This is Jamie Foxx's playground

Rating: 7/10 (31 January 2005)

In a sense "Ray" is as much about Ray Charles as it is about Jamie Foxx's incredibly ability to portray him. It's funny because biopics tend to serve as great vehicles for actors to show their range. From Val Kilmer in "The Doors," Ben Kingsley in "Gandhi," Tom Cruise in "Born on the Fourth of July," to Paul Giamatti in "American Splendor" or Charlize Theron in "Monster," in biopics, good or bad, we get to witness some of the best performances. "Ray" is no exception and I would not be in the least surprised of Jamie Foxx received an Oscar for his portrayal.
He manages to capture not only the voice and physical mannerisms of Ray Charles, his look, but also a magnetic energy that allows us to understand the path from Charles' blind and pained childhood to fame (that was at times equally blind and pained). And, even though I was reluctant to believe this before I saw the movie, it is indeed hard to tell the difference between the subject of the film and the man who portrays him. That, I think, is one of the highest compliments an actor can get, one of the highest accomplishments he can achieve.
However - the actual film, as a story of a particular man's life, has its faults. The problem with "Ray" is not necessarily the way it is directed (I thought it was directed beautifully), but with the actual story. It almost seemed to me like certain events in the film were either uncalled for or thrown in because it'd be hard to tell Ray Charles' story without them.
Let me explain - throughout the entire film there is hardly one mention of Charles dealing with the ongoing racism in the country, particularly in the south. The film at first implies that racism was a hard fact of life for Charles, but he managed to succeed despite the situation the blacks were in during the 50s and 60s (when the film predominantly takes place). He accepted the situation, overcame it, and succeeded. We can understand an entertainer who wants to be a good entertainer and not involve himself in politics. But the scene in which Charles goes to Georgia to play to a segregated crowd and finds a slew of black protesters outside simply doesn't ring true. It's uncalled for. There is not enough set up to it. Ray Charles, escorted by a fat white southern hick, makes it through the crowd of protesters to the stage telling them that he's just an entertainer. He doesn't want to get involved in their cause. A young man begs him to not play in Georgia. The white hick curses at the young man. Charles has a moment - a moment in which too much is decided. And he changes his mind - he leaves.
There is no set up to this scene. I'm sure Charles has heard black people insulted by whites before - so why is this time so significant? Well, we can be sure it is significant, especially when the film practically ends with an apology on behalf of the state of Georgia for banning Charles from playing there. But the film doesn't elaborate, it doesn't allow us to understand. It just throws in a scene so as to cover the race part of the story.
"Ray" has a lot of moments of this sort. Namely, moments that seem disconnected from the general flow of the film, that were thrown in because the screenwriters felt that Charles' story would be incomplete without them. Ninety percent of the time they were right, but they simply did not set up the events. So some scenes play out falsely and arbitrarily.
Still, it's a very interesting film, telling a story of a fascinating individual. Whether it does it well or not is a matter of opinion. I would hardly put it in the canon of great biopics, those that capture lives, but that doesn't mean that I don't recommend "Ray." In fact, I recommend it wholeheartedly. It's well-directed, it has great music, and one hell of a performance by the ever-more surprising Jamie Foxx.