Smokey Robinson Slams 'Dreamgirls'

[theaterdude87]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 9:27am

From imdb.com:
Music legend Smokey Robinson has slammed the makers of the film Dreamgirls for disparaging the reputation of Motown founder Berry Gordy. The film is inspired by the story of The Supremes, who were created by Gordy, and Robinson believes there are too many inaccuracies in the film which damages the Motown legend's legacy. He tells Access Hollywood, "The creators of the Dreamgirls movie have blatantly indicated that they are depicting Berry Gordy and Diana Ross and The Supremes and Motown and they have done it with a lot of false information and negativity." Robinson was particularly offended by Jamie Foxx's portrayal of Gordy and insists his friend never paid DJ's to play his artist's songs or dealt with organized crime figures as depicted in the film. He adds, "Berry Gordy created something with his dream that allowed a lot of other dreams to come true and he did it with integrity, he did it with honesty. As a member of the Motown family, it's insulting to me. I think they owe Berry Gordy a public apology and they should do it rapidly!"

Hmm this sounds very odd...and who really cares what he has to say...no one said it was a historical piece.

Updated On: 2/5/07 at 09:27 AM

[CapnHook]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 9:39am

These are CHARACTERS. It is promoted as "loosely based." Get over it.

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 9:41am

True, but the movie really rams the parallels down the audience's throat in a way the stage show never did. It's a little disingenuous to act like it's a surprise people are taking the parallels so literally.

Updated On: 2/5/07 at 09:41 AM

[tpr]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 9:52am

"who really cares what he has to say"?. He's Smokey Robinson! Start caring!

[Kevinoes]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 9:54am

There are certainly a lot of differences between what happened with Supremes and the Dreams. For instance, in real life, most of act two didn't happen. Flo Ballard tried to launch a new career, failed, and died at the age of 32. Damn sad stuff. But this kind of bashing is not new. People were doing this when the show opened on Broadway in 1981. Diana Ross loathes the show, even though I think they paint her in a much lighter light than she deserves in Deena.

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 9:59am

I never said there weren't differences. I just said the movie really hammers you with the parallels it's trying to make.

Updated On: 2/5/07 at 09:59 AM

[Funny Face]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 10:08am

Diana Ross loathes the show...

I don't know about that. According to her she's never seen it, and added (jokingly?) that she will be seeing it with lawyers.

I don't think he should be taking it so seriously. Yes, it draws startling parallels to real life, and I'm sure many were not coincidental, but there are many other plot points that are purely fabricated and original. As the poster above said, most of act 2 never happened in real life. Florence Ballard never gets a succesgul solo career, Gordy doesn't "steal" a song from Florence to be performed by Diana Ross, etc. I don't think anyone involved in Dreamgirls is saying that everything in Dreamgirls draws its direct inspiration from real life. All the dirty stuff Curtis does is probably one big fabrication.

Bottom line: No-one should be reading too far into it, since it's not, nor ever was, claiming to be a biographical depiction of anyone involved in Motown.

[NiteOwl]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 10:08am

Dreamgirls is not a biogaphy but you really can't blame him for being upset. The movie crossed over into territory that the Broadway show never treaded. Supremes costumes and album covers were replicated not to mention that the Dreams' hometown was changed from Chicago to Detroit.

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 10:14am

And lots of minor details were changed to reflect a similarity with the Supremes story.

And in the stage version, the Supremes are mentioned, while in the movie no mention of them is ever given. In the stage version the Dreams co-exist in a world with the Supremes. In the movie, the Supremes don't exist.

Again, I think it's really disingenuous to act like the film didn't overplay the parallels.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 10:17am

The movie does focus on the truth about pirating in the music business. Unfortunately some of the artists from the Motown/Oldies industry were the hardest hit victims. They had their works and even their identity stolen.

I call them victims because during their creative days, not many could afford lawyers and entertainement attorneys were scarce. Some of them couldn't even afford knowledgeable managers.

I work with Oldies clients, some of them "original" artists that go back to the early 50's-60's and the stories they have told me are tough. Sure, they all should have copyrighted their work from the start, but they didn't think people would steal it from under them until they saw themselves being cloned by imposters or found their music in the possession of other.
Two of the smartest people in this genre of music are Gamble and Huff.

Perfect example is what took place with Tony Orlando & Dawn. Tony just recently got the rights back to sing " Tie A Yellow Ribbon" in public again, because someone took the song and legally attached their name to it. I know that's business, but it's dirty business as far as I'm concerned. Smokey knows this.

Moral is, copyright eveything you create right away.

Updated On: 2/5/07 at 10:17 AM

[Fosse76]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 10:23am

"Moral is, copyright eveything you create right away."

Actually, everything you create is automatically "copyrighted" the second you create it. It's registering it that needs to be done, but as long as there is documented proof that you are the author then even registration isn't always necessary, but it can be helpful.

