Whitney (2018)

Nice effects though.

Crappy film

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

I think the movie is primarily, though not exclusively, for fans. The documentary does exactly what you would expect - it rehashes the information that most people who own a television set or read a newspaper already know. In short we are told that she was very talented, had a lot of success followed by (and in conjunction with) considerable difficulties, and died unexpectedly. The film is interspersed throughout with her marriage, drugs, and the minutia of her life that is common knowledge by now. I did not have any revelations that I did not have prior. At best, on a rare occasion, an assumption or two I had was confirmed. Some may argue that the documentary was not intended to present us with additional intriguing information that we did not already know, and that it was more about being a tribute - and this is fine. Irregardless, I would suggest that if you have not had your head in the sand for the last few decades you can miss this one without too much worry. I would not say the film is bad per se, but I did not think it brought anything substantial from outside we already knew. It is, however, a perfectly fine nostalgic film that hard core Whitney fans will likely not want to miss.

I wasn't a huge fan of Nick Broomfield and Rudi Dolezal's Whitney: Can I Be Me (2017). The film was built on the foundation of never-before-seen backstage footage from Houston's World Tour 1999, but I felt the narrative was poorly constructed, jumping from her divorce from Bobby Brown in 2007 to her death in 2012 with very little detail on what happened in those five years. This had the effect of making the last part of the documentary feel rushed and incomplete. I went into it not knowing a huge amount about Whitney Houston (apart from the obvious bits and pieces that everyone knows), and I came out still not knowing a huge amount about her.Kevin Macdonald's Whitney covers almost identical terrain as Broomfield and Dolezal, with many of the same interviewees appearing in both films, and much of the same factual information presenting itself (Houston tried drugs long before becoming a celebrity; she was criticised as "acting white" and selling out her culture by many black people, and was booed at the 1989 Soul Train Music Awards (where her single "Where Do Broken Hearts Go" was nominated for Best R&B/Urban Contemporary Single - Female"); she was hounded with questions regarding her sexuality for much of her life, etc). One hugely important absence from both films, of course, is Robyn Crawford, Whitney's one time best friend, road manager, and probable lover, who was pretty much the only person in Houston's life who seemed to tell her what was really what, as opposed to what she wanted to hear, and have Houston's best interests at heart. Apart from a beautiful obituary for Esquire (on whose editorial staff Crawford's wife works), Crawford has maintained a dignified silence since Houston died, and neither Broomfield and Dolezal nor Macdonald were able to persuade her to speak on camera. This leaves a sizeable lacuna in the narratives of both films, as it is fairly unlikely anyone will really get to the core of who Houston was until (or indeed if) Crawford decides to tell her own story. As a side note, one interesting figure who didn't appear in Can I Be Me, but who does unexpectedly pop up in Whitney is Clive Davis, president of Arista Records, and the man who signed Houston to her first record deal.For all their similarities, however, I found Macdonald's film superior to Can I Be Me. Whitney has two major, and interconnected, advantages over the earlier film. Can I Be Me is more concerned with facts, and probably covers more "Did you know" moments; for example, the idea to open "I Will Always Love You" capella style was actually Kevin Costner's (however, having said that, Macdonald does manage to squeeze in a couple of not especially well known moments of his own; for example, Houston's haunting rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner" at the 1991 Super Bowl (where she had her bandleader and arranger Rickey Minor take the radical step of altering the time signature from a 3/4 to a 4/4) was completely unrehearsed, and the revelations regarding Dee Dee Warwick are shocking to say the least). However, what Macdonald does much better than Broomfield and Dolezal is that, on several occasions, he takes time out from the narrative to simply let the audience hear her sing. Probably because of this, his film is considerably more emotive. I was very moved by it on a couple of occasions; I don't remember being moved by Can I Be Me at all. One scene in particular I found very upsetting recalls that horrific scene in Asif Kapadia's Amy (2015) (2015) where Amy Winehouse is performing in Serbia a month before she died. In Whitney, it's footage from her Nothing But Love World Tour 2010, as she tries and completely fails to sing "I Will Always Love You" in Newcastle. The crowd is respectful enough, but given that so much of the documentary is simply about her voice, seeing her like this is very sad, as with her hoarse voice, she can barely stay in tune, let alone hit the high notes, sounding more like someone doing a bad karaoke rendition than one of the greatest singers of all time.Another very well handled part of the documentary's narrative is its coverage of what could be termed "mainstream media complicity" in her suffering. Look, Whitney Houston was a drug addict and a terrible mother, who was indirectly responsible for Bobbi Kristina Brown's death, insofar as she gave her child no stability, and introduced her to a world of substance abuse. Nobody is arguing anything different. But she was also a person, suffering deeply, in public, and very few people did, or even tried to do, anything to help her. The film presents a 2002 sketch from Saturday Night Live (1975) with Maya Rudolph as Whitney, in which she addresses the infamous Diane Sawyer "crack is whack" interview, and a scene from a 2005 episode of American Dad! (2005), in which an emaciated Whitney "sings for crack" in the Smith living-room. These clips were probably funny at the time, but aren't especially funny now, and they serve to highlight one of the most bizarre paradoxes of our celebrity obsessed society; we love to build people up and up and up, but, at some arbitrary point in time, we decide they've become too popular, too successful, too talented, so we do anything to pull them down, and when something goes wrong in their lives, really catastrophically wrong, our response as a society is not empathy, kindness, or understanding, but scorn, derision, and sarcasm. What a strange world we've made.7/10

