Tyler Perry's love is too inconsistent to have thrown back in his face. He has reconfigured Ntozoke Shange's "choreopoem" For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Enuf into two acts' worth of soap opera and one of poetry recitation that by then sounds like hyper-descriptive, vaguely artful babbling. (Imagine a two-hour musical with no music for the first hour and 15 minutes and then only music for the last 45, except instead of music, it's all verse.) The effect is so stilted, it's like watching people on stilts walk on stilts. It's amazing, particularly when they all fall at every turn. So much of the script is so bad, it's virtually impossible to comment on the performances (but it is, of course, always nice to see Clair Huxtable).
Tyler Perry's love is too female-centric to have thrown back in his face. The one admirable thing about his For Colored Girls structure is that since each of his eight principle characters must hit emotional peaks that lead them to babble the aforementioned verse, the final act reads like a series of rolling climaxes. And multiple climaxes feel appropriate for a women's picture. That his characters' words turn artful under times of deep emotional duress (Loretta Divine's character realizes the man she's tried so hard to hold onto will never be hers; Thandie Newton's is forced to confront the err of her slutty ways [or whatever!]; Janet Jackson's gets HIV from her DL bf) feels like a hat tip to virtually every black woman writer who's made major contributions to literature (whether it was personal, societal or a combination of the two, black women writers have been through some shit). Most of For Colored Girls' female characters are oppressed by men, most of the male characters are huge disappointments (raping, cheating, flaking and throwing their babies out of windows-ing their way through life). To have sisterhood is to possess the secret of joy (or maybe instead of joy: just a lack of awfulness). Lesbians do not figure into Perry's story because, among reasons, a relationship without a predatory male around would be far too Utopian for this. Among other reasons:
Tyler Perry's love is too homophobic to have thrown back in his face. Because, well, you know.
Tyler Perry's love is too stereotypical to have thrown back in his face. (Borderline despicable vilification of gay men via a lazy depiction of down-low culture despite increasingly publicized evidence that black women are much more likely to contract HIV from straight men aside...) His characters exist to typify. It is initially exciting that so many different representations of black women are in one movie (high-powered execs! the cowering women who assist them! public servants! artists! religious kooks! back-alley abortionists who are Amy Winehouse! sluts who are proud! sluts who are sluts no more! sluts who dream! sluts who dare! Madeas!)...until you realize that you'd have to stack these cardboard cut-outs on top of each other to get the depth of one or two, at most, well-honed characters in a good movie. Perry's liberal use of irony is supposed to do some shading, but instead is so obvious (The power bitch has trust issues at home! Mommy's little girl is about to become a mommy herself! The social worker who spends her days worrying about others' children can't have any of her own!) that it only confirms Perry's cloddish grasp on every device he touches (see also his infantile attempts at foreshadowing that include a rape gaze predicting rape and a persistent cough predicting AIDS). It is never not amazing that this guy has been making movies for years now and didn't just recently stumble on set and hypnotize everyone into letting him direct.
Tyler Perry's love is too joyless to have thrown back in his face. Ultimately, this movie is one big mess of misery, and because each and every one of his black female characters is hurting so deeply, Perry seems to suggest that being a black woman is a miserable experience (but if you hug your sisters on a rooftop, you can at least fool people into thinking that you're getting a happy ending with all your unresolved problems and AIDS). I don't buy the 24/7 gloom always for everybody. This is not to denigrate others' struggles or suggest that they shouldn't be explored (as I mentioned before, that very process has given birth to wonderful literature, including this film's source material) -- I want only to suggest victimhood can be a part-time job. "I couldn't stand being sorry and colored at the same time. It's so redundant in the modern world," notes Loretta Devine's character. Indeed, colored girls in all senses of the phrase deserve better, and they deserve better than this movie. We all do, for that matter.
I was so excited to hear about this movie. Then I found it Perry was making it and I was cautiously optimistic. He tends to satirize his subjects a bit too much for my liking - as a whitey I feel uncomfortable watching a lot of his movies because I feel vaguely as if I'm perpetuating stereotypes by supporting his vision.
