Yes, this is going to happen, soon, and the story alternately made me want to cry and wretch.

The nausea was involuntary. I think it's great that they're doing it, but couldn't control my abdominal reaction at certain points.

A very long and very well-written story for AP.

Somehow watching the two of them intermittently. Ray through Taylor Hackford's film version of his life, and the prime minister on a Charlie Rose appearance this week.

Guess who is more interesting?

Ray was prolly more interesting as an actual person, but the prime minister is blowing him away in this format.

This in spite of my extreme distaste for politicians and their blatherings, and the emotionally lethal energy-suck of a translator.

But the Turk could not be more intelligent, insightful or enlightened about the world he's living in. Far better grasp than any of our leaders.

And when he talks about Turkey entering the EU as a path to the integration of civilizations instead of the clash of civilizations, my heart sings.

Or is it my head. He speaks from a long historical perspective, of how the two have fed off each other through the ages, grown when they were receptive to the advances across the seas, stagnated when they ignored them. The East is greedily gobbling up much of what they are learning from the West, he says. If the West chooses to ignore the East it will surely stagnate.

Who could argue with that? It has always worked like that.

Meanwhile, Ray is incredibly interesting in theory, but the movie is just plain boring.

I'm still 90 minutes into it--60 still to go--and it's taken me three sittings already to get there. It just drags.

Unbelievable. Who could make Ray Charles dull?

David Edelstein posed an interesting theory, in Slate last fall, when we had a flurry of stunning performances in lame biopics--this included, if not the prime example. He said biopics almost never work. He actually challenged readers to come up with a single biopic in the history of cinema that succeeded.

(They came up with a handful, Coal Miner's Daughter leading the list, if I recall.) But a minuscule percentage.

I can't recall whether the following take on it was his or mine, but I'm going to toss it out here: So much plot to cover, so little time to focus on the intimate details that make a story come alive.

You can sure see that here.

And a conscious choice, I think: Taylor only had time to focus on Ray The Artist or Ray The Star. He chose the latter. He chose to chart out the unfolding of a career. This betrayal led to that band led to that tour led to that sound led to that hit . . .

Interesting, kinda, but such an emotional snooze. And an intellectual one. Only a two-dimensional conception of the man, and not the slightest glimmer of insight into what made him create such wonders.

And not much emotional involvement either. Bland bland bland. Not sure when I'll find time to trudge through the rest of it.

But can't wait to get back to the prime minister.

Update:

Finished Ray. The last hour finally wrung some powerful emotion out of me, but it also got trashier, cheesier and outright embarrassing in its "effects." I felt so bad for them during the drug rehab sequence. Nice little experiment, but some attempts just don't work. This was so far from working, surely most of the people involved knew. Were they all hoping they were the only one who thought so?

Puzzling. I was under the impression Taylor Hackford had made some good films.

So I looked him up. Man! Trashmeister. His credits list sure explains this shallow schmaltz. Only film I liked in his whole long list was An Officer And A Gentlemen, which was nearly his first, and over 20 years ago.

And I adored it, but it was pure formula done expertly well. (Or maybe I was just primed for it. Came just about the time I was enlisting.) Not much promise there as a great director, none realized.

I feel so much better. Always hurts me when talented people produce junk. Not that Ray was terrible, just sub-par. So much talent up on the screen though, just seems like a waste.