeing in Jennifer Hudson – her eyes weren’t Effie. They were Jennifer Hudson, a little overwhelmed. And the big showpiece, "And I am Telling You I Am Not Going" – waaaay too much, perhaps inherent in the piece, but just, in the end, stretched to the limit, to the point of unintentional humor, as I sort of envisioned a Saturday Night Life skit (back when it was good. For a season or two. Once.) in my head.

The other recent viewing was Little Miss Sunshine which had all the right ingredients, but just fails pretty miserably. First of all, although the set-up is intriguing – failed Success Guru Dad with his messed-up family, including the child pageant-aspirant on a disastrous road trip – it was just too much to serve as effective satire. Too obvious in the attempted contrasts, like we have to have diagrams drawn for us. And once the journey’s underway, plot moments that disrupt the satiric-realistic tone we’re used to with crude plot machinations (skip to full post in case you want to see it and don’t want to be spoiled)

…first..

1) the Steve Carrell character meeting his old (young) love object and his professional nemesis in a convience store in the middle of Nowhere, Arizona, far away from where any of them lived and worked before the movie started.

2) the smuggling of the dead grandfather.

And, in a big plot point that really bugged Michael…once their bus got to be such a wreck…they could have rented a new vehicle. No, they weren’t rolling in dough, but if they had enough for the trip, they’d have enough to rent a van for 24 hours or so. Yeah, a little point, but one of those things (and Roger Ebert probably has a name for it in his glossary of hoary movie devices and cliches) that bugs because it’s something artificial and unrealistic that exists only to move the plot along. I think they professionals call it "cheating" or some such.

And what about the end? I understand the point – that the little girl’s talent act is intended to be simply a more obvious expression of what the pageant scene is, when you get down to it: exploitation and voyeurism. The images of the little girls all tarted up in their make-up, clothes, strutting about, even in swimsuits seem to shock no one present, but the logical next step – a mock striptease – is met with horror – yes, we get it. But still, we’re left with the image (unseen but understood) of Grandpa Arkin teaching the little girl her burlesque moves. Ew.

There are other problematic elements, but I’m focusing on the level of structure and tone, again. The whole thing was just too forced to be effective, too obvious in the distinctions it was attempting to draw, with some huge, awkward plot machinations that were pure cheat and highly artificial, inauthentic moments penned by writers who were, ironically, aiming their crosshairs at inauthenticity.