I can appreciate that he wanted to modernize the original text & make it more accessible than prose-only dialog would have, but the power in Shange's play came from the fact that there wasn't a single word in the whole play that didn't belong. Every line was bursting with meaning & the appeal of the characters was that they could PERFECTLY verbalize what they (and by proxy, other women like them) were going through.
I haven't seen this film *yet* but almost every review I've read would commensurate with yours. It makes me sad to hear that Perry had enough hubris to try & present these women's stories more perfectly than Shange could. I feel deeply for him & the pain he's been through in his personal life, but I don't think that gives him enough context to really do justice to the incredibly emotional & real situations the women in the story represent.
Again, he turned this incredibly raw & real story with a raw & real ending into a marketable movie with the same movie-moments & movie ending that everyone expects. That was not the point of the play & I'm sad that he couldn't set his formula aside to overcome that.
Posted by: Chaely | November 11, 2010 at 04:18 PM
That Musto blurb was terrible..several dumb ideas in one short paragraph and the pompousness of being not only a comfortably out white man but a man who has a successful career based partly on the fact that he is gay, white and out. The black community is not homophobic. A black man who is closeted can just be called a closeted gay man..there's no special ethnic title you need to use, especially when 'downlow' is not just a term for closeted but one that implies predatory and risky behavior.
I don't know if Perry is gay, there's nothing about him to indicate he is to me and it seems only 'gaydar' is used as evidence with those who do think he's gay. He's also got no responsibility to the gay community, the gay community isn't really rushing to help out the black community and people like Musto even use them for their unfair gossip pieces.
That said, I don't like TP movies and I agree with your review. I honestly think he would do better doing stand-up, his improv is phenomenal (I saw one of his plays live, during which he went off script to discuss some real ish in a funny way). The rest of the material is not up my alley but you know who could've done a better job doing 'For Colored Girls? No one. Because no one else is interested in putting stories like that to screen. Tyler Perry is a mixed blessing, in other words I'll take what I can get.
Posted by: Parker | November 11, 2010 at 09:01 PM
As always, you are my hero by watching what I just can't or won't. Watching Tyler Perry movies could be assigned as community service for lawbreakers...
Posted by: bevskid1 | November 11, 2010 at 11:58 PM
@Parker: Actually Tyler Perry wasn't the one who came up with the idea of a screen adaptation to Ntozake Shange's choreopoem.
It was originally the idea of a young music video director, Nzingha Stewart who acquired the rights from Ntozake Shange herself and subsequently wrote a screenplay for it. She pitched it to Liongate studio and they picked it up. On March 25th 2009, Liongate sent out a press release that Stewart would being writing/directing the project.
The studio looking for potential producers for the film turned to Tyler Perry. He agreed that he would finance the film on the condition that the project would become his own. So Stewart was pushed out of the way completely and Perry set to work writing his own script for the film.
Posted by: Daniel | November 12, 2010 at 04:07 AM
My only thought on this all along has been: At least he didn't name this one 'Tyler Perry's for Colored Girls'.
Posted by: N'awlins Darlin' | November 12, 2010 at 11:33 AM
@Parker The black community is not homophobic??
Posted by: MacArthurBlvd | November 12, 2010 at 11:35 AM
@MacArthurBlvd Maybe Parker should have said "Not everyone in the black community is homophobic." Which is the truth. Homophobia within the black community is a quagmire of misplaced religious devotion, hyper-masculine delusions, and a deep-seated fear of appearing weak in front of whites (among many other things). But as the country goes, so goes the "black community" - the younger and more educated and less sheltered you are, the less likely it is that you are homophobic, at least in my experience.
As for this movie...the more I hear about it the less I want to see it. I had the priviledge of seeing a performance of the play a while back (starring the original Aunt Viv post-Fresh Prince firing), and walked out of the theater a lifelong fan. I've seen all of Tyler Perry's movies (my Mom is a fan and doesn't like to go to the movies alone, but hey - she pays), and I just can't bring myself to watch something so powerful subjected to TP's coonery. Even with this cast.
