How Do You Solve a Problem Like Latifah?

“Leslie. You’re just right for me,” is an actual line of dialogue in the Sanaa Hamri-helmed romcom, Just Wright.

That should really tell you everything you need to know about the type of film this is. But just in case you need more: it’s sappy, predictable, and cutesy in often cringe-inducing ways.

Most reviewers point to the “likability” of co-stars Queen Latifah and Common (well, all except those critics insistent on comparing Common to a serial killer, that is…). It’s true; despite this film’s obvious failings (an absurd lack of realism chief among them), you can’t help but feel warm and fuzzy watching Latifah grin blissfully while riding her bicycle next to a jogging Common.

Everyone in this movie has at least one or two moments of winning behavior; even Paula Patton’s one-dimensional golddigger is given a scene meant to redeem her in the end (although, by then, it’s far too late).

But ultimately, this flick suffers from an obvious, elephant-in-the-celluloid flaw: Queen Latifah has never had chemistry with a male co-star. And if there were ever a guy who’d make a convincing onscreen match for her, Common isn’t that dude.

To be fair, though, the odds were stacked against him, anyway. Aside from his atrocious acting, there was little in this plot that could convince a viewer that these two ever should’ve met, let alone lived together (and I’ll get back to that in a minute), and eventually fallen in love.

They meet at a gas station following a New Jersey Nets game, in which Common’s Scott McKnight was the lead scorer and Latifah’s Leslie Wright was a loud and proud fan. Common’s on the phone, expositing about some charity and how he wants to be more hands-on with the kids. He tells the person on the other line that he doesn’t know how to open the gas tank of his brand new designer sedan (maybe it’s a Bentley; I have no idea—and as far as I know, neither does he).

You’d have to be able to believe than a veteran NBA star would purchase a car he drives himself, but doesn’t know how to gas up, in order to believe the exchange he and Leslie have at the (surprisingly rundown) gas station. But let’s say we do believe this quality of Scott’s makes him charming instead of dense to a fault. Would he be so appreciative of Leslie popping the gas cap that he’d invite her to his exclusive in-home birthday party the following night?

No. No, he probably wouldn’t.

And considering how flirty she was with him, would Leslie have invited her godsister, Morgan (Paula Patton), an unemployed loafer whose only career objective is becoming an NBA wife?

No. No, she probably wouldn’t.

The movie is full of forced occurrences like this, including the following highly improbably gem: after Scott injures himself, Morgan (now his fiancée… after a short three months of dating) fires his blonde, thin physical therapist and hires Leslie (who she, of course, feels poses no romantic threat to her, presumably because she’s full-figured and tomboyish) as a live-in employee.

If both Scott and Leslie live in the same New Jersey city, and if Leslie has just purchased a fixer-upper house, why in the world would she need to live in Scott’s manse (which he already shares with his mother)? Is he gonna get a 3 am spasm she’ll be fired for not being present to massage?

Since I’m not telling you anything the trailer hasn’t already spoiled for you, Morgan dips on Scott, post-injury, and Leslie, who’s already living there, is around to pick up the pieces of his shattered heart and career.

The Scott-woos-Leslie section is where things really begin to fall apart. See, it was all fun and games when Queen Latifah was wearing Nets jerseys and track suits and tough-talking Scott into recovery, during strolls to Rucker Park. (In another seriously smirk-evincing turn: dude has a potentially career-ending knee-tear near the end of a season and he’s back on the court in time for the first game of the playoffs? … For the Nets? Okay, fam.)

But once they’re locking lips and sharing a silk-sheeted bed, everything falls impossibly flat. I felt guilty, practically cringing at Queen and Common futilely attempting to give each other the bedroom-eye. I couldn’t figure out why. Was it because Common’s eyes don’t emote and what should’ve come off as “smoldering” instead translated as creepy? Was it because Latifah seems like way too much woman for Common, taller than him in her “date heels,” and probably a much better baller than he on a court? Or was it simply because I’ve seen just about every Latifah flick that features her and a handsome male costar and I knew how this would play out—only this time, the filmmakers (and Latifah, as producer) pushed the envelope farther than she typically does, by featuring a morning after scene? (Most of her onscreen romantic trysts end in brief, chaste “stage-kissing.”)