No hold bars. I didn't want to see just concert footage. I can see that on you tube. There wasn't much I didn't know but the little tidbits and extra revelations made me feel compassion for Whitney. She went through a lot. People failed her and she failed herself. I believe she was a very good actor by that really good at covering up her true feelings. Hopefully this family will stop being in denial about the role they played.

"Whitney" (2018 release; 120 min.) is a bio-documentary about the life and times of singer Whitney Houston. As the movie opens, we see news clips as her 1985 debut album is storming the charts and making her a mega-star. We then go back to Whitney's humble upbringing in Newark, NJ, and get to know her parents (remember that her mom Cissy Houston was a singer in her own right), and her 2 brothers. Music played a major role in Whitney's life from early on, particularly attending the New Hope Baptist Church in Newark. Her mom did not go easy on Whitney, simply wanting to prepare her for "legacy music", and when Whitney turns 18, she moves out. At this point we're 10 min. into the movie, and you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from Scottish writer-director Kevin Macdonald, who's made several other music documentaries including "Marley" (on Bob Marley) and "Being Mick" (that would be Jagger). Here he brings, with full cooperation of the Houston estate, the life and times of amazing singer Whitney Houston. Because he has full access to footage, we get to see a number of home clips previously unseen (and at times very revealing). Macdonald interviews many people who knew Whitney well or were close to her (as, say, bodyguard). Comments someone: "A lot of people around her saw her like an ATM", wow. Yes, even no-good Bobby Brown gets screen time. When asked to comment on Whitney's drug use in the last years of her life, Brown, without the least of irony or regret, responds "I'm not answering that. Drugs have nothing to do with this documentary". Nice one! In fact the last hour of the documentary detail the sad (and drug-fueled) decline of Whitney. Some of those scenes are heartbreaking, frankly. The parallels between this documentary and the "Amy" documentary a few years ago on Amy Winehouse are pretty obvious: the use of the singer's first name for the documentary's title, the questionable role of the respective dads, the respective "bad" boyfriend/husband, the cringe-inducing last tour (for Whitney in 2009), etc. etc. "Whitney" is strong documentary, no question, but in my view "Amy" was a tad better (perhaps because I like Amy's music better). The talent that Whitney had was undeniable (that voice!), even though some of those 80s songs have not aged well. But the waste of that talent makes the passing of Whitney only sadder."Whitney" premiered at this year's Cannes film festival to great buzz, and opened this weekend in 4 or 5 screens in Greater Cincinnati. The Sunday early evening screening where I saw this at was attended nicely (and primarily by African-Americans I might add). If you are a fan of Whitney Houston, or music history in general, I'd readily suggest you check this out, be it in the theater, on VOD, or eventually on DVD/Blu-ray, and draw your own conclusion.