*Contains Spoilers*
This weekend I ventured to see
For Colored Girls, Tyler Perry's audacious adaptation of Ntozake Shange's
For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow is Enuf. Having seen the extended 'choreo-poem' on stage some years ago, I was drawn in by the prospect of witnessing these great monologues come to life on the big screen, and being performed by some larger than life actresses.
And the actresses really are the draw of this film. Ignorant of the story, as the stage production has no linear narrative, that wasn't there to pull me in. Nor was there the lure of a director who's work I respect or admire. This movie, for me, was all about the cast and how they would portray the 'colored girls' the title refers to.
The casting is truly inspired in many respects. Loretta Devine is pitch perfect as the vocal, conflicted Juanita Sims. Struggling with living the life she preaches to women at her clinic. The young Tessa Thompson is captivating from her first scene as Nyla. All eyes on her in a dance studio as she recounts her first time, listing the names of boys off effortlessly. And again as she lay in a hospital bed, post-back-alley abortion, describing what she remembers of the event. And Phylicia Rashad can do no wrong as Gilda, whether delivering a hard truth to Crystal (Kimberly Elise) or as she cradles Tangie (Thandie Newton) and slips into another of Shange's spellbinding monologues. It makes me wonder how much better that would have been were Lisa Bonet cast as Tangie. Hmmm.
But it's not all good. Janet Jackson was pretty dull throughout as Jo. She's really more a set piece in most scenes, as Perry felt it necessary to lift the character of Miranda strait from
The Devil Wears Prada and have Janet do an imitation. And speaking of imitations, her fictional magazine even uses the same font as VOGUE for its cover! The flat Anna Wintour/Miranda caricature did not bring me into the story the same way the others did. Nor did Whoopie Goldberg's Alice, a religious fanatic that sometimes feels like a ripoff of the mother from
Carrie.
Perry makes Alice a hoarder, which is a small detail that adds to her character and gives audiences something current to relate her craziness too. It
was unnecessary, but not as unnecessary as Jo's cheating husband who she contracts HIV from, thanks to his infidelity with other men. The husbands ambiguous sexuality was, again, a stab at being contemporary, but it really just shows the filmaker's lack of understanding about the issue he's dealing with.
SIDE NOTE: The film has moderate parts for men, as the 'play' has none at all. One scene that feels like an approach at a male monologue finds the character struggling to say "I'm not gay. I'm just a man who likes to have sex with men." One can't help but hear the directors voice there, since that line- like the character- is an invention of Perry himself.
Much of the film suffers from a "lack of understanding" on the part of the director. Do rapists usually get buck naked before they go for it from behind? I don't know, but that terribly mis-scored scene with Yasmine (Anika Noni Rose) and Bill (Khalil Kane) will no doubt get several homo-erotic readings. Mostly thanks to Perry's preoccupation with the male form and the type of penetration.
The original production is bold in it's simplicity. The women have no connections, excepting the ones the audience makes for them. Their journeys are different, but their outlooks are colored by their experiences. The film version feels in part like half-hearted homage to
The Women of Brewster Place, finding many of the characters sharing the same apartment complex. Why not keep them separated, and let their experiences link them? Even with all of the characters in the same city, the story is still all over the place.
I can't recall discerning a 'message' when I saw the original, but the film seems pretty explicit: Avoid men at all costs!!!
The beauty and the struggle of these lives is corrupted in a way, into a tale of how terrible men are. Feminism is not about hating men, it's about empowering women. You get both with this film, and it's simply too much.
And that shouldn't suggest a black woman should have directed this, or would have done a better job. One of the best film adaptations of a story about blackness, femininity, and hardship, that incorporates song, deals with rape, forgiveness, and maintains it's literary origin was made by a *white man. I'm just suggesting it shouldn't have been, or at least didn't have to be, Tyler Perry.
Improvements in style aside, it's more of the same from Perry. Overblown drama, a gloss of subject matter, and a profound love of 'the diva'- complete with her sharp looks, clever dialog, and scenes of 'going off.' The film is worth seeing for the performances alone. Even Macy Gray is haunting as, Rose, the abortionist from the aforementioned back-alley, who's speech rambles on in a nightmarish way as she sanitizes her tools in liquor. But overall, the film suffers from it's contrived nature at Perry's hand.
Is this movie really for colored girls? Not if those colored girls aren't also critical of what comes off the screen. I wonder how other men felt leaving the theater. Did they feel 'eyes crawling up' on them? It would have been hard not to. Love for women is present without question, but as a male, I felt Perry has colored me 'bad.'
*Thanks Stephen Spielberg. I still quote lines from The Color Purple.