Chicago Review
by Richard A. Zwelling (razwee AT yahoo DOT com)March 27th, 2003
CHICAGO
*** ½ (out of ****)
a film review by
Richard A. Zwelling
To say that the movie-musical is not a favorite of the modern-day film industry would be a gross understatement. While the film industry of the 1950s and 1960s turned out a barrage of successful, splashy musical hits (Singin' in the Rain, The Music Man, The Sound of Music, Funny Girl), the recent entries into the genre have been few and far between. In fact, the last major movie musical hit came back in 1996 when Madonna took center stage in Andrew Lloyd Webber's Evita.
Needless to say, it is not the medium of choice among the masses who now go for the loud explosions and copious sex that so blatantly runs rampant throughout the major Hollywood releases of today. As a result, it is understandable that the prospect of a film based on Bob Fosse's 1975 Broadway hit Chicago was met with considerable trepidation. It was true that the musical's 1996 Broadway revival enjoyed much success, but Miramax, the film's distributor, was still taking a risk, because it was promoting a major release in a long since ignored cinematic genre. Moreover, several of the stars cast in the major roles did not have the requisite singing and dancing experience.
It has now been months since the film's release, and with the Oscars just around the corner, Chicago is the leader of the entire pack with 13 nominations, including four for acting, and it continues to perform well at the box-office. Despite the obvious skepticism many had going into its release, it is not hard to see why Chicago has done so well. It is not done in the traditional style of film musicals, but instead given a modern twist. The flashy dance numbers, highly kinetic camerawork, and elaborate costumes are something audiences are now familiar with and receptive to (as evidenced by the recent success of the home video release of Moulin Rouge, a film whose cinematic style is very similar to that of Chicago).
Unlike Baz Lurhmann's 2001 release, however, and true to the content of the original material, Chicago has a great deal of thematic depth. It is undeniable that the film is, in essence, a lavish spectacle, but the issues that it raises are all too relevant and understandable to anyone living in modern-day America.
Based in part on true events, Chicago tells the story of Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger), a woman with dreams of stardom who is married to an affable but naïve man named Amos (John C. Reilly). She has an affair with a lover who promises her a shot at a career in showbiz, but when she finds out that he has lied just to get her into bed, she loses control and murders him. Off she goes to "Murderer's Row" in the Cook County Jail, where she encounters the warden in charge of the female prisoners (Queen Latifah) and inmate Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones), a chorus girl whose moment of fame has long since faded.
Through persuasion and connections, Roxie acquires the services of high-profile attorney Billy Flynn (Richard Gere), who frequently attends to the needs of the stars and has never lost a case. His method? Turn the female killers into celebrity icons and manipulate their public image in a much more positive direction than they deserve. As Roxie gains fame, she grows increasingly more in love with the spotlight and imagines that her fame will last indefinitely. However, Velma speaks from personal experience and warns Roxie that fame is fleeting, and that eventually, the media will find another darling.
This is where Chicago is so effective in displaying its acid wit and tongue-in-cheek satire. To maintain celebrity status and curry favor with the public, several characters reside to stunts that are so over-the-top and so obviously fabricated that it is very difficult not to see one of the films central themes: that anything can be entertainment, even murder. It is interesting to note that nothing has changed today. Evidence: Amy Fisher, O.J. Simpson, Tonya Harding, Monica Lewinski. If there is scandal, there is entertainment, and the public is all too willing to take what the media feeds them.
There are therefore two sides to Chicago's pizzazz: on one side, it is obviously there to "razzle-dazzle" the audience; on the other, it is deliciously and mockingly self-referential.
One example of this occurs in my favorite number of the film, in which Zellweger and Gere engage in a ventriloquist act. The more blatant and shameful example occurs later during a trial with Roxie on the stand and Flynn questioning.
There are several performances in Chicago which are to be commended. At the top of the list is Catherine Zeta-Jones, who takes on the role of Velma Kelly with exuding flair and charisma. Showing off her talent as a singer and dancer, she grabs the camera's attention and never lets go, making her more involved numbers an absolute joy to watch. The part also requires considerable acting talent as well, and Zeta-Jones beautifully captures the essence of a faded superstar who is at once bitter and longing for a chance at redemption, but also extremely talented and enmeshed in an undying enthusiasm for the stage.
Next is Richard Gere, who received some heavy criticism for his work here, despite his exhaustive work to compensate for a lack of singing and dancing experience. It is obvious that Gere was not born to be in this sort of role (as evidenced by his limited vocal range and non-dancer physique), but not only does he accomplish the best that he can, but he succeeds in creating a compelling character portrayal. Billy Flynn is obviously a showman, a corrupt and greedy individual who will take any measures to keep the dough rolling in, but Gere brings to the part a wonderful charisma that makes him a character audiences will love to hate.
Renee Zellweger is believable in the role of Roxie Hart, but cannot sing or dance at Zeta-Jones's level, so a number of scenes with both of them seem lop-sided. In addition, I did not find her as engrossing as SAG apparently did, and I found her work adequate, but not at the level that merits major acting awards. John C. Reilly and Queen Latifah give noteworthy performances as smaller supporting characters, but again, I did not find either of the performances noteworthy enough as to deserve major recognition. Of course, it is understandable that Reilly's recognition is in part due to his collective work in 2002 (Chicago, Gangs of New York, The Hours, The Good Girl).
Some of my friends and family, who are fans of the more traditional movie musical, were in uproar regarding the high amount of camera cutting during dance numbers, as the performers are not "forced" to perform a single number in one long take. I personally did not find this distracting, because I believe that, in some cases, the stage musical and the movie musical can be two different media. As a movie musical, Chicago displays highly stylized, kinetic cinematography that offers a unique dynamic that would be unattainable in an extended take, and certainly so on stage. While some might dismiss this as adulteration, I find it an enjoyable and refreshing twist, although I can understand the quibbles some might have with its novelty.
At any rate, with so much cinematic crap circulating throughout the country, many people (myself included) were in need of a movie that represents good, strong cinema, but also packs a solid punch and helps the audience truly enjoy themselves. While it may not be that cerebral an observation, I can say that while I was watching Chicago, I had a damn good time.
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
