The Flipcritic

Though I love to dance, there are very few dance movies that I hold dear. Those that fall short of recommendation are basically about one-upmanship (YOU GOT SERVED) or tiresome clichés (DIRTY DANCING: HAVANA NIGHTS, HONEY, etc). But those that strive for quality are those that exhibit taut choreography (MOULIN ROUGE), romantic artistry (AN AMERICAN IN PARIS), or wondrously conceived sequences (SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN). Those that are dearest to me are somehow able to show how joyous and meaningful dance can be (TAP). To love dance is not just to appreciate the technique, but also to enjoy its very act.

This is something that SHALL WE DANCE does. It isn’t concerned with how well its characters dance, but with how dance makes their characters well. It’s not an exceptional movie, and it uses some unnecessary cutesiness for additional laughs. But its characters are charming, its weaknesses relatively harmless, and its final romantic moments strong. Most of all, it depicts characters who learn to brave and enjoy dancing.

The movie revolves around the life of John Clark (Richard Gere), a lawyer who specializes in the completion of wills. Despite the comfort his family enjoys, the nature of his work seems to have taken much of his vivacity. He stares out of L-trains on nightly commutes looking needy.

One night, his glances catch the window of a nearby dance studio. He sees in it a woman looking afar… wistfully, and thus he connects with her. Not in terms of desire, but of possible shared experience. His urge to recover his liveliness must be strong, for why would he pursue it by going into her studio just to see her? He eventually winds up signing up for dance classes, and why not? His life appears to be entering a state of limbo, so any change becomes welcome.

Does he have desires for Paulina (Jennifer Lopez), the dance instructor staring out the window? Advertisers would like you to believe so. He is drawn to her, but only because of the shared emptiness he believes they have in common. If he is attracted to her for romantic reasons, they appear to be the last of his priorities. Romance is certainly the last thing on Paulina’s mind as she makes her concerns clear, if his aren’t.

Once Mr. Clark’s lessons begin, so does the movie’s familiarity. I expected these clichés: the awkwardness that comes with learning new activities, the eccentric individuals whom these activities are learned with, and the “gay-discomfort” that is associated with men who dance well. There are well-intentioned scenes were conversations feel as if they were intentionally written for the audience than for the characters themselves (“speechifying” if you will). Some of them are played just right, while others become a bit annoying, but all in all they are innocuous. If they had continued the rest of the film’s way, then this review might have had one less asterisk.

Once the film’s second half kicks in, it becomes a delight. It starts to focus on the appreciation of dance. There is wonderful choreography, enjoyable not because of technical proficiency, but because we see characters who have learned their craft well. I related not only to John Clark, but also his companions Vern (Omar Miller), Chic (Bobby Cannavele), and Bobbie (Lisa Ann Walter). Their goals aren’t to win the next competition. Vern wants to get thin. Chic wants to become more desirable. Bobbie has a crush on one of them. And John just wants to be happy again.

The film’s latter half also deals with the actions John has taken. He goes to these dance classes and ultimately a contest without the knowledge of his wife Beverly (Susan Surandon). She eventually begins to notice the danger signs, such as extra hours unaccounted by his work. She hires a detective named Devine (Richard Jenkins) to find out if her husband is being unfaithful. Thankfully, the movie resolves her discovery in a refreshing manner (even Devine’s recommendations are sensible). Usually in romantic comedies such as these, a misunderstanding exists solely for the purpose of driving the story along. But in Mr. Clark’s case, his reason is reasonable (at least to him it is), and his explanation near the end touching. It might seem a stretch to some, but I found it truthful. It also helps to build a final romantic gesture come touchingly close to Mr. Gere’s tearful ending in AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN.

When it comes to the dancing, the movie isn’t bad at all. I have seen loads of musicals heralding outstanding technique and sharp unison. But few cast themselves in light bliss. The ballroom dancing contest that Mr. Clark and his companions compete in is not a showcase of fierce rivalry. They join it for themselves. Could you name a wonderful dance movie with protagonists dancing not to best their challengers, but for their own enjoyment?

The film’s cast is immensely likeable. Lisa Ann Walter is a poor man’s Bette Midler, but she holds her own against her counterparts (She has a derriere that puts all those J-Lo jokes to sleep). Bobby Cannavele holds that same funny charm which he masterfully demonstrated in THE STATION AGENT (he is the perfect example of shaky bravado here). Stanley Tucci is shamelessly over-the-top as Mr. Clark’s office and dance classmate (but in a good way I suppose). He is obviously overacting, but you can never accuse him of bad acting. Richard Jenkins has probably the film’s best performance as Devine. His advice to Beverly sounds as if it really came from a man who understands infidelity. And the manner of his comfort, being aware of her situation, is genuinely sweet.

Jennifer Lopez is the correct choice to play Paulina. She is an exceptional dancer (starting out as a choreographer in IN LIVING COLOR before hitting the big time), with her sharp moves, and credible instruction. When her character describes what tango is, she is actually quoting George Bernard Shaw. Richard Gere is once again solid as a romantic lead. No actor (other than Sean Connery) has silvered in age better than he has. He seems to have been bitten by the dancing bug ever since CHICAGO (where he showed he could really hoof it). They make a nice dance couple, especially in a scene when they tango alone. It is here where their buried desires connect, apart from their common neediness.

Though I have made the movie sound serious, the movie is not stern. It made me smile a lot, catching me off-guard with its light-hearted moments. It isn’t afraid to take a comic chance, and at times it wishes to be taken seriously, with John Clark’s narrative voice-overs that really don’t amount to much (This might be the film’s biggest weakness). Still, SHALL WE DANCE truly has an appreciation for the art in its title. It shows a man discovering a small paradise from the drudgery of routine. In doing so, it made me want to dance again (I know what I'm getting my wife on our anniversary).

Posted by FLIPCRITIC at February 8, 2005 12:18 PM