‘Chicago’ well-deserving of multiple Oscar nods
February 20, 2003
“Chicago,” like “Moulin Rouge” before it, has been heralded as another rebirth of the Hollywood musical. That is almost certainly not true, due to both movies’ cost and limited appeal. “Chicago” is, however, one of the best-performed and best-decorated films in years, salvaging performances from the unlikeliest of sources.
The film, adapted from the play by Bob Fosse and Fred Ebb, with music by John Kander, has a deceptively simple plot. Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger) is a girl aspiring to a nightclub career, personified by Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones). Roxie kills her man on the side, and after her husband (John C. Reilly) refuses to take the rap, is sent to jail.
Kelly is also in prison after killing her sister and her husband, but is already retooling her career, using the publicity of her killing as a springboard to superstardom. Roxie hires famed defense attorney Billy Flynn (Richard Gere), a Johnny Cochran of his day who swears that if he had been Jesus Christ’s attorney, things would have been different.
Though the film is a period piece of sorts, it has translated better than expected to a generation that has respawned the careers of Winona Ryder and Robert Downey Jr. because, not in spite of, their criminal appearances. It also takes periodic shots at the press and the jury system, making it surprisingly relevant.
Richard Gere’s acting drives the film in an utterly astounding performance. Though the film begins to slow after a bit, Gere reinvigorates the story with a hilarious and ironic performance as the would-be director of the chaos of Chicago’s corrupt system.
Renee Zellweger offers a fine performance, never once appearing to understand the world around her, while Zeta-Jones is believable, though not spectacular, as her slimy would-be betrayer and eventual partner.
John C. Reilly, recently seen in other Best Picture nominees “The Hours” and “Gangs of New York” offers his best performance of the three, and leaves a poignant impact with his song “Mr. Cellophane.” Queen Latifah also offers strong supporting work and the only weak spot is the always ingratiating Christine Baranski. Taye Diggs even offers a performances seemingly inspired by Joel Grey in “Cabaret.”
All the actors do their own singing and dancing, and although Zellweger’s voice wears thin, it adds to the honesty of the film. The musical numbers are excellently staged; the sequences of the six merry murderesses and Billy’s manipulation of the press are two of the most cleverly designed and original sequences in recent memory.
The direction by first-time film director and stage veteran Rob Marshall isn’t particularly inspired, but it adds up to a fine experience. It recognizes the theatrical source of the film, and recognizes that influence, even putting most of the film on a stage, both literally and metaphorically.
The film pays its dues to all sorts of film styles, accepting for a time the 2 1/2 second shot of the dreadful MTV generation of filmmakers, but also contains longer takes and even a touch of famed musical director Busby Berkeley. Though it borders on excess, the film never reaches the total self-indulgence that has plagued other recent musicals. It’s clever, but not too clever; flashy, but not too flashy.
“Chicago” has its weaknesses, of course, including some intrusive computer-generated images, a tendency to lose its time period, and, the bane of all musical-haters everywhere: the inclusion of songs that just don’t seem probable. Of course, those who would find that troublesome aren’t likely to be the ones to see the film.
The movie falls short of the MTV feeling that drove many away from last year’s Best Picture nominee “Moulin Rouge” and adds a much-appreciated sense of subtlety that it had lacked, as well.
For a film to receive thirteen Academy Award nominations, it ordinarily has to fall into the category of audience blockbuster like “Titanic” or derivative Hollywood auto-eroticism like “The English Patient.” In the case of “Chicago,” however, it’s merely a shame that it didn’t receive at least one more for Richard Gere. It is easily the best and most entertaining film of this year.