Not being familiar with the stage play on which this is based (screenplay here is also by playwright Tracy Letts) I came to this without preconceptions, which most of a typical cinema audience will also not possess, though I was aware that this was a substantially pared-down version of the theatre piece. (One critic on the radio said that in the theatre it plays for four hours, which may be true but I think there must be some element of exaggeration in that claim. This film is two hours long and it's not one minute excessive.) I also understand that on stage it all takes place within one room, which is here naturally opened up, though the substantial and lengthy quick-fire dialogues do betray its theatrical origins.
Meryl Streep, all guns blazing, is the (medication) pill-popping, cancer-suffering matriarch, dominating proceedings during a rare, if ever before, family get-together following a funeral. She and her daughters (Julia Roberts, Juliette Lewis and Julianna Nicholson - I was unfamiliar with the last name) form a quartet whose bickerings about relationships and their respective pasts reach heights of bitchiness and spite which I've hardly seen on screen since 'Who's Afraid of V.W.?". One occasionally gets such scenes as a basis of comedy but not so often in straight dramas - and I loved it! Though it's the women who determine the contours of the story, present for much of the time and drawn into its tawdry contentions are Ewan McGregor, Benedict Cumberbatch and, like an anchor of sanity, Chris Cooper.
The big 'set-piece' is the post-funeral dinner in which stored-up and festering 'hometruths' (as seen from the speakers p.o.v.) come tumbling out at the slightest provocation, especially between the female family members, who say what they mean and what they really think, as though for the first time. Rather than clearing the air the revelations shift the family's dynamics big-style.
Meryl Streep delivers as only she can - and we've long since come to expect no less. But I was most surprised and impressed by Julia Roberts. I never knew she was capable of portraying such depths of emotion and wildness as she does, really letting her hair down when called for.
I believe that by reducing the original play's length the film's focus on the mother character has been amplified, and that in the theatre it's more of an equal-handed ensemble affair. But I can only judge it as a cinema piece.
I liked it a lot, with no serious reservations, and would happily sit though it again. I award it .................................7.5
I liked it very much, too. I was also worried that Julia Roberts would revert to being Julia Roberts, all big teeth and laughter, but she really impressed me.
ReplyDeleteYes, J.R. was quite a revelation - after playing basically placid and controlled since we first noticed her in 'Pretty Woman'.
DeleteA good film, with no 'boring' bits.
A great American play ruined by an actress who is recognized as the world's greatest and a director who is either inexperienced or incompetent.
ReplyDeleteStreep, as she was in "Doubt," is so out of her range here. Why is she handed these roles on a silver platter? Either of the two Dames - Dench or Mirren would have been fantastic!
Equal blame goes to the director. He failed to realize that this was a very dark comedy and not a great drama.
I saw this on the Broadway Stage with Estelle Parsons - not the original Violet - and what a performance!!! The play ran about three hours and felt like one hour. The movie ran about two hours and felt like three.
We're going to differ again, Paul, though you clearly have the more informed perspective.
DeleteTo say that Streep "ruined" this film of the play astonishes me as I thought her casting was perfection itself - in a role which I too can see Dame Dench inhabiting, though maybe less so with Mirren. Judi would also have captured the resentful bitterness underlying the mother's snake-bite comments - a present-day Bette Davis. (Dench did just that in the marvellous 'Scenes from a Scandal).
I can just about see Estelle Parsons in the part and I don't doubt that she must have been fine.
I was going to insert a comment in my posting that, far from my referring to the film as drama (inferring NOT a comedy), many of the exchanges were indeed very unny - in the same sense in which 'Carnage' I found highly amusing . (I shan't do a special insertion now, just mentioning it here).
As I type this I'm listening to a film review programme on the radio in which our country's probably most revered critic of that genre has just said of 'August' that it's such a non-cinematic play that it just "sits there". You may have some sympathy with that view. (He also singles out Julia Roberts' performance as the 'stand-out' one.)
I wonder if your view would have been different if, like me, you weren't familiar with the theatre play. The answer is surely "Yes". Maybe you too wouldn't have experienced the whole thing as the 'drag' that you did.