[broadwaystar2b]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 10:54am

I can't really blame Smokey Robinson, I mean yes Dreamgirls is clearly fiction, but it's still a reflection of the world the original Motown artists lived in

As for Diana Ross, I heard that she did see Dreamgirls during its original run but walked out in the middle of the first act

[defyingravity11]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 2:00pm

I thought that the original musical was not intended to be the story of the Supremes at all. I would like to know where they are mentioned in the stage version though (I can't seem to remember where in the Actor's Fund concert recording).

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 2:04pm

Lorrell's first line.

They're also mentioned in the second press conference (that was subsequently cut from the show).

Updated On: 2/5/07 at 02:04 PM

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 5:01pm

As far as I know not only did Ross walk out during Act 1, but she went on to claim "My life isn't a f*cking musical!"

[TT]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 5:37pm

Okay...I did the tour of this show...First off, the character that Jamie Fox plays, Curtis Taylor, Jr., is a car salesman in the script...Berry Gordy, to the best of my knowledge, and I don't know much about him, but to the best of my knowledge he was never a car salesman...correct me if I'm wrong...

Also, I really don't think this story has anything to do with The Supremes at all...it's a piece of fiction...based very loosely on the break up of a girl's group similar to The Supremes...but I think it's very naive of anyone to make the comparison, really...the script doesn't say anything about James Thunder Early being a druggy, either...that whole thing about heroine use was in poor taste...but not unexpected for a Hollywood film...and Deena Jones didn't swear in the show either...

So for all those making any comparisons to any real life African-American (Black) women's singing trios, I think you should get a clue and do your own research. Stop relying upon Hollywood musicals to give you a mirror of reality.


Updated On: 2/5/07 at 05:37 PM

[bare_nakedlady]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 5:37pm

"It is promoted as "loosely based." Get over it."

I haven't seen "loosley based" anywhere in promotional materials. All the reviewers have said a supreme like group, but I agree with your sentiments. Get over it people. Just because you see a girl group with three ladies that look like the Supremes doesn't mean it is them. Nowhere in the film or on posters does it say that it is.

Just goes to show how our society is like hampsters. Just because the tell you there are WMD doesn't mean there are. Figure it out for yourself.

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 5:41pm

Sweet Jesus, please tell me you aren't using WMD as an analogy for Dreamgirls.

Hampsters? While I'm sure you meant hamsters, I think what you really mean is lemmings.

[americanboy99]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 5:47pm

What is Lorel's first line?

Why would Diana Ross be so upset? Deena is not made out to be the villain. Especially in the film.

[bare_nakedlady]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 5:57pm

Kringas - yes lemmings is better.

The WMD point is simply I'm tired of how everyone believes what they read or hear through rumor as gospel. Is Deena named Diana? Is Curtis named Barry? NO. Case Closed. Why should it be about the supremes? Is Effie named Florence? etc. etc. etc.

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 5:57pm

I haven't seen "loosley based" anywhere in promotional materials

Have you heard the filmmakers and actors talk about the film? The Supremes always come up.

As noted before, there are exact Supremes album cover recreations in the film. When the girls are performing "I'm Somebody" in the film Deena watches, it is an exact replica of a Supremes appearance on the tonight show. The Dreams are now from Detroit. Michelle's introduction to the story is now based on something from Motown lore, etcetera, ad nauseam.

I don't understand why some people so rabidly deny the parallels that were beefed up for the film.

[Raviolisun]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 6:00pm

That's wha I thought, Kringas.

[bare_nakedlady]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 6:22pm

I'm not denying parallels, the parralels are there. When you're making a film about an historical era that many of the viewers lived through, shouldn't you make them feel like they were there? OF course we want to see Jackson five type groups and supreme type groups when making a film about the 'Motown era'. It's a certain look, a certain feel. It has to look and feel like that otherwise it is not historically accurate. Seeing these things helps us to understand what the movie is really talking about. We lived it. I don't remember however, Barry Gordy inventing the Rainbow Records Label, I thought it was Motown. That's the point I'm making. Just because the parallels are there why does everyone ASSUME that ALL of these things happened to the Supremes et. al. Why should you assume it's them? I certainly didn't think Destiny's Child was the Supremes the first time I saw them.

Personally I liked Diana Ross better when her name was Deena.

Updated On: 2/5/07 at 06:22 PM

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 6:30pm

If Diana Ross hated the show, why did she sing Family at her Central Park concert?

[Kringas]

Posted: 2/5/07 at 7:14pm

I don't remember however, Barry Gordy inventing the Rainbow Records Label, I thought it was Motown. That's the point I'm making.

I think you've just proved my point. If they had used Berry Gordy and Motown by name, there would be no need to put the word "loosely" in front of "based." You seem to be implying that based and loosely based mean the same thing, which they do not.

Why should you assume it's them?

Because the film tells you to. If not, the Supremes would have still been from Chicago, there'd be no mention of Rainbow records, there'd by no Michael Jackson-type character, there'd be original album covers and shots of the Dreams on Ed Sullivan, etc.

I certainly didn't think Destiny's Child was the Supremes the first time I saw them.

That's because they are real people. And they're all a good 30+ years younger than the original Supremes. I'm glad you realize that the girls in Destiny's Child weren't the same girls in The Supremes, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Updated On: 2/5/07 at 07:14 PM