If you're deciding whether to watch RAY or THE SOLOIST . . .

Rating: 10/10 (19 June 2009)

Obviously, the 2004 film biography of Ray Charles, titled simply RAY, has a lot to be said in its favor. After all, Jamie Foxx won the lead actor Oscar in 2005 for his performance in the title role. He is very unlikely to repeat that feat playing the title character in THE SOLOIST, because 1)the latter film was released too early in the year, 2)it only made $30 million in U.S. theatrical receipts, 3)it did not get as much publicity and "buzz" as RAY, 4)Ray Charles was a pop music superstar with whom almost everyone is familiar, while the soloist Nathaniel Ayers is notable primarily for the mental illness which nipped his career as a classical instrumentalist in the bud, and 5)many movie-goers and Oscar voters prefer flashy over-the-top flicks (such as RAY) to quiet, understated films, such as THE SOLOIST. The reason I gave THE SOLOIST a rating of "10" out of 10 (compared to a "9" for RAY) is that in addition to portraying the torment suffered by the title character and his family (a main feature of RAY), the SOLOIST does such a great job of 1)showing how journalism works, 2)showing how open-ended fighting mental illness can be, and 3)showing how the homeless live, right down to filming actual homeless people in an actual shelter. Whereas RAY devotes much of its time to drug abuse and the glamorous life, THE SOLOIST--despite a few flaws--feels like a more helpful look at parts of society with which the average person is likely to come into personal contact (check out the panhandling musicians outside any U.S. major league sports venue when the temperature is over 50 degrees Fahrenheit), while RAY's milieu is too rarefied for most.