August: Osage County the movie- Page 2

[SNAFU]

Posted: 12/28/13 at 1:55pm

Liked the play. Am not crazy about Streep and Roberts. I too think it was lazy casting choices. Yes, I understand why they chose them.
Just received a screener of this and will probably watch it tonight. Don't think I would go to a movie theatre to see it though.

[Kad]

Posted: 12/28/13 at 3:24pm

An adaptation should be able to stand on its own.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 12/28/13 at 3:44pm

A.O. Scott is right that the movie feels like an "event" with these big stars all trying to top each other scene after scene, but that's precisely what the material lends itself to. The fact that he admits to not being familiar with the play explains his ignorance of that.

For what it's worth, I would have preferred to see the play adapted as a film for HBO with Sissy Spacek and Laura Linney in the leads, but I found the entire cast of the movie (including Streep and Roberts) to be fantastic.

The film lacks a lot of the dramatic tension that defined the story on stage so well, but it's worth seeing for the performances of such a fine ensemble. Could it have been better? Yes. But is it still pretty damn strong? Absolutely.

Updated On: 12/28/13 at 03:44 PM

[NewYorkTheater]

Posted: 12/28/13 at 3:55pm

Absolutely, an adaptation has to stand on its own. Similarly, any individual production should stand on its own. But how much would you trust, much less rely on, the evaluation of a production of The Glass Menagerie by a critic who has never seen a production of that play before? Would you trust a theater critic reviewing the forthcoming Rocky musical who had never seen at least the first Rocky film?
The movie of August: Osage County should stand or fall on its own, and surely most moviegoers will judge it on its own merits. But we're talking about professional critics paid to offer us an informed opinion. This was not some obscure play. It went on national and international tours, and, as a recent article in the Wall Street Journal pointed out, it's even been a favorite of community theaters around the country. At the very least, the (Pulitzer Prize-winning) script is available in any bookstore or library, and on any e-reader.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 12/28/13 at 4:01pm

To extend NewYorkTheater's point further, the screenplay for the movie is almost entirely comprised of the recycled script from the stage play (save for things that were cut for time.) I hardly even consider it an "adaptation" at all as far as the written word is concerned.

I don't think you have to have seen the play to comment on or have opinions about the film, but to make misguided assertions about the nature of the piece itself (as Scott does) is something different entirely.

Updated On: 12/28/13 at 04:01 PM

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/28/13 at 5:21pm

Somethingwicked, I was thinking that I hope some day (maybe 10 years from now) HBO makes a 3 part mini-series or a 3 hour movie. If they were gonna make such a faithful adaptation might as well do the entire play and avoid the whole huge star casting. How nice would it have been to see (as you suggested) Spaceck, Linney, and then see them cast the entire thing without the pressure of earning back millions of dollars.
I haven't seen it, and I'm still insanely excited to see it, but I'm already thinking that this maybe wasn't the right project to turn into a huge A-list adaptation.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 12/30/13 at 11:39pm

I can't imagine this movie cost all that much to make. I'm sure everyone took a pay cut in hopes of getting some awards.

I saw it tonight. The theater in NYC was crazy packed.

I didn't love it. I'm sort of siding with the people who said it was borderline camp. Sure, Streep is good, but I was very aware that she was "acting." She wasn't Violet to me the way Estelle Parsons was. It seemed like a mash-up of her other characters. I don't think Streep or Roberts really do "deadpan" very well. They don't do dry wit. And that's what this whole play is. I was letdown. Some of my favorite moments from the play - "Eat fish, bitch" - just fell flat and seemed thrown off.

I thought Margo and Chris Cooper were pretty great. And my favorite was Julianne Nicholson (?). I don't think I've seen her before, but I just found her really mesmerizing in the role.

