Dave Chappelle's Block Party

Dave Chappelle’s Block Party

From the farmlands of Ohio to the cramped streets of New York City, Dave Chappelle’s Block Party is a concert film which reaches deeper and makes surprising comments about the importance of art and community in the lives of individuals. The viewer watches as Chappelle begins to organize a spur of the moment hip-hop concert on the streets of New York City and we explore the significance of the concert’s location and the meaning behind the people on and off the stage. 

The film is meaningful on a variety of levels. First, it provides us with an entertaining and riveting concert set piece, with engaging performances by Kanye West, Mos Def, The Roots, and the reunited Fugees. Michael Gondry proves to be an exceptional if unlikely choice for the project. He structures the film in a non-linear fashion and the action jumps around from the actual concert performances to scenes which focus on Chappelle’s efforts to organize the event, to segments which explore the musical performers, the concert attendees, and finally the neighborhood where the concert takes place.

With this structure the audience is able to gain a unique perspective to what Dave Chappelle was hoping to accomplish through his free concert. Throughout the film Chappelle attempts to obtain an audience from a variety of different locations, ethnic groups, and overall walks of life. He then strives to provide for them a concert, filled with musical performers which are meaningful to him, that will entertain, and inspire as many different individuals as possible. His scenes in Ohio, which is one of the unconventional places he goes to promote the concert, are hilarious and fascinating. Throughout these scenes he often attempts to recruit older white individuals, many of which had never even listened to a hip-hop or rap song, to attend the concert. Gondry does an excellent job of then showing these same individuals having a blast at the concert later on in the film.

The film is even more interesting when viewed in its appropriate historical and social context. At this point in his career Dave Chappelle had recently signed a staggering $50 million dollar contract to produce two more seasons of his phenomenally popular show The Chappelle Show. However, in May of 2005 Chappelle shocked the entertainment industry when he promptly left the production of the 3rd season of The Chappelle Show and went to South Africa. His decision automatically triggered reports of mental illness and substance abuse, but according to Chappelle his decision was more motivated by a need for internal personal growth than any outside factor. He had become disenchanted with the idea of celebrity and was entirely unsure whether or not his comedy was a helpful or hurtful factor on the issue of race relations. His departure and his subsequent trip to Africa was a voyage of discovery and an attempt for Chappelle to rediscover how he viewed himself as both a man and as a comedian. 

Chappelle’s actions and overall performance throughout the film depict a man who is uncertain about his current position in mainstream entertainment. The film and his concert seems to be about Chappelle hoping to redefine just who he thinks he is and what he hopes his work and art can do for society and interactions between races. The premise of the film is so deceptively simple that it is easy to forget the symbolic importance of the event that is chronicled. The concert is a perfect mechanism for Chappelle to explore the ideas and themes that drive him. The concert was designed to help produce unification between the races, and to hopefully reach a large and varied audience, both in actual concert attendees and viewers of the film. There seems to be some important significance behind the decision to cast Michael Gondry, who has a appeal to various groups who may not be followers of Dave Chappelle.

The film and the concert seem to be attempting to produce an authentic and different perspective to the genre of hip-hop and rap music. Chappelle strives to produce a different sort of rap concert, one which is not prone to the stereotypical tendencies apparent on countless music videos. To Chappelle, this is a concert which can cross racial lines and hopefully can display positive effects upon the community. There is one segment of the film where Chappelle and the crew enter a house near the concert site and discuss a variety of topics with the house’s eccentric owners. On the topic of rap music the owners hold a strong negative stance but later on they are captured by the camera and seem to be enjoying the music. This is clearly the main goal of the filmmaker’s realized, which is to reach and hopefully touch people from all arenas of life with music that has long been regarded as belonging to a very limited population.

With its funny, smart, and entertaining sense of style Dave Chappelle’s Block Party is enormously effective film which makes several subtle yet profound comments on race relations, the transcendent power of art, and the aspirations of its star, Dave Chappelle. Filmed and released around an extremely turbulent time in Chappelle’s professional and personal life the film is a chronicle of Chappelle struggling to come to grips with where he hoped to go with his life and with his art. The film and the music it displays preach the importance of art, acceptance, and community involvement. It highlights just how important these things are in all of our lives, and how at the end of the day there is only one real race, the human race. 

My Best Friend's Wedding

Adam Mohrbacher

Reviewing the Arts

Spring 2009

Review: My Best Friend’s Wedding

With her long mane of tasseled curls and her large toothy sparkling smile Julia Roberts has gracefully been the queen-bee and main attraction of American romantic-comedy films over the past two decades. Ever since her breakthrough role as the stripper with a heart of gold, Vivian Ward, in Pretty Woman, Roberts has specialized in playing well-meaning women who just seem to be confused about this thing called love. 

