Saturday, February 25, 2006

Big Momma and Madea

Does it disturb anyone else that there are two movies out (Big Momma's House 2 and Madea's Family Reunion) featuring black men masquerading as heavyset older black women? What is this about?

I didn't see Big Momma's House (and I'm planning not to). I did see, Diary of a Mad Black Woman, which is where the character "Madea" (a bastardization of "My Dear") originated. The latter film was an adaptation of Tyler Perry's "chitlin' circuit" stage play. (Perry is a wonder--he's produced, written and directed several plays with Madea and made a ton of money doing it. HIs acting isn't bad either.)

There is a difference. In Big Momma's House, the masquerade is part of the plot. The man playing Big Momma knows he is a man. I'm assuming this is the less interesting film because such impersonations as plot devices are tiresome (Mrs. Doubtfire, anyone? In fact, I under stand that in the sequel, Big Momma poses as a nanny!)

The Madea character is a woman, not a man in drag. The actor playing Madea is a man. As far as the plot is concerned, Madea is a woman.

I'm just wondering why there are no black women who can play these parts--or at least Madea's part. And why are men originating the characters? Are they vaguely reminiscent of Hattie McDaniel's mammy from Gone with the Wind? Maybe. That character was subservient (but she was a servant), almost childlike creature--though she was superior to many of those around her. Madea, at least, is a confident, funny, self-reliant woman. She is a caretaker and she also knows her own mind. She was one of the best things about Diary of a Mad Black Woman, since the main plot was pure wish-fulfillment fantasy.

Now Madea gets her own movie. Good for her/him, I guess.



Here are my impressions of Diary of a Mad Black Woman, which I saw almost exactly a year ago today:

DMBW is an adaptation, by the original author, of a very popular play on the “chitlin’ circuit.” These are broad morality plays aimed at an African-American audience. Indeed, that is the audience that was drawn to the movie theater. Union Station has the only theater in NE DC, and usually has a high percentage of African-Americans in attendance, but for this film, I was the only white person in the audience. I’ve been the only white person on the bus in DC many times, but in the movie theater? This was a unique experience. I also did not seem to be the only solo viewer of the film. The audience had the full age range, and there were quite a few men, but there were also a large number of African-American women “of a certain age” on their own or in groups.

How was the film? It was maudlin and funny and sweet. The subplots were more compelling than the main story, whose characters and actions were cut out of cardboard. I can’t really recommend this picture, but it was entertaining. Some of it was very, very funny. The Christianity was heavy—but also realistic. The best outcome for heroine could only be achieved if she got divorced and forgave her ex-husband. (Guess what happened?) The audience was into it, yelling advice at the heroine, deriding some of her decisions and hollering approval at others. They laughed, they commented, they were part of the show. It is my understanding that the same thing happens at live performances on the chitlin’ circuit. Actually, the hootin’ and hollerin’ phenomenon is common at Union Station, and I have friends who refuse to go there for just that reason. As long as you are prepared for it, it’s fine. For DMBW, it was completely appropriate—perhaps it was the whole point.

Monday, February 20, 2006

Transamerica (2005)

Written and Directed by Duncan Tucker

Partial cast
Felicity Huffman......Bree Osbourne
Kevin Zegers.............Toby

I was planning to see something else, but ended up at Transamerica. I figured I'd be getting one more off of my Oscar ™hit list, so that was something. Felicity Huffman grabbed a best actress nomination for her portrayal of a pre-operative male-to-female transsexual. Given that Huffman has a kind of ugly/pretty face to begin with she's probably a good choice, looks-wise, for this part. She is also a good actress, Desperate Housewives notwithstanding.

Was it a good movie? I'm torn. A lot of it was forced and stilted. A lot of it was sweet and good natured. It didn't shy away from some real ugliness (drug addiction, sexual abuse). It didn't try to pretty things up. Yet, the mostly happy ending was perhaps a little too easy. The transformation, of the heroine, a literal and emotional one, came a little too easy.

I have no idea if Huffman's performance was believable. I haven't met any pre-op transsexuals (at least to my knowledge) so I have no frame of reference. I suppose I would cheer more if I saw a man take on this role, but it's a casting dilemma. I keep thinking of John Lithgow in The World According to Garp. He was a very masculine post-op transsexual. I don't remember if I found him convincing in the role, but it sure made a lot more sense.

Nevertheless, Huffman does a good job. And the costume designer was brilliant. Only a man would think that those outfits were something a woman would wear. Like with transvestites in show-girl-esque drag, Huffman's outfits are a hyper-feminized version of how even a prissy woman would dress. The only colors on display were violet, pink and purple. Oh my. And the shoes! Hilariously ridiculous.

Kevin Zegers, who plays her son, was good. Handsome, awkward and conniving. He was convincing too.

I don't know. This was a sweet bit of nothing built on a very ugly foundation. Guess you can turn anything into pap if you try hard enough. Ouch. I guess I didn't like it that much. Still, it was not boring and I enjoyed watching it. I give a lukewarm recommendation.

