in June, when it was revealed publicly that shooting had been suspended on Julien Temple’s Marvin Gaye biopic, Sexual Healing, starring Jesse L. Martin (as Gaye), S. Epatha Merkerson (as Marvin’s Gaye’s mother, Alberta Cooper Gay), and Dwight Henry (as Marvin Gaye’s father, Marvin Gay, Sr.).

It was reported that there was a possibility that the film might not see completion (at least, not anytime soon), because Focus Features International, the company that picked up the project initially, and shopped it at the Cannes Film Festival last May, had pulled out.

Reasons for Focus' exited weren't given, unfortunately (unless we just missed that announcement), although, at the time, I thought that it might have something to do with what follows.

Crew members were said to have not yet been paid fully for their work on the film, with one of the film's producers, Jimmy De Brabant, telling ScreenDaily that there was apparently a cash flow problem with the American investor backing the film; although he added that the funding that was promised by this investor had not yet arrived, but emphasized patience with the film's cast and crew, suggesting that the money was indeed coming.

At the time, it was said that about 70% of the film had been shot.

Although I'm still really curious to hear Focus Features' reasons for dropping out. There might be more to this than is public currently.

It's still not clear to me where the project stands - whether the financing eventually did come, or if shooting is still in Limbo.

What I did dig up today was the below promo reel featuring footage from the film, as well as a scheduled release date of April 1st, 2014, which is a Tuesday, meaning a home video release. Although April 1, 2014 will mark the 30th anniversary of Marvin Gaye's death, so I'm sure it's no coincidence, and a theatrical release is in the film's future.

I've sent an email out to Arrow Entertainment, the production company on whose website I found the promo reel, requesting info on the project's status. If I get a response, I'll share here. In the video, you'll see that David Harewood and Clarke Peters are part of the film's cast, which we didn't know previously.

The film is set in the early 1980s, and focuses on the making of the Midnight Love album, while Gaye was living in Belgium - a drug addict, considered something of a has-been at the time.

Also Brendan Gleeson co-stars, playing Freddy Cousaert, who helped Marvin get back into the swing of things.

Grammy Award-winning producer Vassal Benford is executive producing, and will also compose the score.

Principal photography was taking place in Luxemburg and Belgium.

Here's your first look at the film:

[Edited 9/18/13 10:43am]

[Edited 9/18/13 18:44pm]

It doesn't look bad at all!

I dont like how he is being portrayed

But I guess Hollywood needs the money...

mjscarousal said:

I dont like how he is being portrayed

But I guess Hollywood needs the money...

It's not very flattering, but maybe close to the truth.

^ I get that... although Hollywood fabricates these biopics especially when the person is deceased and dont have a say in their portrayel. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth when Hollywood does things like this. I hate how they exploit the negatives from these legends especially the African American ones. Its depicted in the 1980's during a dark period for him so Im sure some of what we see is true but I just like a fair representation of the music and happier times along with it (maybe they did who knows its just a preview). The movie looks interesting. I just think the best bio picks are the ones where the person was actually involved because its more revealing/accurate.

[Edited 9/18/13 16:09pm]

The acting's alright but the plot's messed up. It's not going to be released to theaters.

well just like the controversy that surrounded the Malcolm X and Panther movies, there are SO MANY angles from which to do the film, how do you settle on the right one(s) and do talented, complex people, flaws and all, justice. the trailer picqued my interest

datdude said:

well just like the controversy that surrounded the Malcolm X and Panther movies, there are SO MANY angles from which to do the film, how do you settle on the right one(s) and do talented, complex people, flaws and all, justice. the trailer picqued my interest

Well said. It's "acting" and storytelling. I see the points of what everyone is saying above, but this is a movie and not a documentary.

datdude said:

well just like the controversy that surrounded the Malcolm X and Panther movies, there are SO MANY angles from which to do the film, how do you settle on the right one(s) and do talented, complex people, flaws and all, justice. the trailer picqued my interest

BUT the Malcolm X movie had great acting, direction, and story line... Marvin deserves at least that much...