In the end, it must’ve been all of the above, a series of fates conspiring against the believability of this onscreen pairing. But of course, this begs the question: can Latifah be effectively sexualized onscreen? Clearly, she wants to be. She’s been producing the films in which she stars for years now and nearly each features her with a male love interest, with whom she’s unable to generate many sparks.

Latifah is as likable as every reviewer says she is. She’s equally elegant and athletic, pretty and formidable. But her assets would probably be better served in action roles, asexual dramas or—and let’s just go ahead and say it—lesbian love stories. (Everyone knows that the one time Latifah played a lesbian was the one time she elicited a convincing onscreen kiss).
Ultimately, it seems that her agenda is women’s empowerment. Several lines in the film alluded to this idea that Leslie’s size and nontraditionally-feminine personality disqualified her from holding Scott’s interest. The film goes out of its way to prove the opposite true: that you can dress down and be full-figured and conversant in sports stats and still snag the guy “just by being yourself.”

It’s an age-old message, conveyed better in many a previous film… probably because the stars of those previous films were better able to sell us on the idea that they actually enjoyed making out with the guys they snagged.

slb

slb (aka Stacia L. Brown) is a writer, mother, and college instructor in Baltimore, MD. Check her out here: http://stacialbrown.com and here: http://beyondbabymamas.com.
  • I’d be willing to bet that I laughed more reading this than I ever would have watching this movie. However, I’m not willing to find out.

  • MC

    *stomps foot indignantly*

    Stacia,

    I have had it up 2 here with your constant slander of my Dana Owens. How dare you insinuate that she can’t convincingly create chemistry with her male leads. Did you see how she smiled? She smiled REALLY big. That’s good acting. And she ACTUALLY cried. C’mon. If that didn’t just break your heart, nothing will. And plus, if she were a lesbian, there would have been a press conference years ago. So just stop it, okay? Leave Khadijah alone!

    :-)

  • co-mu’fuckin – sign

  • Dan Miller

    I’m slightly more willing than you are to buy that Common/McKnight can’t pump his own gas–in NJ, it is illegal to pump your own gas (an attendant must pump for you). This was maybe the most surprising thing I learned when I came from Chicago to the east coast for college.

    • does anyone know why this is? I know people are loath to end this policy because it would eliminate jobs, but I’ve never quite understood why i was a law in the first place.

      • shani-o

        Because it’s awesome.

        • Leigh

          Exactly.

    • slb

      wow, dan. i’d forgotten all about that.

      i wonder if that means that scene wasn’t supposed to have taken place in Jersey? (do the Nets play in NY or something?)

      now i feel like my annoyance could’ve been cleared up with some exposition. but this film was already way too exposition-heavy… so maybe not.

      • Nope. The Nets play in Piscataway. And it’s funny that Dan mentioned that because the FL also noticed that when we saw the movie on Friday.

        By the way, Common has only two facial expressions: beatific and confused.

        That said, he’s a much more passable movie basketball star than, say, Omar Epps or Wesley Snipes.

        • slb

          omg. remember that scene where Morgan is ordering alcohol, after they’ve reconciled, and he’s staring at her? WHAT WERE WE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE HE WAS THINKING?

          he was out of his depth, trying to convey… whatever it was he was trying to convey there. lol

        • Leigh

          Yeah, this whole pumping your own gas in NJ post-Nets game was a doozy for me too. The whole movie was an homage to the Jers, in some ways, and they couldn’t get that right?

  • hnyflvr

    All I can say is a-men! I mean c’mon movie tickets are too expensive for this nonsense.

  • Val

    Wow@Latifah should play “asexual” roles. Just because you have a bias against Latifah doesn’t mean everyone does. And btw, Latifah was a very convincing heterosexual woman in the film Life Support.

    • slb

      I don’t have a bias against her. And I haven’t seen Life Support, so thanks for suggesting it.

    • Scipio Africanus

      It’s funny you mention Life Support because I’d forgotten she was in that, even though I really enjoyed that movie alot. But the funny things is that homosexuality-related stuff is maybe the biggest sub-theme of that movie, and I never associated Latifah with that aspect of the film. Maybe because it’s mostly about gay males, not so much lesbians.

      • Val

        That’s interesting. It’s amazing how people view films differently. I thought the two major plots of the film were Latifah’s characters relationship with her daughter and with her husband. I actually saw the part of the film involving Evan Ross’ character as a subplot.

