THE HUMANS Film starring Richard Jenkins, Jayne Houdyshell, Amy Schumer, Beanie Feldstein

[Ravenclaw]

This news makes me so excited! What a great cast so well suited for their roles! I'm just bracing myself for the inevitable backlash against Schumer two years from when this film finally gets released now for playing a lesbian character.

[JBroadway]

perfectliar said: "I don't understand all the hand wringing over this being set entirely in one location. Have you all really never seen a movie with a single set piece? They're really not that uncommon."

 

Any time a piece of storytelling is adapted to another medium, there should be an artistic reason for it - otherwise what's the point? Otherwise, why not just stage it again? Or if you want to reach a wider audience, why not just film it onstage? So, the biggest advantages that film has over stage is that it can effortlessly take you to many locations, flesh out the physical world of the story, and show a wider range of events that are difficult to stage. This material doesn't call for any of those things. There are other advantages that a camera can provide, like having facial close-ups, and making the audience feel like they're in the middle of the action. But those could also be achieved by filming a stage production. So yeah, they certainly CAN adapt this for film. And sure, I'll bet Karam will some adjustments that will make it feel a bit more organic on film. But they have to work a lot harder to prove that there was actually a meaningful reason to adapt it. 

And again, I'm not just saying this because I dislike the play. I even felt the same way about Fences - a play that I love dearly. Sure, it was well-acted, but it didn't take advantage of the new medium - except in showing a few scenes of Troy at work, which I liked. But otherwise, I kept thinking how much I would have rather just seen these actors do it onstage. 

[kdogg36]

I’m looking forward to this! I found the show both funny and terrifying and I hope they capture that in the film. Though I can’t fully wrap my mind around the ending, I left the show with the impression that the Reed Birney character had actually (finally) fallen asleep, or at least half asleep, and the last part of the play was sort of set in his own nightmare-scape. He’s the only one left onstage, for the first time in the play, and his exit directly reflects the earlier conversation with his son-in-law about the meaning of passing through a tunnel in a dream. (As clear as this seems to me, I haven’t encountered anyone else who sees the ending this way, so maybe I’m all wet!)

As a side note, I don’t care for the “emperor’s new clothes” take on differing opinions. It suggests that fans of a particular show are fools who can’t think for themselves, with the naysayers being the only ones brave enough to tell the objective truth. I doubt that’s what is intended, but it’s certainly the message of the tale being alluded to.

[JBroadway]

kdogg36 said: "As a side note, I don’t care for the “emperor’s new clothes” take on differing opinions. It suggests that fans of a particular show are fools who can’t think for themselves, with the naysayers being the only ones brave enough to tell the objective truth. I doubt that’s what is intended, but it’s certainly the message of the tale being alluded to."

 

I actually agree with you entirely on that point. It's basically like saying "I can't possibly have the minority opinion, so everyone else must be lying to seem cool." Which is akin to "I'm not the problem, everyone else is the problem" but it's even more ridiculous than that because this is art so there is no "problem" - it's just subjective. It's textbook self-delusion born out of insecurity. 

 

[Vespertine1228]

I didn't intend anything negative by my "Emperor has no clothes" comment. You can dislike something that a lot of other people like without feeling superior about yourself.

More often than not if my thoughts go against the grain of popular opinion, I find myself thinking more about a work and wondering if I missed anything. I try to think about it from all the points of view I'm capable of.

Sometimes though, there's just no there there, and that's definitely how I felt about The Humans.

[JBroadway]

Vespertine, I'm all there with you when it comes to being utterly baffled by the popularity of The Humans. But using the "Emperor's New Clothes" argument is inherently a means of invalidating other people's opinions in order to give more validation to your own. The whole point of the story is that the king's subjects LIE because nobody wants to be the one to say he's naked. By applying the argument to art, you're literally saying that people are lying, or at best, convincing themselves that they like something that they truly don't. But either way that's an attempt to invalidate others' opinions with no basis. And as far as I can figure, the only thing that can possibly accomplish is to make oneself feel better about being the odd one out. 

[Impossible2]

The problem with the play is that if you don't pick up on what is happening, which is extremely subtle, it is really hard to appreciate.

I saw the show on Broadway and was blown away by it. I was so moved by the end I could barely get out of my seat. I came back to London raving about it and went and saw it again when it finally came here last year and loved it even more.