Malcolm's movie had more focus than this one does.

datdude said:

You all don't remember how Spike had to disappear wth the final script for X & get foreign & celebrity financing because Hollywood wanted more 'post Mecca' Malcolm? So again wth subject matter like this, some folks won't like it regardless.how is focusing on the making of his last hit album & his tumultuous family life which DOES coincide wth that time automatically a wrong/bad story??

The situation with Spike was more complex. Plus least he got the backing. This movie lacks a backing. Focus Features left it. And some Canadian company picked it up for a possible video release in Canada only. So to be fair, that's a contrast to what went on when Spike was doing the Malcolm film.

Timmy84 said:

The acting's alright but the plot's messed up. It's not going to be released to theaters.

Good, so stans will save their bitching about Oscar snubs.

Shawy89 said:

Timmy84 said:

The acting's alright but the plot's messed up. It's not going to be released to theaters.

Good, so stans will save their bitching about Oscar snubs.

Lol doubt it would've received Oscar attention anyways. Biopics don't usually get it unless said actor was so captivating they felt they had no other choice (like Jamie Foxx for instance).

Indulge me in a digression for a second. LOL. We should have plenty of Oscar noms featuring worthy black men, a rare occurence. I'm predicting 3 best director and best actor noms, and no one named Denzel

Director

• Lee Daniels - They'll give the nod out of obligation, good job, but not Oscar worthy
• *Steve McQueen (12 Years a Slave; it'll be interesting to see how African Americans react to what is apparently a very, poignant, compelling, non-Django-like portrayal of American slavery. He was intrigued as to why there weren't more films about it, asked the question and is getting mad buzz and will likely clean up)
• Ryan Coogler (Fruitvale Station) - Hollywood may decide to hate cause this hasn't gotten "mainstream" traction and dude is barely older than Singleton when he was the youngest blk best dir. nom

Actor

• Forest Whittaker (The Butler) - Great performance in a somewhat uneven film
• Chiwetel Ejafor (12 Years A Slave)* Dude has the most emotive face in the business!
• Michael B. Jordan (Fruitvale Station) - Star turning role, close 2nd, and people will know to say the "B" with his name

*= Rightful winner; even site unseen!

Timmy84 said:

datdude said:

You all don't remember how Spike had to disappear wth the final script for X & get foreign & celebrity financing because Hollywood wanted more 'post Mecca' Malcolm? So again wth subject matter like this, some folks won't like it regardless.how is focusing on the making of his last hit album & his tumultuous family life which DOES coincide wth that time automatically a wrong/bad story??

The situation with Spike was more complex. Plus least he got the backing. This movie lacks a backing. Focus Features left it. And some Canadian company picked it up for a possible video release in Canada only. So to be fair, that's a contrast to what went on when Spike was doing the Malcolm film.

My point is about plot, not backing. From an artistic standpoint, the latter should not affect the former. Spike's backing for some was contingent upon him making the film they wanted him to make. We don't know the reason for the backing issues with this film, but I highly doubt they are plot related.

Wow,that looks like a great film.I hope they find a way to get it completed and released.

It's a shame though,that we can't get a biopic that covers Marvin's entire career,with all of his music included Marvin deserves that

mjscarousal said:

I dont like how he is being portrayed

But I guess Hollywood needs the money...

I get what you're saying but let's face it....Marvin had a very complex life.He was battling alot of demons.There's just no way to tell his story without including the bad stuff,too.

That's why I wish we could get a complete biopic that covers his entire life.This one focuses on the early 80s,a rough time when Marvin was going through alot of drama and sad times.

Timmy84 said:

Shawy89 said:

Good, so stans will save their bitching about Oscar snubs.

Lol doubt it would've received Oscar attention anyways. Biopics don't usually get it unless said actor was so captivating they felt they had no other choice (like Jamie Foxx for instance).