        • Scipio Africanus

          I think Nelson George certainly wanted us to care alot about Latifah’s relationship with Bunk, but I never really got into it. The tension revolved around the way their lives used to be as junkies, not they way they were at the telling of the story, so I had to imagine something that contradicted what I was being shown.

          Her relationship with her daughter was certainly the main subject, but Evan Ross’ descent, and our chase after him down into his particular world – young, gay, Brooklyn, drugs – was fascinating and held my attention. Probably because I had just moved to Brooklyn 6 months earlier and I was just becoming familiar with the streets, locales and neighborhoods.

    • I saw “Just Right” too, and not for a moment were Common and Latifah convincing as love interests. Their love scene was so damn awkward and forced, I had to cover my eyes.

      I don’t know much about Latifah playing solely asexual roles. But her performance in this movie reminded me a lot of watching Freddie Jackson kiss women in his music videos during the 80s.

      • slb

        I should clarify that by “asexual roles,” I just mean roles where she’s not the love interest. I ain’t sayin’ she needs to be in a burqa or she can’t be sexy in a flick (she can; I’ve seen evidence of that). I’m just saying that her strengths as an actress would be better served in roles where she doesn’t have to make out with dudes with whom she has no onscreen chemistry.

        I’m also not saying she’s incapable of onscreen chemistry with any dude, ever. I’m saying that, dating all the way back to Living Single (a series in which she had a ton of boyfriends), she hasn’t generated much sexual tension/chemistry with her male leads.

        In retrospect, maybe “platonic” would’ve been a better word choice than “asexual.”

        • Not even with Grant Hill? Oh noes!

        • Scipio Africanus

          For the record, having grown up in Philly, Muslim girls rocking kemars used to be some of the best looking and sexiest girls around.

    • Michael in LA

      I was convinced by Dana’s acting in “Set it Off.” Her character Cleo had hella chemistry with Ursula (Samantha MacLachlan).

      Just restating the obvious.

      I had a free night to catch a movie yesterday – saw Benjamin Bratt’s La Mission. Dana’s ex co-star from Living Color, Erika Alexander did justice to her role. Skip this mess and catch La Mission instead.

  • Leigh

    I just saw this on Sunday, and yep, their chemistry was non-existent. It was SO awkward. And I know I’m supposed to believe that folks of all shapes and sizes can find each other, but I felt like, c’mon, they couldn’t cast a heftier ball player alongside Latifah? She’s curvy and Common has the world’s tiniest waist. He looks too delicate to be on the court, to begin with, and just no match for Latifah’s strength. I’ve never been one to shy away from the petite dude, personally, :), but not only was their chemistry bad, but I also felt like physically they looked like a really awkward match.

    And Common cannot act. Handsome though. He was like the cypher role women usually have to play to the male lead, not that we got so inside Latifah’s head in this…

  • Leigh

    Btw, blowing off your dissertation for an afternoon to watch a romcom that’s definitely NOT as crappy as most of them these days is highly recommended!

  • I dunno. I saw “Last Holiday” on a plane (where, admittedly my standards aren’t too high) and I thought it was surprisingly effective in “selling” Latifah as a romantic lead. I was in hour five of a seven hour flight, but still…

    …Is sexual chemistry a necessary element for a female romantic comedy star in the first place? It seems that these actresses tend NOT to have “heat” with their male costars in general. Meg Ryan? Renee Zellwegger? Reese Witherspoon? Even J-Lo, hot as she is, deals with the men in her films as plot points rather than full-blooded characters. The one time J.Lo had palpable sexual chemistry with a male costar was back in Out of Sight with Clooney, which was an action movie not a Rom Com (And PS the perfect third date DVD to seal the deal with a potential loved one, trust)

    I’m not disagreeing with your analysis–I haven’t seen this film (and, barring an unfortunately-timed international flight, I never will) but I wonder if you are blaming Latifah for something that is more properly an element of the genre itself: improbable (because of looks, class, overwhelming neuroses, etc.) female leads who, following a series of unlikely circumstances, end up having an oddly sexless romance with a blandly handsome guy = Rom Com.

    In other words, if “Cinderella” is in the DNA of this genre how much of that can we really hang on Latifah? I’d be interested to read your take on the genre itself.

