Oscars mystery: Can 'Dreamgirls' win best picture?
Officially, "Dreamgirls" is now a box-office hit that'll probably earn more than $100 million, which is the magic number movies usually need to surpass in order to win the Oscar for best picture.
So now we must ask: Can it really win?
There are two ominous omens opposing it. The first is a lack of major support from print journos. "Dreamgirls" is missing from the ranks of many key lists of Top 10 Films of 2006 — not cited by the New York Times, Time, Entertainment Weekly, Hollywood Reporter and Chicago Sun-Times (Richard Roeper), for example. Reviews have been good-to-excellent (scoring 76 at Metacritic.com), just not consistent, scream-from-the-rooftop raves like you see for "The Departed" (85 score) and "Letters from Iwo Jima" (91) — two serious "Dreamgirls" rivals. That's typical, though. More than 85 percent of leading film critics are guys, more than two-thirds of whom are straight. Testosterone usually blinds them and they get caught up in a game of macho swagger that's hilarious to watch when you see them gabbing at industry events. Sissy movies are not only dismissed, but pummeled like school kids by bullies. The critics' cocky strutting gets so out of hand that female critics start straining the hardest of all just to fit in. Sometimes even the gay boys, desperate for social approval, betray their own, but not always. Psychologists could have a field day analyzing the ridiculous dynamic of the phenom.
When that phenom occurs, it doesn't mean that the male-dominated Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences will follow suit. Often, they'll break and go their own way, if they become suckers for a film's emotionalism. It's curious how one male-dominated group (Oscar voters) can differ so significantly from another (film critics). The reason has to do with proportion, methinks (about a third of Oscar voters are women — a much-higher percentage than among critics), and age. Oscar voters are north of 50 years old. They're head-strong geezers who aren't afraid to break from the hormonal frenzy of young gangs. They have the wisdom of age, they don't confuse romantic yearnings with weakness and they appreciate sentiment, especially if it's selling well at the box office.
Support is not just weak among some U.S. print journalists, but some foreign ones, too. That's really strange, because Golden Globe voters usually side with Oscar voters when the academy breaks from the critics' consensus. At the Globes, Bill Condon isn't nominated for best director or screenplay. When you ask HFPA members why, you hear awkward mumbo-jumbo about how they like the performances in "Dreamgirls," but not the aesthetic execution of the film. I don't buy the sincerity of that response, frankly. It's clear from the looks on their faces that some HFPA members just don't want to like it. That was obvious while seeing them at the special screening of a 20-minute preview at the Pacific Design Center in Los Angeles back in September. Before and afterward, I heard many of them grousing in the lobby about how they don't expect "Dreamgirls" to do well overseas, which matters to them a lot, being foreign journalists.
Or was their grousing a tribal response by mostly white people? This is the most difficult question of all to ask this awards season, but it's the key point. As one of Hollywood's top studio chiefs told me a few weeks ago, "Brokeback Mountain" lost the Oscar for best picture last year because of anti-gay prejudice. Not hatred. Hollywood is obviously a gay-friendly place. It's just that voters — the vast majority of whom are straight, of course — didn't see it as their film. The same thing could happen with "Dreamgirls" among the mostly white voters — let's be honest. They might like the film, but pull back a bit emotionally from it because they don't feel like they belong amidst an all-black cast. Let's not forget how, up until the recent joint wins by Denzel Washington and Halle Berry, only one African-American ever won a lead-acting Oscar: Sidney Poitier ("Lilies of the Field"). No all-black film has ever won best picture. One all-black film is tied as the biggest loser in Oscar history ("The Color Purple").
But Golden Globe voters picked "Brokeback Mountain" last year and they'll probably, despite some reservations, give "Dreamgirls" their award for best musical/comedy picture this year. Successful musicals usually win that category and chances are voters will want to acknowledge its importance in Yankee pop culture. Its only threat is "Borat" and voters can pay off that film in the best-actor race, giving Sacha Baron Cohen a separate chunk of gold.
When Globe and Oscar voters break from the macho groupthink of America's gritty print journos, we often see a sneak peek of that at the Critics' Choice Awards, which are bestowed by members of the Broadcast Film Critics Association. They're mostly TV journalists who don't always goose-step with the mean print boys — they tend to be more in line with Oscar and Globe voters. This year they put "Dreamgirls" on their list of Top 10 films. "The Departed" and "Iwo Jima" are there, too, but what's important is they didn't shut out "Dreamgirls."
"Dreamgirls" is also on the Top 10 List of the American Film Institute, which occasionally breaks with the critics' gangs. If one of those rare splits is coming between tough critics and academy members, we need to see it happen here first. But "Dreamgirls" made this list.
