|
I'm a big fan of Ray Charles' music, and when I first saw the trailer
for his film I was excited I have to admit simply because this man was a
force to be reckoned with in any form in the light of day. When I was a
kid I mostly connected his appearance to the Pepsi commercials I really
got a kick out of, but when I grew, I learned more about his
music and learned that, unlike a majority of soul artists today, he was
a real musician and innovator. This was a man who took the limits of his
skin color that kept him down at the time along with his disability and
used it to his advantage with his pure musical genius, his ability to
reach beyond the musical genre and discover all sorts of facets of music
experimenting. He was a true singer and pianist. However it took time
for the idiots at Hollywood to come to the realization that a Charles
bio-pic was potential gold as this was a troubled project for years, and
director Hackford had been developing this film since 1987, as the
producers had a hard time finding a studio to finance the project, who
felt Charles wasn't good enough to have for a feature film and wanted to
reduce this mans story to Television movie fodder.
"Ray" once again proved he had power,
and showed that the studios are relatively clueless as the "gamble" paid
off with numerous Oscar nominations, a win for Foxx, good box office,
and rave reviews. As for the film whether it was worth the gamble, that
would be a yes. The film directed by Taylor Hackford is a bittersweet
inspiring tale of Ray Charles' life, love,
and struggle with drug abuse. Charles played by Jamie Foxx in an amazing
performance, is portrayed with the humanity and flaws that give this
film the reality it needs and never pulls back. Charles himself picked
Foxx after a rigorous test of piano skills and approved him personally,
and the film manages to convey all of Foxx' skill in its entirety. Ray
was a
pioneer who innovated in jazz, r&b, gospel and made his way despite two
handicaps of the time, his skin color and his blindness, this film
demonstrates his sheer genius for innovating such music making him into
a legend that would be admired for decades.
Charles was a musician, clear and
simple and the film examines both the man behind the music and the man
with enough balance to make this film exceptional. Foxx embodies Charles
with all his mannerisms, and idiosyncrasies and gives a truly good
performance for a well deserved Oscar. The film itself glosses over the
mild details but focuses on more of the moments of Ray's life which had
more impact that led to his transformation of a musician and of the man
he eventually became as he got older, and all of it is given here from
his experiments in other music to his willingness to take control, and
setting the stage for many other singers of his kind. The movie has a
strong feminine theme that's
present throughout the story. The real soul of the film lies within the
women in Ray's life, all of which are played with great performances by
some talented actresses. For some true examples on good performances
that went un-credited look to three actresses that pulled in some great
performances one of whom being Sharon Warren as Ray's tough and
strict mother who teaches her son to face his disability and survive.
She's powerful in her performance and
sets the stage for many of Ray's strengths with his disability. Another
one of the strong performances that went un-credited was the
performance from Kerry Washington who plays Charles' first wife. She
often becomes the moral center of his life that he has struggles keeping
in tact throughout his life, but he can't help being human. She's a
devoted center in Charles' life despite his infidelity to her and
obvious infidelity at that, and often times becomes the reasons his
infidelity fails because
of his undying devotion to her. The best aspect of the film though is
the presentation of Regina King's talents in her excellent performance
as Ray's lover and long time back up singer Margie Hendricks. Her
performance in here is so good, and she was so un-credited this year it
was criminal. Couldn't at least have given her a nomination, come on!
She's
definitely going to get one very soon. King is great here and often
times very charismatic when she's not even trying to be and I enjoyed
her presence on screen when she was bickering back and forth with
Charles.
Along with the strong female theme,
Hackford manages to bring about some truly memorable sequences including
the climax, and--my favorite sequence of the movie--the origin of my
favorite Charles song "What I'd Say", it's an excellent sequence which
gave me
goose bumps because as many fans know the song was created on the spot
when Ray had to kill time after he played a short gig. Its a great
sequence Hackford appropriately milks and the pay off was enormous for
me. This is a very memorable and probably one of the more epic biography
pictures of the last century.
As I mentioned, I'm a big fan of Ray Charles, I love a lot of his songs,
so you can imagine how much of a crushing blow this was when I bought
into the hype for this film when people declared it as a masterpiece and
it with all the nominations and the big win for best actor in its
corner, I inevitably bought into that this may be one of the best films
I'd see in two years, and you can imagine how much of a crushing blow it
was for me when I discovered, this was good -- but not great, watchable,
but nothing to really get into a fit over, and, of course the fact that
I wasn't overwhelmed once during the film, not in its concept, plot,
acting and basically any other facet of the story. I have to be
overwhelmed to consider a movie a masterpiece, and it just wasn't
working with me in the long run.
It's a good film, but hardly what I'd
consider the standard for a masterpiece. Basically, what really griped
me about the film in particular and kept me focusing on the positives
was the fact that this was just so manipulative with the audiences
emotions, first in its story primarily and the way it sets it all up
basically negating the true experience of what emerged through Charles'
life, but instead the screenwriters tend to focus on the dramatic
Hollywood-ized aspects of the story with the death of Charles brother,
and his often weird flashes in which he envisions he's in water reaching
for his brother who tragically drowned
in a bathtub. Most of everything in this film didn't feel genuine, it
just felt like it was reaching for the audience to cry and to get us to
sympathize without any real sentiment behind it.
I wasn't buying a lot of the things
that they were trying to pull on us and often times I inadvertently
found myself rolling my eyes. But the touches that were obviously put in
by
Hollywood for dramatic effect often never worked. It's alluded the death
of Charles' brother added to his blindness, his mom's face constantly
flashing in his mind to never forget his roots while he comes near
selling out, and so on that it just wasn't clicking with me at all. Not
to mention this can tend to be surprisingly cheesy at certain points of
the story,
including when Ray finally gets a hit with "What I'd Say", and suddenly
we see people enjoying it including white kids in a beach dancing to it
which I found really corny, and not to mention Ray's "supposed"
invention of "Hit the Road, Jack" which was not only stupid, but I just
couldn't help rolling my eyes with, and often times the flashbacks with
his mom and brother are too visual and emotionally manipulative for us
to actually jerk a tear for. Ultimately, I was under-whelmed immensely
and sorely disappointed.
I wanted excellent, but I got just mediocre, and that's okay because
this is a good film despite its many flaws. And in spite of it being a rigid
story, it's still well acted with some amazing performances from Foxx,
Washington, and King along with great direction and killer music.

|