    And PS:
    I know what you meant, and I know where you are coming from… but can we retire the Burqa=sexless metaphor?

    • slb

      First, I’ll apologize for using the burqa as an example here. Not only was that culturally insensitive; it was a lazy reference.

      Secondly, G.D. pointed out the same thing to me yesterday about romcoms, off-site, and while I agree that the genre doesn’t require palpable sexuality (which is why it’s a dying/ineffective genre), my opinion abt Latifah is that she doesn’t have onscreen chemistry w/ her leads, whether the film falls into this genre or not. I’d cite her TV show as an example and Mad Money (although that’s just a crappy film across the board).

      Re: Last Holiday, someone else used that w/me yesterday (also off-site). I’ve watched that flick three times. I didn’t see sparks btwn her and LL. (Maybe that’s b/c I don’t like LL, since this is the 2nd time someone has pointed out their chemistry).

      (Wait. Maybe I have to find these dudes attractive to think the lead does. And that would be another issue altogether.)

    • Scipio Africanus

      “…(And PS the perfect third date DVD to seal the deal with a potential loved one, trust)”

      Noted. Thanks.

  • @slb
    No worries re: the burqa. There is a refreshing lack of “gotcha” on this site and I wasn’t trying to introduce any. I was just keeping the discourse honest. I expect you to do the same for me.

    As far as Latifah is concerned I wonder if her sexlessness isn’t an essential element of her success in mainstream movies. Would the same audience who cheer for “sassy” Latifah be into sexy Latifah?

    My guess is that we are never going to find out.

  • DVE

    It seems like some of these comments are veering into the territory of obliquely speculating about her sexuality in a way that’s a little uncomfortable. I’m not big on romantic comedies in the first place, and so many of them are formulaic and present really problematic scenarious as if they’re romantic, so perhaps I’m not the best judge of the genre, but I haven’t noticed her movies being especially bad. I do think sometimes the roles she chooses put her in “sassy black lady,” or “represent for the big girls,” character boxes, like because she’s an atypical romantic lead, the script and direction overemphasises that atypicality. I don’t know, it’s just seems like the implied parenthetical of a lot of this conversation is Latifah can’t play these roles(because she’s a lesbian in real life), which even if it’s true, is not her public identity and is neither here nor there when discussing her ability to play a role while acting.

    • Leigh

      I don’t know about “can’t play” – which sounds like it’s her fault or some unfortunate limitation – vs. her sexuality influencing who she has chemistry with vs. what roles exist for women. Can you “act”/channel chemistry?

      • slb

        If chemistry is a requisite for the role you’re playing, you should be able to act/”channel” it. If you can’t, you should be recast–and that’s been done (for both male and female roles) for many a film, for many years.

      • DVE

        But there are tons of gay and lesbian actresses who play straight characters– and those are just the ones we know about, there are some gay and lesbian actors and actresses playing straight in both their on and off screen public lives. There was just a critic who got read the riot act (rightfully IMO) for suggesting that gay men should not play straight men because it was inherently distracting (for him) to know an actor was gay and believe he was dating women onscreen. Good actors and actresses fake chemistry because it’s part of the job. So, if Latifah does not have chemistry with her leading men and does not in fact date men in her real life, the problem wouldn’t be that she doen’t date men, it would be that she is not a very good actress, or the men she’s cast with aren’t very good actors, or that the writers and directors have trouble making her films credible because they aren’t trying that hard or are too caught up in the fact that she’s a nontraditional romantic lead and when women who look like her are cast in romantic roles in mainstream comedies, they are usually the punchline, (speaking of which, I feel kind of odd defending Latifah here, because I have still not forgiven her for Bringing Down The House), or that audiences are bringing their own baggage.

        • slb

          I read that article. I disagree with that article. I’m not making that argument.

          I think Latifah’s problem has been, at turns, all of the things you’ve suggested: she’s a likable, bankable film star, but one of her limitations has been generating onscreen chemistry. In some of those scenes, her acting (and the dudes up there with her) has been bad. In Just Wright, Common is just as much to blame for the lack of chemistry as she is; he’s a flat-out terrible actor in *every* scene. She’s acted alongside some heavyhitters in her day, as love interest (Isaiah Washiington, Djimon Hounsou, Harry Lennix) and there’s still no spark.

          That could writing. It could be direction.

