Jazz for aficionados

Frogman, according to "Aficionados", Dexter Gordon puts this movies over the top by simply being himself, without acting; in addition to a fantastic jazz track that was sufficient for two records, plus the musicians were the greatest.

While a top actor, and a good script, could make a fantastic jazz movie for the movie going audience; Dexter Gordon signed, sealed, and delivered it for aficionados. That's because they saw a "real" jazz musician, with the idiosyncrasies of a working jazz musician. This is a jazz aficionados movie if there ever was one.

As you stated, "Too many considerations and different points of view as to what a "jazz movie" should be to give it such an exclusive ranking." My ranking was based totally on the music and the musicians who are so very outstanding; "Herby Hancock" is transcendental, and I use that word in the sense that he has been an accomplished performer in so many different genres of jazz, and his stamp is all over the place in that movie.

 "Bobby McFerrin",  is incredible, but I can understand your comparison to him and a horn; while I think he does the impossible, I'm not a horn player.

As far as considerations and points of view, if one simply compares jazz movies, and doesn't put so much emphasis on the music; "Paris Blues" was a better movie, and it dealt with the same subject "Expatriates".

"Miles Davis" is an "Enigma"; while I never met the man, some of the people in his autobiography are related to me, and they were his best friends. The Miles they knew, has no relation to the Miles the public has been presented. Just like his music, it's all about "which" Miles are you speaking of? That was an impossible movie to make.




Enjoy the music.

Good post, O-10; I can't disagree with what you wrote.  On a related note, Jamie Foxx's portrayal of "Ray" is incredible.  As far as I am concerned, from an "acting" perspective, that's the one to beat.  Great movie.

Frogman, I had forgotten about that one; from an acting point of view, I don't think it will ever be beat. Like you said "Jamie Foxx's portrayal of "Ray" is incredible".

That movie was fantastic from beginning to end; Ray Charles, like all other blues musicians, began in the "Juke Joints", and those places in the movie were so authentic, that I could smell the beer, wine and whisky.


Enjoy the music.

 

There is 'acting', and there is 'imitation'.

Imitation -- The assumption of behavior observed in other individuals.

Some of these movies are just people imitating the physical traits, mannerisms and characteristics of famous people.   The story lines are not that compelling.   'Ray' heads that list.   When the actors are chosen based on having a similar physical appearance to the person being depicted, that's a red flag.

'Amadeus' was probably 99% BS, but a great and enjoyable movie.  With music like that, what else could it be.

Cheers

Sounds good; but, doesn't hold water.  Couldn't disagree more about the Foxx performance.  I think we agree that a great performance does not a great movie make.  Acting IS imitation.  However, what is the difference, as far as the craft goes, between "imitating" a character as defined and described by a script and directorial cues and "imitating" the traits of a famous person?  I think you're short changing Foxx's performance.  It s true that he bears a resemblance to Charles, but the performance was first rate by any standard; even the "piano playing" was the most realistic and believable that I've ever seen from an actor.