I know myself only too well how seeing a play that is later filmed the latter nearly always falls short in ones estimation - in my case I think of 'Educating Rita', 'Shirley Valentine', '84 Charing Cross Road' and more than a few more. In fact a long time ago I knew that I ought to actually expect disappointment with such films. (Strangely - or not - this doesn't seem to apply to Shakespeare plays, maybe two thirds of which I've seen on stage at some point, yet can stand up to many diverse interpretations.)
Anyway, thanks for your most interesting comments, Paul. maybe we'll see eye-to-eye on the next one, though there's nothing in the offing for the coming week which tempts me out to spend money. so there may be a little while to wait.
"84 Charing Cross Road" must have been brilliant on stage for you to be disappointed in the movie. I never saw it on stage, but it is a movie that I treasure
ReplyDeleteI saw "Carnage" in NY with the original cast and absolutely hated it, although everyone else was raving about it. I wanted nothing to do with the movie until you wrote about it. I loved the exchanges and the delivery of the dialogue and today, it is still one of my favorite movies that I watch over and over.
And yes, Dench's performance in "Notes" is a marvel.
I think seeing a play on stage sets up expectations that this is the only way to do it because it's what the author intended, which is not always the case. Inevitably, it takes a mental leap to accept anything that's different as being 'superior'.
DeleteSometimes the reverse happens, though it's much rarer for me. One where I did think that the film was much better than the already seen stage version was the Liza Minnelli vehicle, 'Stepping Out' .
I forget who were the two players in the stage version of 'Charing Cross' I saw but I'll have the programme buried away in a parcel. (I've got the programme of every play and concert I've ever been to.) I know it was a simple two-hander, just as I recall vividly 'Shirley Valentine' being an entire monologue.
I also treasure the memory of 'Carnage'. Unfortunately, coming in the post-video age I don't have a recording of the film. (I still can't play DVDs)
I'm a bit nervous about the forthcoming film of 'Into the Woods', which I've seen three times on stage. Knowing what they did to 'Sweeney Todd' which I was also already familiar with (not a TOTAL disaster, but even so.....) even though it had Sondheim's blessing, so although I'm very curious about 'Woods' I'm not exactly looking forward to getting that feeling of being let down. Musicals are probably more malleable to diverse interpretations as straight plays anyway..
As with you for 'Carnage', next time I see the film of 'August' (don't know if I'll ever get the chance to see the play) I'm going to make an effort to see (even) more humour in the lines, while keeping your own severe reservations in mind
I liked it too, although I liked the play better. I had some moments when I thought 'oh, what was in the play at this point?" which got in the way. But it was a worthwhile movie to see.
ReplyDeleteThat's always the trouble with seeing a film of which one had already experienced the play. You can't help but make comparisons, which is a distraction. But I'm reassured that you could still appreciate 'August' on film for what it was. But what you and Paul say has made me even keener to see it live on stage, though I think that it was maybe one that didn't 'travel' well out of its home country. But I'm sure that now after the fim it would ge a larger audience.
DeleteThis film began showings here last Friday. Doubt it will be here long. They seldom last more than a week or two. Liked the review very much. May try to see this one.
ReplyDeleteAs you can read above, I thought it very worthwhile, though it seems an advantage not to be familiar with the original stage version if you want to enjoy this. But that is so often the case.
DeleteI'm interested to see this based on what you've written. I agree with you that it can be an advantage to not be familiar with an original stage version before seeing a film.
ReplyDeleteA definite and quite rare thumbs-up from me on this one, Mitch, though I'm pretty sure that if I'd seen the stage version I'd also have been less impressed.
DeleteSorry it has taken me so long to get to reading your review. I appreciated your comments when I blogged about this. I think you've done a great job in capturing the movie.
ReplyDeleteI was one of that that felt it suffered a bit by comparison to the stage version but that is what it is - One can't unring the bell. I am glad I saw both. In any case the areas I felt it didn't measure up were all about the screenplay. I loved all of the performances.
No, thank YOU for bringing the play to my attention. I'd never heard of it - and not even, to my shame, the playwright. But correction now effected I shall look out for him.
DeleteI actually saw the film AFTER reading your blog so I was conscious of your reservations, so the fact that what you said still did not affect my enjoyment says a great deal. But you are right. If I'd seen the play on stage first the film version would almost certainly have been a let-down.