Yeah but when they see a biopic they just predict oscars and stuff, Hitchcock last year was hyped and they said Anthony is going to win.. finally it was bashed critically & declined by Academy Awards.

If, as you say, the film is just a TV-film then it'll may get an EMMY nod, you can't have a biopic without at least one award recognition.

Too bad that Jamie Foxx did Ray and won for it, the man does anyone easily, I saw him in that video doing Prince and he nailed it.... Vocally tho.. (He ain't looking like P)

As long as the character is hard to portray the actor will have award shows attention... I'm eyeing for Andre 3000 tho. His film was in Toronto festival, and most of those films go to oscar.

mjscarousal said:

I dont like how he is being portrayed

But I guess Hollywood needs the money...

Hollywood ain't about to make no $$ off of this, the movie likely won't see a theatrical release. The financing is all in shambles for this movie. Portraying a stars real life "demons" is NOT automatically a cash grab?

datdude said:

Indulge me in a digression for a second. LOL. We should have plenty of Oscar noms featuring worthy black men, a rare occurence. I'm predicting 3 best director and best actor noms, and no one named Denzel

Director

• Lee Daniels - They'll give the nod out of obligation, good job, but not Oscar worthy
• *Steve McQueen (12 Years a Slave; it'll be interesting to see how African Americans react to what is apparently a very, poignant, compelling, non-Django-like portrayal of American slavery. He was intrigued as to why there weren't more films about it, asked the question and is getting mad buzz and will likely clean up)
• Ryan Coogler (Fruitvale Station) - Hollywood may decide to hate cause this hasn't gotten "mainstream" traction and dude is barely older than Singleton when he was the youngest blk best dir. nom

Actor

• Forest Whittaker (The Butler) - Great performance in a somewhat uneven film
• Chiwetel Ejafor (12 Years A Slave)* Dude has the most emotive face in the business!
• Michael B. Jordan (Fruitvale Station) - Star turning role, close 2nd, and people will know to say the "B" with his name

*= Rightful winner; even site unseen!

"African Americans react to what is apparently a very, poignant, compelling, non-Django-like portrayal of American slavery."

What the hell is that suppose to mean? In addtion, this story was told before in a movie directed by Gordon Parks back in the 80s.

"African Americans react to what is apparently a very, poignant, compelling, non-Django-like portrayal of American slavery."

What the hell is that suppose to mean? In addtion, this story was told before in a movie directed by Gordon Parks back in the 80s.

What it means (u picked an interesting point to start you quote btw, makes what I stated into an incomplete sentence, but anyway) is that a big part of the Django push back in certain segments of the Black community (lots of it BEFORE the film came out) was that slavery would not be properly portrayed. That in the hands of Tarantino, it woud lack poignancy and replace reverence for the subject matter with well, pulp. Valid concerns. I heard it put this way, when you can balance Inglorious Basterds with Schindler's List, the criticism dies down.

About the Gordon Parks movie, I was unaware of it. Thank you. I'll have to research the reaction and traction it got (or didn't). With his skills, name recognition, other work, I'm surprised IT didn't get Oscar buzz too, or did it?

SoulAlive said:

mjscarousal said:

I dont like how he is being portrayed

But I guess Hollywood needs the money...

I get what you're saying but let's face it....Marvin had a very complex life.He was battling alot of demons.There's just no way to tell his story without including the bad stuff,too.

That's why I wish we could get a complete biopic that covers his entire life.This one focuses on the early 80s,a rough time when Marvin was going through alot of drama and sad times.

I agree,

I just think a movie that ONLY focuses on that is not a real accurate depiction of who HE was as a musician, artist, man and legend that really impacted music in a significant way. Despite the dark period, Marvin was a very charismatic and nice person. Most importantly, he was a genius. I personally want to see more of that. I want to see more of the creation of certain albums, see more of his close relationship with Tammi, etc. I think its important to have a good balance of the positive and the negative for these types of movies.

the video was taken down for those who missed it, this is not a VH1 movie of the week.