Dance sequences redeem otherwise lackluster plot
By Yuan En Lim, Staff Writer
"Shall We Dance?" bears many similarities to the novice ballroom dancer, prone to occasionally stepping on one's feet but eager to please. While not a waltz to remember, there are enough feel-good elements in this attractively cast film to warrant a little light-footedness. The 1997 Japanese original was by most accounts a popular, delicately nuanced tribute to dancing, which set the high standards that director Peter Chelsom must adhere to. He falls short largely because the remake comes across as slick and crowd-pleasing.

Richard Gere is charming as ever in his portrayal of Chicago estate lawyer John Clark and, for once, his role does not involve a considerably younger paramour. He seems to have everything that every American dreams of: a loving wife, two teen-aged children and a sprawling mansion. Not long into the movie, however, John's wife Beverly's (Susan Sarandon in an unchallenging role) passing observation that his happiness is just a mite lukewarm triggers some indefinable dissatisfaction. A voiceover that is strangely out of place tries to give some credence to the introspection that then leads to John's impulsive decision to join a ballroom dancing class. There, he is taught by Paulina (Jennifer Lopez), the beautiful instructor that he has seen daily gazing contemplatively out a window of the dance school.

Any thoughts of romance are quickly quashed by Paulina's steely rejoinder to John's offer of dinner. But by this time he has progressed far enough to realize that he has fallen not for the instructor but for the sheer joy of dancing. This is a development of no great surprise; indeed, the movie's principal characters all manage to learn something new about themselves in unoriginal ways. It is just as well that "Shall We Dance?" is sufficiently self-conscious not to tumble down the slippery slope of overdoing the heartwarming bits.

With her role in "Shall We Dance?" the much-derided Lopez has found as suitable a role for herself as there probably ever will be. She dances gracefully, alternates between expressions of aloofness and warmth and generally is not required to display much depth of emotion, save in one quietly picturesque scene halfway through.

An array of mildly amusing supporting characters attempts to enhance the comedy quotient, and, like the rest of the movie, the results are mostly hit or miss. Stanley Tucci as a bald, sequinned dancing devil in an ineffective wig is perhaps the pick of the bunch, representing a statement on the heterosexuality of ballroom dancing and daring to sacrifice image for passion.

As a matter of fact, the movie is at its strongest when it lets the dancing take center stage. It is not technical to the degree of alienating viewers unfamiliar to the intricacies of ballroom dancing, nor is it overly simplistic as to undermine its credibility. The movement and enthusiasm easily sweeps the audience along. If one can look beyond the implausibly brief period that John takes to become proficient enough to compete, one can really enjoy the movie's effortless elegance.

Other plot devices in the movie are regrettably employed to lesser success. Beverly's consultation with an unkempt private investigator to flesh out her suspicions of John's infidelity seems to serve no discernable purpose other than establishing her as a "romantic." Her insightful take on married life is almost worth the diversion, though, and leads fittingly on to the unabashedly sweet finale. It is less a case of succumbing to cheap sentimentality than of a conventionally pleasing reaffirmation of love. Watch "Shall We Dance?" for its fluffy, saccharine appeal, watch it for its accessible depiction of ballroom dancing, but don't hold high hopes for a provocative, influential experience.

Issue 08, Submitted 2004-11-03 09:14:12