Posted by: Laya | November 12, 2010 at 11:53 AM
Great review, Rich!
Posted by: Dee | November 12, 2010 at 01:00 PM
@ MacArthurBlvd
The Black community is nomore homophobic than the Latino,White,Jewish,Muslim ect communities. Dont believe the hype. Its the religions that cause the divide
The acting was terrific that is why I went, to see colored girls who get beat out of roles by white girls whos talent isnt nearly enuf
Posted by: Nikkinik | November 13, 2010 at 08:38 PM
Perhaps she is saying hi to somebody from the window.
Posted by: Extamax | November 14, 2010 at 12:08 AM
YES!
Posted by: Minna | November 14, 2010 at 12:25 AM
I still want to see this film, even if every single moment of verse is book-ended by awful hacky Tyler Perry dialog. I mean, Anika Noni Rose! Loretta Devine! Phylicia Rashad! Whoopi!! I'd pay to see them in the next Saw film, let alone an actual piece of brilliant and challenging theater brought (brutalized? waterboarded?) to the screen.
Posted by: Robert | November 14, 2010 at 11:22 AM
I know this is really boring and you are skipping to the next comment, but I just wanted to throw you a big thanks - you cleared up some things for me!
Posted by: ugg australia | November 14, 2010 at 09:21 PM
If I see this it'll be a rental.
Posted by: grafittix | November 14, 2010 at 11:32 PM
Very fantastic movie.I saw it thrice. Blacks are not homophobic.
Mystic White
Posted by: Mystic White | November 15, 2010 at 12:27 AM
All of these negative reviews sadden me. I was so excited when I heard For Colored Girls was being adapted, but that excitement crashed and burned when I saw Tyler Perry's name.
It makes it even worse that he took this project from another person and proceeded to slop his crappy writing skills all over it.
I promised my sister we would go see it together, but I am not thrilled about it.
Posted by: Julnyes | November 15, 2010 at 03:51 PM
I saw the film on opening day (a bad idea and something I wouldn't normally do) as a ladies outing with a group of female friends. I can only say from my own observation that the movie felt a bit hollow. It may not be Tylers fault because I imagine it's hard to build so many characters fully in one movie. The AIDS cough thing was a bit silly. I think I'll have to watch the movie again when it comes out on DVD. Going to a first day showing is really annoying. People were laughing at things that weren't meant to be funny which was distracting.
Posted by: Binda | November 16, 2010 at 11:44 PM
"victimhood can be a part time job." what an acute and poetic argument. in the spirit of sisterhood, i feel very akin to you. your blog is beautiful.
Posted by: Account Deleted | November 17, 2010 at 10:32 AM
Your words are on and correct, R. Thank lordy there is
intelligence out there about T. Perry and her this, that, and the other. Although those actresses are my air, I feel I might, might catch this on a JetBlue red-eye whilst passing out.
Now off to a step show in Oakland with my black, lesbian, and booted sisters. Where's their movie?!
Posted by: Bri | November 18, 2010 at 10:04 PM
This is one of my favorite daily soaps. I watch it on a regular basis.
Posted by: illumibriter | November 19, 2010 at 02:19 AM
I guess I would have preferred it if you had separated the criticism of Shange's material from what Perry managed to do with it. Shange's play is depressing. The characters are all victims of men. I'm not clear why you're faulting Perry for this. Although in general I do accept your criticism of his stereotypic and limited movie-making skills.
Posted by: tennischick | November 26, 2010 at 09:29 AM
It makes it even worse that he took this project from another person and proceeded to slop his crappy writing skills all over it.
Posted by: Juicy Couture Outlet | May 11, 2011 at 04:08 AM
another person and proceeded to slop his crappy writing skills all over it.
Posted by: birkenstock outlet | May 12, 2011 at 08:23 PM
i watch it on a regular basis.
Posted by: birkenstock | May 31, 2011 at 02:03 AM
Shange's play is depressing. The characters are all victims of men.
Posted by: Coach Outlet CanadaName | June 08, 2011 at 09:34 AM