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Something New (2006)

Directed by Sanaa Hamri

Writing credits
Kriss Turner

Partial cast
Sanaa Lathan....Kenya McQueen
Simon Baker.....Brian

While this is technically a romantic comedy, it takes serious aim at racial issues. Which is good. A good romance needs a little conflict, and while this conflict is easily resolved, it is real and interesting. Interesting because I think that it is not confronted very often in film.

A fellow blogger had a great post about why this movie is particularly meaningful for black women. I'd say it's just as important for the rest of us--the movie does a great job of showing why interracial romance is difficult. It's not just because family and friends aren't accepting and night club comedians take pot shots at you--though that doesn't help. The real problems is that it's almost impossible for a white person to understand the casual and overt racism a black person faces in her day-to-day life.

The story is a simple boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-gets-girl plot. Simon Baker does a fine job despite some unforgivably stiff lines. The effort to make him seem artistic and sensitive as a contrast to Kenya's (Sanaa Lathan) buttoned-up accountant sometimes fell flat--his dialogue needed some work. But, it wasn't hard to buy. The falling in love happened rather too quickly, but it was a slow process in movie-time. It was in the believable realm.

The losing of the girl happens because the boy won't listen to her frustrated complaints about how hard it is for her to advance in the corporate world because she is black (though she does advance). He is tired and doesn't want to hear it. He accuses her of having an ideal man in mind (an "Ideal Black Man" or IBM as Kenya's friends refer to him) and points out that he will never measure up. And they are kaput--at least temporarily.

It is one of the most believable movie breakups I can remember. The substance of their argument is so real. It's not fun to watch (a tiny bit of humor is thrown in to ease the viewer), but you can't blame either one--they both have legitimate points and either one of them could have given. The resolution to their problem takes a little time to roll around, not that you don't see it coming a mile away. It's rather sweet that Kenya's friends and family are won over in the end--it's more important to them that she's happy than that she marry a black man. And they let her know that it's ok to choose love. It's really very sweet.

So, besides liking romantic comedies, I also really like the male lead in this film. At least I thought I did. I used to watch this little show called The Guardian starring Simon Baker. I loved Simon Baker. Now, I think I loved his character on that show. On the show, he was brooding, unhappy, unavailable, tormented. He was a bad man trying very hard to be good. Sometimes he succeeded, but often he backslid.

In Something New, Brian (Simon Baker) is sweet and open. He's rather more blonde and blue-eyed than I recalled. It's not that he's not loveable, but I didn't love him anymore. Who knew I preferred tortured, lost souls to contented, self-assured ones? Uh, me and everyone I know, that's who.

Saturday, February 04, 2006

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Directed by Ang Lee

Writing credits
Annie Proulx (short story)
Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana (screenplay)

Partial Cast
Heath Ledger....Ennis Del Mar
Jake Gyllenhaal....Jack Twist

I have to agree with everyone that this is a good movie, but I'm not sure I would recommend it.

It certainly was a well made movie. The photography is among the most gorgeous I've seen in recent memory. It almost touches the graceful vistas of Days of Heaven. The opening scene of a wind battered tiny, empty western town is so beautifully framed that it makes the ugliness--the rusted trucks and dumpy buildings--seem beautiful.

The pacing of the film is also excellent. One of the hardest things to do in a film is convey the passage of time. At least a third of the film is devoted to one summer. The rest of the movie spans almost 20 years. Yet you are always situated in time. It's not always subtle, but it's clear and believable. (Some may quibble with the make-up used to age the actors. I admit that in the scene where Jake Gyllenhaal appeared with an obviously fake moustache and a tiny gut, I couldn’t suppress a twitter. Heath Ledger's make up was much better.)

The acting is very good all around. Heath Ledger is so good that he almost made me cry before I even knew there was anything to be sad about. I didn't love Jake Gyllenhaal as much, but his character, Jack Twist, isn't as likeable--his acting was just as fine. The women in the supporting roles are also quite good. And the folks who play Jake's elderly parents are totally believable.

So how was the film? Sad. When it ended, I remarked to one of my companions that I thought I would just go ahead and kill myself now. It was all hopeless and completely believable. Those people were so stuck, not just because of society, but because of their own beliefs...I just found it incredibly disheartening. And sad, terribly sad.

The scenery is gorgeous, the filmmaking is high quality and the acting first rate. Should you see it? I don't know. Can you handle the saddest little movie in the world? I sure couldn't. And I don't know that I learned anything either--gay men face prejudice? I knew that. They sometimes cause their own problems by not coming out of the closet? Check. Sometimes the consequences of coming out of the closest are dire? Check. Sometimes coming out is not an option.

But the movie is not trying to teach you those lessons. You need to understand that stuff to know why these two star-crossed lovers are, in fact, star-crossed. But even in Romeo and Juliet there is a sense of "if only." If only Romeo waited a few minutes longer for Juliet to wake up, if only their families weren't so stupid...if only.

In Brokeback Mountain, there was no "if only." Well, if only those fellas had lived in New York City, they might have lived happily ever after. Except these were two cowboys who never would have been happy living in the city. Except they both wanted families. There wasn't that much "if only," which is why it made me so sad. I guess I need a little ray of hopefulness in my hopeless love stories or I'd rather not watch.

The moral? I can't handle sad movies anymore. Bring on the light, preferably romantic, comedy.