The movie needed some grit to it, and with all these A-list actors it's really hard to believe them. They tried to give Roberts some grey roots, etc, but eh, it looked super fake. And I missed the moment in the play where Barbara realizes that she has become her mother. I loved the way that was staged. And I wasn't a fan of the ending. I think it would have been more powerful if they cut it right when Streep was crying into the maid's lap.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 12/31/13 at 9:06am

RippedMan, the movie had a $20-25 million budget.

Updated On: 12/31/13 at 09:06 AM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 12/31/13 at 1:10pm

Still fairly cheap considering most movies open to $20million in their opening weekend.

How it cost so much, I'll never understand. It all takes place in a house in the middle of nowhere.

[darquegk]

Posted: 12/31/13 at 1:25pm

Unless you are Joss Whedon, who made his "Much Ado About Nothing" for almost zero budget by working with friends, on his own property and with mostly natural lighting and audio, movies cost money. Especially all-star casts. Besides, much of the budget often goes into the editing and post-production.

Theoretically one COULD take the Whedon route and do a pseudo-Dogme movie shoot, but the results would look like what they are- a zero-budget film.

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 1/1/14 at 8:42pm

I really liked it and I too thought Julianne Nicholson was a highlight. SPOILERS THROUGHOUT

It was a mistake to cut Jean's monologue and her scene with Johnna. I thought it was more effective hearing the Barbara/Bill backstory from Jean, and we need the scene in order to create a bond between her and Johnna that will justify Johnna hitting Steve with a shovel. On stage I sensed keenly that Jean is the only Weston Johnna would go to bat for, as it were, since she is arguably the least insane and she pays the most attention to her (not to say that Johnna is that shallow.)

I felt like Meryl ran past some of Violet's most important lines. I remember both Estelle Parsons and, more emphatically, Phylicia Rashad giving especial weight to the line, "But I would have waited anyway" when telling Barbara about the note Beverley left. The audience in the Music Box gasped at that, and while it was a very vocal audience in the movie theatre today no one reacted to the line in the film.

The directing was pretty solid. I see now what Wells was talking about when he defended his decision not to cast Kathy Bates as Mattie Fae because she doesn't look anything like Streep. I felt that all the Weston ladies looked remarkably alike in the movie, specifically in their noses. And all of them except Mattie Fae and Karen bite their nails - most notably Barbara and Jean, and then Violet starts doing it later on. I may be reading too much into it, but I think it's significant that Violet spends a lot of the film in sunglasses and then in Jean's final scene, right before she rolls up the car window to block Barbara out, she is wearing sunglasses. Maybe a coincidence, but I see it as one of the moments when I felt like Wells drifted from what Tracy Letts was going for. In the play Jean is very clearly her own person, and her greatest hope is in not turning out like her mother and grandmother. Jean on film is a little bit more vague, largely because her monologue has been cut, and it doesn't help that the last time we see her she is costumed in a way that links her to Violet, le grande fvckup.

Also on a directing note, the new ending feels extraneous. I don't know if I just feel that way because it is the most significant way in which the film deviates from the play. I was very, very worried that it would end with Barbara making a U turn and going back to her mother - not just because that doesn't happen in the play, but because it would invalidate Violet's abandonment. I was relieved that doesn't happen, but then the very last shot shows Barbara driving toward Denver. I know Letts wrote the screenplay and so he would not have Barbara going back to Jean and Bill if that was not where he intended her to go at the end of the play anyway, but I preferred when it was little bit more ambiguous.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 1/1/14 at 8:47pm

GlindatheGood22, there certainly doesn't have to be a bond between Jean and Johnna for Johnna to hit Steve with the shovel. Johnna sees a child in danger and springs into action to protect her. They don't have to have any particular history together to make that justifiable.

At its heart, the piece is about Violet and her three daughters. Considering Jean is on the periphery, it made perfect sense that her material would be among the first to be cut. You don't need any psychological insight into her (or Johnna) to drive any aspects of the rest of the narrative.