          As a producer, she consistently chooses roles where she “gets the guy,” which is her right, but she usually isn’t strong in those roles. In Just Wright, some of this had to do with the implausibility of other character traits (in addition to not buying her as Common’s lover, I also didn’t buy her as sugary sweet and insecure and slow to confrontation, when it came to her godsister–all of which were traits assigned her in this script).

          My question, then, is: at what point (if all) do you look at scripts and say: I’m better at this type of film than that one; I’m going to diversify my oeurve.?

          You mentioned Bringing Down the House. That’s another example of a genre in which she doesn’t excel: the broad, pratfalling comedy. After that one (and the backlash it received), she left that type of comedy alone.

          In the end, it’s quite possible that romantic comedies gross well for Latifah and that’s why she keeps signing on for them. Cool. My opinion remains that those haven’t been her better roles.

          • DVE

            I don’t think your original piece was going there, but I think some of the discussion has been sort of skirting that line, to the point that it was worth putting out there that it’s a really problematic argument to say that a person’s sexuality inherently limits the roles they can play. I hear you, that that’s not the argument you were making, but I think saying that an actress who has been widely rumored to be a lesbian for a long time has no chemistry with male leads and should stop playing these roles has the potential for people to take away more than was intended. If I’m reading it correctly, the question I was responding to was asking why it would be problematic to link her on screen chemistry and her off screen sexuality.

            I believe you though, that the movie was terrible. I just sat through that J Lo movie a few weeks ago and my brain cells haven’t forgiven me yet, so I’m not going to risk it and see Just Wright.

    • I don’t know, it’s just seems like the implied parenthetical of a lot of this conversation is Latifah can’t play these roles(because she’s a lesbian in real life), which even if it’s true, is not her public identity and is neither here nor there when discussing her ability to play a role while acting.

      yeah, i’m inclined to agree with this as well.

      • slb

        I can’t speak to the “implied parentheticals” present in the comments section here, but I can reiterate that, in my original write-up, my intent was to discuss Latifah’s portrayal of romantic leads. My opinion is that she doesn’t sell chemistry with her male co-stars as well as she sold her role as Cleo in Set It Off (in which her romantic interest was a woman).

        I don’t want to, nor did I intend to, discuss her off-screen sexual orientation and how it may or may not affect her onscreen chemistry.

        My point is that romantic roles aren’t her best ones, and Just Wright was especially weak, as it related to chemistry with the dude.

        My personal thesis is absolutely not that she “can’t play hetero roles b/c she may not be hetero.” It’s that, for whatever reasons, she’s been historically not great at onscreen chemistry w/ her male leads.

  • Joshunda

    No one has said it and maybe I shouldn’t bring it up, but maybe one of the reasons Queen Latifah (like other full-figured black women, like, say, Oprah) rarely has sexual chemistry with male leads has to do with a long history of Hollywood’s positioning of full-figured black “happy” “fine just-as-they-are” black women as Mammy archetypes. The goal, this day in age, is not even necessarily to make it seem like they are supposed to be asexual or devoid of their own sexual empowerment but it’s been the gaze in films for so long for black women who don’t fit societal norms physically (Whoopi Goldberg is another example) that it makes sense that it would carry over into this one.

    • slb

      I’m glad you did bring this up. I didn’t even consider it, as it relates to her work in romantic comedies, but ironically, I’ve written about Latifah’s contribution to the “neo-mammy” archetype here before.

      Hollywood’s (society’s? maybe my?) view of her as sassy/brassy/nurturing-to-the-point-of-self-sacrifice probably *has* contributed to audiences’ reluctance to see her as a sexual being.

      And perhap’s that’s aided by dialogue like, “Mama knows” or “Mother will be mackin'” (her characters do tend to refer to themselves as mothers/mamas)….

      • Leigh

        I think this is overthinking this movie a bit. They really just didn’t have any onscreen chemistry. I haven’t seen Queen Latifah in too many other movies (except one w/Steve Martin), so I don’t know what trends might exist, but I do know the romantic scenes b/w her and Common were just totally w/o any zing. They are not the only couple to have this unfold (I heard Jen Aniston and Gerard Butler were zero chem in that terrible bounty hunter movie, vs. the CW being that Pitt and Jolie’s chemistry in Mr & Mrs Smith was super obvious), but it was definitely the case in this movie.