An interestingly designed and surprisingly uncompromising portrait

Rating: 7/10 (21 February 2005)

I only watched "Ray" because it was nominated for best picture and best director, since I had expected that it was nothing more than two or three hours of saying, "Look at how great Ray Charles is!" with no real substance of character or story behind it. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the man had a much more interesting life story than I had expected and that the film, though apparently pulling some punches (I have done some research on Charles since viewing the film to investigate its accuracy), doesn't turn a man who was for the most part a bordering on reprehensible human being who just happened to be immensely talented into the perfect hero--Charles is here with flaws. Suffice to say, the result was a good if a bit uneven film biography.
*NOTE: This paragraph contains all but one of the spoilers in this review, so if you want it without spoilers skip this and I will note the later one as well.* James L. White's screenplay meanders through Ray Charles's life, interestingly skipping his childhood and presenting it to us in a series of flashbacks, thus keeping the drowning of Charles's brother George a secret guilt for a considerable time. This concept was brilliant and whether it was White or (director) Taylor Hackford's idea, it deserves notice. However, much of the rest of the script seems unfocused, as though it does not know what the film is about. Is it about Charles's drug problems? Is it about his womanizing? Is it about his guilt over his childhood trauma? Is it about his rise from nothingness to becoming one of the most prominent musicians of all time? Can't figure it out? Neither could White, apparently. While many of these subjects are closely related (especially the drugs and his guilt) and all were parts of Charles's life, they are just frankly too much for one film and so every one of them ends up rather underdeveloped in an unsatisfying way. While more focus might have hurt the film's historical accuracy, I think it would have been worth it to see a more complete picture of Charles's descent into drug addiction, his promiscuity, or (best of all) his being haunted by his brother's young death. On the whole, the film has some opportunities it isn't quite capable of grasping because even now films can't expect an audience to follow along for Branagh-type length very often. *Spoilers over*
The acting is very strong throughout, including wonderful small appearances by two of the most versatile and under-appreciated actors on earth: Warwick Davis and David Krumholtz (Davis's performance, for me, is the most memorable in the film). Also noteworthy are Regina King, who wins the award for the best look in the film when she gives Charles a stare that could melt steel while he first sings "Hit the Road, Jack;" Kerry Washington's sweet and intelligent Della Bea is deeper than may appear at first glance; and of course Jamie Foxx. While he locked up the Oscar within five minutes of the film's release, Foxx's performance is really hindered by its subject. With his eyes never visible, it is amazingly difficult (anyone who thinks acting isn't about the eyes should watch this for proof that it is) for Foxx to provide us with much real emotion or feeling--rather, he spends most of the film simply mimicking the movements (especially behind the keyboard) of Ray Charles and while he does this impressively, it really does render his performance incapable of the depth and subtlety that it deserves to go along with that brilliant outward movement, which is a shame because he tries admirably to give it those subtleties (*SPOILER* notice the way his slamming his hand down on the piano and raising up changes over the years for an example *SPOILER OVER*). I really wasn't impressed with Foxx the other time I saw him (in "Any Given Sunday"), but this time he did the best job possible with what he had to work with.
The direction by Taylor Hackford is quite attractive, including some absolutely beautiful shots of Foxx's Charles on stage (especially in the spotlight) and a wonderfully washed out look to the childhood scenes punctuated with pieces of bright color that make its age that much more apparent. Much of the film isn't directed with a real noticeable style, but it doesn't do anything to detract from itself and some moments are absolute magic.
Overall, "Ray" presents an enjoyable but rather unfocused vision of a complicated, flawed figure in history, and does so with some wonderful elements and moments of exquisite beauty. The acting is quite excellent, though Jamie Foxx is rather hindered by not being able to use his eyes and thus comes across less emotional than he probably should. It's an interesting film and worth at least a look even for someone who is not a Ray Charles fan (I'm not) . . . just be prepared to hear a lot of soul and blues music.