There's another key sign that academy members feel differently about "Dreamgirls" — that, in fact, they love it. It's a story about showbiz, after all, and it's getting the most enthusiastic responses of all 2006 films from audiences at academy screenings. And, happily, many film critics love it, too. Most important of all is Kenneth Turan of the L.A. Times, who wrote: "'Dreamgirls' is the entire musical package, a triumph of old school on-screen glamour, and we wouldn't want it any other way." It got one of the best rave reviews from the New Yorker, which declared that "a great movie musical has been made at last."
In the big Oscar picture, "Dreamgirls" will probably have another plus — the most Academy Award nominations, which usually foretells the best-picture champ. Over the past 20 years, the movie with the most bids has won best picture 16 times. The exceptions: In 1991, "The Silence of the Lambs" (7 noms) beat "Bugsy" (10), "JFK" (8) and "The Prince of Tides" (7). In 2001, "A Beautiful Mind" (8) beat "Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring" (13), At the 2004 derby, "Million Dollar Baby" (7) beat "The Aviator" (11). At the 2005 race, "Crash" (6) upset "Brokeback Mountain" (8).
"Dreamgirls" could get 13: best picture, directing, writing, supporting actor (Eddie Murphy), supporting actress (Jennifer Hudson), art direction, cinematography, costumes, film editing, sound editing and mixing, and song ("Listen," "I Love You, I Do").
That doesn't mean that "Dreamgirls" will win, but it'll get a fair shot. Right now it's enjoying the spotlight of success, but part of that will wear off in weeks ahead as initial excitement levels off.
Then we can expect renewed surges for its chief rivals after "The Departed" wins best drama picture at the Globes and sentiment builds for Marty Scorsese to win his overdue Oscar for best director. Remember, that award usually pairs off with best picture. Historically, anyway. The voting pattern has split over the past six years. Three times the two awards have lined up and three times they haven't. The fact that there's a strong pull toward Scorsese right now signifies a pulling away from "Dreamgirls'" Bill Condon and therefore, maybe, "Dreamgirls."
There will also be a tugging away from "Dreamgirls" in favor of rewarding Clint Eastwood for taking a bold artistic chance with "Letters from Iwo Jima," which seems very different, very special.
"Dreamgirls" might fend off such tugs. The last musical to win best picture managed to do so — "Chicago" — when voters wished to reward an overdue director (Roman Polanski).
But — hmmmm — can "Dreamgirls"?
There's a big, perhaps crucial difference between these two musicals. "Chicago" had a strong heterosexual vibe. Man-hungry Catherine Zeta-Jones seduced Oscar voters with a naughty wink and a wiggle of naked thigh. Its story line was rather macho as it invited viewers to cheer on characters to get away with murder. "Dreamgirls," by contrast, features pretty gals in pretty dresses, but in a camp way, making it a gay man's dream. Uh-oh. Too "Brokeback Mountain"?





No mystery about it. The Departed was better, and I'm a huge fan of this movie, but it ain't winning Best Picture. Supporting Actress and Actor, Original Song, Art Direction, Costumes, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing...much more likily.
Posted by: sam coffey | December 27, 2006 at 07:46 PM
"Testosterone usually blinds them and they get caught up in a game of macho swagger that's hilarious to watch when you see them gabbing at industry events."
Truer words have never been spoken. It's the only reason I think movies like The Departed and Letters from Iwo Jima are getting rave reviews when they're not even top of their respective genres.
Posted by: EDouglas | December 27, 2006 at 07:18 PM
DREAMGIRLS is the best movie of the year. And it completely deserves to win Best Picture at the Oscars.
At this point in time, it will in my opinion, win the following Oscars:
Best Picture
Best Supporting Actress (Jennifer Hudson)
Best Supporting Actor (Eddie Murphy)
Best Art Direction
Best Cinematography
Best Sound Mixing
Best Song (Listen)
Posted by: Mark | December 27, 2006 at 06:55 PM
As of this year, the Oscars are a joke. Twice the bigotry with only half the ethics and integrity.
Posted by: coyote | December 27, 2006 at 05:34 PM
Man, I am getting so tired of The Envelope writing about and praising Dreamgirls and nothing else. It is so obvious the bias that the Envelope has for this film. There are way too many stories about it being amazing, but there is hardly ever any recognition for the fact that is has barely won any precursor awards, other than supporting actress. In fact, I don't remember it finishing in the top 3 in any precursor award race for best film. I'm sure it's a decent film, but it seems like this site is almost part of its Oscar campaign. Why not a story on "Can 'The Departed' win best pic" or "Can 'The Queen' win best picture," etc.
Posted by: Jeff | December 27, 2006 at 04:10 PM
Jack Sparrow,
Brokeback was a MACHO gay pic -- about cowboys, starring str8 guys faking the gay stuff without nude scenes, etc. When it started winning festival awards like Venice, it became the cool art-house pic and one the macho str8 critics could back. Had it been too sissy or featured real gay actors, they nevah woulda backed it. Nevah.
