One great performance does not make a masterpiece

Rating: 7/10 (16 February 2005)

There's no doubt about it. As Ray Charles, Jamie Foxx is downright brilliant. But one great performance doesn't necessarily make a great film, let alone a masterpiece.
Taylor Hackford's "Ray" definitely remains an interesting film filled with sensationally good music. But more often than not, the film feels more like a series of greatest hits clips strung together than a cohesive, moving narrative about the great artist's life.
True, the film doesn't merely stick to the good parts of Ray's life. It delves into his darker side - his drug addiction and womanizing. But we really don't need to be told this repeatedly for us to get a good understanding of the man. Unfortunately, Hackford, working from a script by James L. White, doesn't seem to quite get that point.
As courageous a film as this might seem, there's something awfully familiar about it. Much of "Ray" unwinds like a generic biopic, hitting all the customary marks, emphasizing all the clichés; the sort of stuff you might expect to see in a retrospective docudrama on VH1.
Hackford and White obviously are reverential of their subject, yet they don't mask the ugly bits. However, whenever the story veers into Ray's unseemly behavior, the film flashes back to his childhood struggles, his guilt over his brother's death, his blindness at an early age. It's the requisite overcoming-adversity story and, after a while, gets redundant. Hackford keeps drowning us with the water motif, imagery that turns terribly heavy-handed as the film wears on.
That "Ray" succeeds at any level is due entirely to Foxx's riveting performance. He deftly captures the great man. It's a performance fueled by creative intelligence, brimming with energy, humor, pathos, charm and swagger. Foxx gets everything right, from the genius musician's gentle swaying at the piano to his irresistible charm.
Foxx's remarkable turn aside, the rest of the film seems rather mundane. The writer saddles his actors with pedestrian dialogue and much of the film has a sense of déjà vu. Record executives often are seeing smiling and congratulating each other over their discovery, Ray repeatedly falls under the spell of heroin, has problems with his personal life and composes yet another amazing song.
There are some wonderful moments in the film. We learn why Ray wore those iconic sunglasses and why, early in his career, he insisted on being paid in $1 bills. Kerry Washington provides the story's moral center and brings a fine sense of strength, dignity and vulnerability to her Della Bea. Her early scenes with Foxx are especially touching. Regina King gets one well-done scene when her Margie and Ray break out into an angry rendition of "Hit the Road Jack." As exciting as that moment is, it, too, like another when Ray creates an impromptu session with "What I'd Say," rings more like a best-of moment, as if every one of Ray's songs stemmed from some tumultuous event.
Ray Charles was an extraordinary musician. He was unique, blending gospel, blues and country to create some of the greatest songs ever written. He deserved a biopic that also was unique, not conventional, in its approach to telling his story.
Don't get me wrong - "Ray" is worth seeing. If not for Foxx's performance, then simply for the sheer pleasure of listening to some of the best music you'll ever hear. Foxx certainly deserves his Oscar nod. But I don't believe the film deserves its Best Picture Oscar nomination. There were other films in 2004 - "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," "Hotel Rwanda," "Before Sunset," "Kill Bill, Vol. 2" and "Maria Full of Grace" spring immediately to mind - more deserving of that honor.