Rarely reviewed, little advertised and barely spoken of, August: Osage County has gone practically unnoticed in the cinemas this year. It was nominated for 25 awards, but only won 6, and those that did review it did so scathingly. But when I watched it, I was unbelievably moved. So what did I miss?
When I saw the cast list for this movie, I expected one of those all-star movies that focuses so hard on cramming celebrities into the credits that the movie is forgotten. Well, I was wrong on that count. Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts absolutely crushed their mother-daughter roles. I'd be willing to credit Roberts' performance as the role of a lifetime. She was incredible. The costars, although they get infinitely less screen time, are just as strong. There's some harrowing stuff in this film, and they handle it perfectly.
And it's not the acting that the critics lay in to [rightly not]. The Guardian published two reviews of the film, one by Mark Kermode, the other by Peter Bradshaw. Both gently slate the movie. Kermode's problem with the film is John Wells' direction, and that the audience is left feeling like "little has been gained, but much has been lost". Well, here's my problem: this film is about addiction in a fragmented family. Not to go into gory details, but anyone who has experienced either of the two will know that that's how it is: you don't gain anything from addiction, nor a broken family - you lose from it. It's not a happy ending, but you'd think that a professional film critic could handle an anti-cathartic plot. This isn't a Disney film, Kermode.
Bradshaw has a problem with the way that the "dialogue has an entropic tendency towards shouting." Where are these guys from? PSA: When people get emotional, they shout. When, like AOC's Barb, you're battling someone who is caught by addiction, and you can't get them to see sense, you shout. Screw it, you scream. It's frustrating. Would they have preferred a film where every situation was discussed quietly and democratically at the dinner table? That's not how life works, sweethearts. Wake up and smell the reality.
What the Guardian's writers seem to have in common is a shared disappointment in John Wells' direction. Bradshaw says it "doesn't add up to anything very nourishing", while his counterpart maintains that "it's hard to see how the play has benefited in the transition from stage to screen". Judging by the awards the play reaped, it's fair to say it's a good one - winning 21 awards out of 28 nominations. But Letts adapted his own screenplay, so I'm not convinced that Wells is completely to blame for any mis-translation. It seems to me that everyone's quick to jump on the director and praise the writer.
Letts' award-winning show was the mother of the new movie |
Robey, from the Telegraph, isn't so harsh on the direction; he's the only critic I've seen to criticise the writing. But wait until you hear what he's got to say. "It's a weakness of the play that the men are much less interestingly drawn than the women." I'm sorry Robey, this film is weak because the men aren't written as well as the women? If you discredit a film because the genders aren't written equally well, then there are only a handful of films in history which are worthy of praise. It's only noticeable here because we've seen a switch; the female characters are finally written better than the male. So why don't you hop of your critical horse and realise that the struggle you're feeling on behalf of the male characters is one that female characters have endured since film began.
So maybe I did miss something, but I can't say that I'm seeing things from the critics' point of view. For me, this film was a well acted piece of film which captures almost exactly what it's like to deal with addiction in a dysfunctional family. Props to everyone involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment