Promesse d'Amour

I first met (and fell in love with) Halle Berry in Alex Haley's `Queen' (1993), TV mini series of some 259 minutes, shown here in Europe in two episodes. An excellent production with careful directing and good acting, especially from the beautiful Halle, even including the necessary aging which takes place throughout the film. I next found her as Khaila in `Losing Isiah' (1995), which was not bad, I suppose, just too predictable, although some scenes showed some pretty good interpretative skills. However, Charles Burnett's job on `The Wedding' – and Halle's attempt to play out the story – was just dreadfully, drearily dismal. There was little imagination, negligible capacity to make the characters `feel' alive, real; it just simply turned out to be another saga-like drudge. Whether a half-black lovely young woman can or shouldn't marry a perfectly white jazz musician, or whether she should or mustn't marry a an honestly black man, is just so out of date, it does not rub off. You would have to be really off your head for the beautiful Halle Berry, or simply an avid consumer of glossy women's mags to be able to stomache this film. Give it a miss.

Things I liked about The Wedding:

Halle Berry - fresh, beautiful, talented, what a lovely smile... the environment, the sets, the costumes (colors, styles, characterization), the lights and the colors of the scenes... the pear, the shore line, the woods, Marta's Vineyard sure must be a beautiful place. The beautiful white houses, the make-up displayed, the hairdos, the lines, the fact that it doesn't show violence, the fact that it deals with individual choice and the effect our choices have in others life. It suites the purpose of a TV movie, it has a message, it is clean, and healthy subject to watch and to think about. It's nice.

Overall, I thought this was a self-indulgent, long-winded film. I didn't read the book and was fascinated to read how different it was. Still predictable is the glorification of "poor" and rich or accomplished as somehow suspect. All of these are the same kind of stereotypes as the film attempts to criticize.

There are certainly some good moments but most of the time, I forced myself to watch so I could finally see how it ended. I'm sorry to say, it wasn't worth the wait. The best part of the film is of course the gorgeous Halle Berry, who doesn't have to do much to be spectacular, and the portrayal of upper class black society. That was as much a revelation as Spielberg's film in which we learned the little known fact that slavery was begun in Africa and there were Black free men in the North during slavery--something of which many people are completely unaware.

Additionally, I don't see bias towards interracial marriage here. I see bias against building enough character development to have us care about the people.

There are so many things wrong with this movie (if you have read the book), that i don't know where to begin: First let me say that Halle Berry was great as Shelby. But she was more physically suited to play Liz...

Again, if you read the book, you see that Shelby's hair is blonde, and her eyes are blue, and her skin is very fair. There was a flashback (in the book) to when she got lost as a little girl. She was lost for so long because no one knew to look for her specifically-they were expecting to find a child with traditionally black features.

With regard to Lute McNeil: Dorothy West paints a picture of a man who, because of his upbringing, generally hates women (ironically, not his daughters, though); he sees them as possessions and breeders, and moves on when the next lady strikes his fancy. If he stuck to his pattern, Shelby would have gone the way of the all the other women. In the end, I think she saw that. The movie painted him far too sympathetically-you wanted to cheer for him as Shelby's salvation. But Lute was a dangerous man.

The chemistry between Meade and Shelby on screen was sooooooooooo weak-thus making Lute that much more attractive. That's not the way West meant it. And why the screenwriters chose to change his name from Wyler (in the book) to Howell (In the movie) made no sense to me.

And in the book, the little girl died from her injuries after being struck by the car. Hearing Gram say at the end "oh thank heavens, that little girl is gonna be alright" was just plain cheesy.

This was one of the most beautifully written books this century, and as much as I love Oprah, I found her vision of it for TV completely out of step with the spirit of what Dorothy West wrote. If you can, you owe it to yourself to get a copy of West's final masterpiece.

The Wedding (1998) was a fine attempt to bring to life a brilliant book. Although I understand that Oprah Winfrey may have wanted to have "stars" in her movie, aesthetically they just don't fit. The book states again and again that the Coles family could have "passed" for white had they wanted to. There is a very important part of the book that describes the day Shelby got lost and everyone (read: white) thought they were looking for a little "colored" girl and therefore it couldn't be this beautiful BLUE-EYED, BLOND-HAIRED, little girl...until she tells them her name, and then they're horrified.

Although I think this cast did a wonderful job, I can't help but be bothered by the blatant disregard for a major plot point in Dorothy West's novel. That being said, if the viewer is aware beforehand, I think this movie is worth seeing simply because there are so few factual representations of African-Americans in the media. I know many African-American families that live and act as the Coles family does; I have yet to meet an African-American family that lives or acts the way the Parkers do.