My partner on the other hand wasn't so fussed, but he didn't 'get' what it was about at all until I explained it to him either.
 

[Someone in a Tree2]

Since I'm guilty of using the Emperor's New Clothes metaphor myself in this thread, I should qualify that it isn't an objective statement of fact about the play, it's simply how the play made me feel-- that to me, there was no there there.

That said, maybe Impossible2 can lay out explicitly the subtle thing that's happening in the final scenes that they so appreciated. It might not make me love the play more, but it would go a long way toward my understanding the vast majority of theatergoers for whom this play was transportive.

[Impossible2]

Someone in a Tree2 said: "Since I'm guilty of using the Emperor's New Clothes metaphor myself in this thread, I should qualify thatitisn't an objective statement of fact about the play,it's simplyhow the play made mefeel-- that to me, there was no there there.

That said, maybe Impossible2 can lay out explicitly the subtle thing that's happening in the final scenes that they so appreciated. It might not make me love the play more, but it would go a long way toward my understanding the vast majority of theatergoers for whom this play was transportive."

I’ll send you a pm tomorrow as it’s 4am here and I can’t be arsed typing it all out and I Don’t want to ruin it for people in the thread who haven’t seen it x

[SomethingPeculiar]

I do have to point out one observation:

We're two pages into the thread and nobody has complained that Stephen Karam (who has never even directed a play before) is directing his own script. Yet for Sunset Boulevard, when Rob Ashford was announced, you would have thought Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey were co-directing!

[Someone in a Tree2]

^Though I'm sure you'll concede that directing essentially a one-set film with 6 characters (which Karam knows better than anyone possibly could) is a world of difference than directing a giant period musical with a cast in the 100's.

[SomethingPeculiar]

Totally. It was more of a comment on the fact that there was so much hatred towards Ashford, who, though he hasn't directed a film, has directed a lot of stage productions, filmed events, Associate Directed a big studio movie, etc.

[Fosse76]

August: Osage County and God of Carnage were big hits on Broadway that had less-than-stellar film adaptations. Part of the success of these types of plays is the "energy in the room" factor and the fact that the originating actors are more connected with their characters than other actors who take them on. They need to "open up" the play for film, otherwise most people will probably be bored.

[carnzee]

Something peculiar, I agree. That was my first thought. "First time director" is much more concerning than any of the casting choices.

I keep thinking how marvelous Robert Altman would be, if he were still us. He was great at translating plays to film, and was known for his overlapping dialogue in his movies.

[darquegk]

The funny thing about The Humans is that the play's biggest fans and biggest detractors all point to the same thing as their major bone of contention: the willfully obtuse, surrealist quality of what is going on behind and above the family's awkward dinner together. Is there a supernatural presence in the building? Is the whole thing purely a series of coincidences and the tension ramps up indefinitely making something out of so much nothing? Is it all a matter of perception, being observed in a more ominous and sinister way than it is from the perspective of an increasingly desperate, ultimately suicidal person? Or have we left representational reality entirely and wound up in a Lynchian hinterland between realism and magic realism? Those who love it love it for this reason, and those who hate it hate it for the same reason. It's very David Lynch/Edward Gorey in that sense.

[Impossible2]

Someone in a Tree2 said: "^Though I'm sure you'll concede that directing essentially a one-set film with 6 characters (which Karam knows better than anyone possibly could) is a world of difference than directing a giant period musical with a cast in the 100's."

I have just pm'd you x

[perfectliar]

Fosse76 said: "August: Osage County and God of Carnage were big hits on Broadway that had less-than-stellar film adaptations. Part of the success of these types of plays is the "energy in the room" factor and the fact that the originating actors are more connected with their characters than other actorswho take them on. They need to "open up" the play for film, otherwise most people will probably be bored."

Those two examples are true, but there are several adaptations that are great, maybe even better than the plays they're based on, including single-set ones like Rope and Tape.

[Alex Kulak2]

I know he directs many of his plays, but John Patrick Shanley's filming of Doubt was only the second film he directed, and his first effort in 18 years. Not only is it a faithful adaptation of the play, it's beautifully shot, and it's able to expand beyond the set of the Catholic School while retaining its intimate atmosphere. Having read all three of Karam's major plays that he has in print, his stage directions obviously show a knack for affecting imagery. If he's paired with a good cinematographer and editor, I think this film could be something.