The Julia Roberts 1997 “rom-com” My Best Friend’s Wedding is no exception and contains a lead character with classic “Julia Roberts attributes”. Here, Roberts plays Julianne Potter, a cute and cynical food critic living in New York. She appears to be quite content with bopping around the “Big Apple” with her gay friend and closest confidante, George Cownes, who is played with remarkable wit and flamboyance by Rupert Everett. Complications arrive with a fateful phone call from Jules long-time best bud, Michael O’Neal, played by Dermot Mulroney, a sports writer who announces that he is planing to be married in just a few days. This announcement unlocks a wave complicated and strange feelings inside Julianne, and she begins to wonder wither or not she actually has had feelings for Michael during their entire ten year friendship. Ignoring George’s pleas for her to see reason she rashly decides to head to Chicago and attempt to break up the wedding. Of course, in classic romantic comedy fashion, hilarity and chaos ensues.

The main plot of the film is one that has been seen throughout countless fluff films over the years but My Best Friend’s Wedding remains a fresh and innovative entry into the romantic comedy genre because it has so many positive things going for it. First, the film is more than worthy of attention because it is a comedy that is actually funny. The script effortlessly squeezes humor from a wide variety of sources wither that be Roberts tumbling off her bed with the news of Michael’s impending nuptials, or Michael’s finance Kim, played by Cameron Diaz, weaving her car through Lake Shore Drive traffic with crazy speed. The greatest comedic moments of the film come from a segment where Jules gay best pal, George, flies into Chicago to offer her advice and hopefully wean her away from trying to break up a perfectly healthy couple. However, the tables are turned when Roberts maliciously incorporates George into her schemes and claims to Michael that George and her are about to be married. This is done to clearly ignite Michael’s jealousy but George grows frustrated and brutally humiliates Julianne.

The acting in the film is uniformly strong from the entire main cast with the highlight clearly being Rupert Everett’s performance as George. His screen time in the film is brief but he makes such a brilliant impression as essentially Julianne’s conscience that his presence is felt long after he disappears from the screen. Roberts’ performance is also strong because it is actually a layered role. You get a sense that this is a woman who only thinks she knows what she wants. She easily conveys the idea that Jules is really unsure of pretty much everything, especially her own feelings concerning Michael. The film is also technically strong with great photography of Chicago and special consideration for little moments of beauty, such as the tennis court filled with golden balloons where Jules and Michael talk near the end of the film.

My Best Friend’s Wedding is essentially a film built upon very traditional ideas,(you never know what you have until its gone, love hurts, ect.). However, the script and the terrific cast help move the film forward and make it a rewarding as well as entertaining experience. For all of the jokes and silliness on display, (the classic spur of the moment rendition of “Say a Little Prayer for You”), the film also has ample amounts of heart and really does capture the overwhelming confusion, joy, and pain that comes along with being, or thinking that you’re in love. This is a true accomplishment and makes My Best Friend’s Wedding a worthy addition to anyone’s film collection, not just romantic-comedy or Julia Roberts fans. 

Living out Loud Review

A simple, quiet and mature study of adult relationships forms the heart of writer and director Richard LaGravenese’s 1998 feature Living out Loud. The film stars Holly Hunter as Judith Moore, a freshly divorced and emotionally vulnerable woman with an penchant for day dreams, who strikes up an unlikely relationship with Pat Francato, a short, lonely doorman who is struggling with his own recent tragedies. These two very different individuals attempt to help each other heal and develop a sense of meaning to their lives, but lingering emotional baggage threatens to destroy their quest for a life filled with balance and clarity.

For some, Living out Loud will be a trying experience because it is far more of a character study than a plot driven film. Basically the screenplay gives us the basic predicaments that the two main characters are faced with and observes the behavior of these characters as they attempt to sort through the trials and tribulations of modern living in urban America. The story line, if there is such a thing in the film, is a meandering mess, with the viewer simply observing Hunter cruise through town and attempt to sort through her damaged past and attack her future with new resolve. Some of her attempts to start anew have a real sense of purpose and heart, such as her chance meeting with Pat, who is played by Danny Devito, in a rare dramatic turn. Their scenes together have a quiet yet affecting chemistry to them and the two characters develop a very interesting and even moving friendship. Less effective are various disjointed scenes which seem to exist only to show Judith trying to “find herself” or “heal”. These scenes include Judith getting an erotic massage from a chiseled hunk, and a ridiculous sequence where Judith drops some form of ecstasy and then winds up at a warehouse lesbian club where a sporadic and surreal dance number is staged and Judith ends up connecting with her former “self”. 

For all its narrative shortcomings, Living out Loud is still a worthwhile film for several reasons. First, the performances of Devito and Hunter are consistently excellent and they help keep the film moving forward despite the fact that there really isn’t a story line to push the action. Unfortunately, Hunter’s character, Judith, is really the only character who is allowed to have a full story arc, and is the only character who seems to really change throughout the film. Devito is not given enough screen time to give a completely realized performance. We don’t get a true sense of the man and what he hopes to get out of life. 

The film also provides an interesting and truthful depiction of just how frustrating life and relationships can truly be. The film treats its characters with respect but is unwavering in its depiction of how sad it can be when a major life event or relationship has come to an end and individuals are forced to start again. It is an excellent point to make and something that everyone needs to remember and respect. Life is full of hellos and goodbyes, of starts and ends. It is easy to despair if a particular aspect of life does not pan out, but it is never to late to strive again for true happiness.