Updated On: 1/1/14 at 08:47 PM

[NewYorkTheater]

Posted: 1/1/14 at 9:29pm

As for the ending, I would have preferred that it had kept to the way it was in the play -- and apparently, from what I've read, Tracy Letts would have preferred that as well.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 1/1/14 at 11:42pm

True Letts wrote the screenplay, but that doesn't mean that Wells couldn't have tacked on that ending without Letts' approval.

I'm not sure why any of the material needed to be cut. The film to me felt like a "greatest hits" version of the play. All the big scenes were left intact, but I missed all the smaller moments.

And the Kings of Leon song at the end seemed a little "eh?"

[binau]

Posted: 1/2/14 at 5:40pm

I saw the play with all of the original principal cast and it is for me the best play I have ever seen (I admit I don't often see many plays), but I still adored the movie. I loved every actor, every line...it was hilarious at times but still shocking (Violet is such an abhorrent person, I want her to dieee - just thinking about Meryl Streep's glarey pale face makes me uncomfortable). As someone else mentioned I was a bit nervous that Julia Roberts was about to do a U turn at the end, and was relieved when she kept driving. Even though there is that additional scene, the plot of the ending is still the same really.

I didn't quite feel peaks as strongly in the movie as in the play (e.g., the ending, the humour, the anger etc.) - but overall I am not disappointed one bit. I also didn't mind some of the cuts to be honest - as stupid as this opinion might make me look, Beverly's opening monologue always felt a little long to me.

I wonder what I think it would be like watching the movie without knowing anything about it though, sometimes I feel like I just filled in the blanks.

I realise that those who think it is campy and over the top probably don't share the same opinion, but what I loved most about the whole thing was that the characters seemed like plausible people. It might be unusual for all of this ****ed up **** to happen in one house and in one family, but still.

Updated On: 1/2/14 at 05:40 PM

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 1/2/14 at 7:55pm

I also felt like too much of an effort was made to make Barbara look bad. I feel like there was a paranoia that she'd been seen as beautiful by merit of being Julia Roberts, and so they overcompensated. The roots, the flannel, it was all a little heavy handed.

[Fairies]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 11:33am

This is one of the major problems with the film industry as we know it now... Almost nothing you've ever heard of is truly "indie" or "low-budget" anymore as those terms have been absorbed as bonafide marketing terms and all the "indies" you've heard of are backed or distributed through the studio system. Even the "Dogme" films you've heard of had budgets in the millions.

Whedon's Much Ado still cost more than most truly indie films. His "friends," you should realize, are all union - cast and crew - and the minimums alone for a 12 day shoot would be sizable. And there's no such thing as "natural audio." The actors were all radio mic'd. And by the way, post production, when budgeted properly (unless it's an effects heavy picture) is generally only 20-25% of the total budget.

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 8:36am

Opened behind Frozen as the number two movie in Australia on New Years Day, never saw the play. Really liked the film, a very black comedy with some great work from all the cast. Thought Streep and Roberts where both wonderful. The theatre was packed on a Monday night .

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 10:30am

Positive-ish review:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/august-osage-county-2013

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 10:32am

^ He's dead. Do you think we're idiots?

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 11:05am

Shut up with your hotness, mysterious.

[Jungle Red]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 12:50pm

I know this is a serious conversation, but I feel like this thread should be titled:

August Osage: Orange County: The Movie

and yes, that mustache works on you mysterious!

[goldenboy]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 10:40pm

I was a fan of the play. It was shockingly funny in its uncovering of secrets and the undercurrent of emotion of the characters really pulled you in. Unfortunately, what you get on screen is dull soap opera. So sad. What a waste. Meryl did not pull me in and I found her annoying. Julia Roberts didn't pull me in and I found her annoying, I just wanted this film to end. This was just a big misfire This should have remained a stage play. Opening it up served no one.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 11:46pm

I suppose a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish-Bitch Happy Meal tie-in would be too much to hope for? How about an August Orange Julius?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 11:51pm

August Osage Julius Roberts