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | December 27, 2006 at 03:11 PM
Last night, my wife and I had the opportunity to see Dreamgirls and I was absolutely blown away by the performances of all of the actors in the movie. Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy were incredible in their portrayal. I truly believe their performances are Oscar caliber. I also believe Jamie Foxx performance was key in keeping the movie moving. Obviously, the character was not of the same depth as his characterization or Ray Charles a couple of years ago; but strong never the less. I am a average movie viewer and I don't understand the debate about certain groups of people favoring a movie (whether they are heterosexual or homosexual or whether the cast is all black or all white). Can we the American public simply judge a movie for its content and not make it a divisive agrument? I enjoy a good movie; regardless of the ethnic makeup of the cast. I believe Dreamgirls should be considered for best picture.
Posted by: Reggie | December 27, 2006 at 02:18 PM
One part of this blog doesn't make sense. You chastise print journalists and critics groups for being too hetero, yet the majority of them awarded Brokeback Mountain last year. 12 months earlier, you wouldn't have been charging that "testosterone blinds them."
Posted by: Jack Sparrow | December 27, 2006 at 01:24 PM
I think in a way DREAMGIRLS is the underdog this year. It has a tough battle to fight. PERHAPS more so than LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE...?
For Picture, Dgirls has to fight LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA and THE DEPARTED (and also the real underdog LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, but note above).
For Director, Dgirls has to battle Clint TWICE and also Frears.
The Screenplay battle is just as fierce as Director.
I think the only lock for a WIN for Dgirls is for Song, "Listen."
Posted by: Andrew | December 27, 2006 at 01:09 PM
It's true that unlike Dreamgirls Chicago does not have any scenes of two people singing love songs to one another but Chicago was still a musical with Razzle Dazzle being popular song from it.
Posted by: Brian | December 27, 2006 at 12:14 PM
Good Lord is Oprah God Almighty? Is Oprah the final say on anything in life...get real people! Dreamgirls will get its due because it's a well made pic and musical pic at that, fine performances, production, and is doing well at the B.O. which is too hard for Academy members to ignore. Even if it's not an across-the board critics darling, its chances of getting nominated or winning Best Picture is still strong. Let's remember the sappy, hokey but visual effects grandeur and B.O. boffo TITANIC won over the critically acclaimed and darling L.A. Confidential. So far Letters From Iwo Jima is the critics darling but the Academy will more than likely go with a safer box office friendly film instead because Iwo Jima is a foreign film and way too bold for the Academy's taste...Otherwise either THE DEPARTED OR DREAMGIRLS will be the safer bet for Best Picture or maybe even THE QUEEN. BABEL like LETTERS will suffer the same fate. And if Clint Eastwood doesn't get the Best Director win, then it will definitely be Marty...why? because he's long overdue like Mr. O'Toole and it will be for sentimental reasons...THE DEPARTED is not Marty's strongest film or for that matter one of his best...it's good but not great.
Posted by: Frankie R. | December 27, 2006 at 11:22 AM
I just saw "Dreamgirls" and thought it was excellent. The film moved fast and was exciting. My question is, on Oprah and other shows that have shown scenes, they always show the scene with Jamie Foxx in bed with Jennifer Hudson. There was no such scene in the film that I saw today. Does anyone know why?
Posted by: Larry | December 27, 2006 at 10:47 AM
Entertainment journalists talk things to death. DREAMGIRLS is a case in point, or musicals in general. The more they blab about musicals as being gay, or that audiences aren't able to comprehend why characters 'break into song,' the more audiences start believing it. They don't help struggling genres at all. Gays like musicals, but SO DO MOST OTHER PEOPLE. Hell, the most popular movies from the 30s on through to the 70s were musicals. Was everyone gay back then? And as for 'breaking into song,' what is hard to get about that? If you're going to a musical, you know that people will sing and dance. If you go to a sci-fi or fantasy movie, you know that special effects will be front and center in telling the story. Journalists need to treat readers with more respect. People are pretty smart, actually. And as far as DREAMGIRLS, it was fun. ANYONE would enjoy it. I hope it gets the nominations and kudos it deserves.
Posted by: Bill F | December 27, 2006 at 10:40 AM
Umm, Daniel...I don't know what planet you're on.
Look at this point, Dreamgirls has a lot against it. Jennifer Hudson and Eddie Murphy will probably get awards, but as far as the Best Pic, it looks like all eyes are on The Departed. Now what will save Dreamgirls is Oprah and her magic touch. Seriously it will
Posted by: Seth | December 27, 2006 at 10:26 AM
Along these same lines, will the directors' branch nominate Condon? Or more likely the DGA?
Posted by: dude | December 27, 2006 at 10:08 AM
I am gay man and I hated "Dreamgirls". What a horrible movie! Jennifer Hudson is amazing singer, but terrible actress... Beyonce Knowles? NO! I hope, it won't get any nominations.
Posted by: Daniel | December 27, 2006 at 08:05 AM