Running With Scissors, the movie--?????

[roquat]

Posted: 10/27/06 at 11:24pm

Questions of Augusten Burroughs' authenticity aside--I have to admit that, when I read the book, I couldn't shake a nagging question--

Why is he telling us this?

He isn't an author of great insight, and he isn't interested in exploring character. He turns his life (or somebody's) into a kind of literary freak show, and it's difficult to know how we are meant to feel about anyone in it.

This carried over to the movie version. I think the only way it could have worked on screen was as some sort of deadpan black comedy, and there are bits of that attempted. But, for the most part, the director and actors try to humanize their looneytunes characters and make them more believable--a fatal mistake. We spend two hours watching actors struggle to play unplayable roles, which translates to lots of screaming, crying, and tormented staring into the camera. Annette Bening is so determined she makes something out of her material; Jill Clayburgh and Joseph Fiennes are almost unbearably touching; and the remarkable Evan Rachel Wood does simmering, repressed hatred so well that when she finally explodes, it's genuinely shocking. Yet the audience is responding to them AS ACTORS, never as people.

As for the gay thing--Joseph Cross (as Augusten) is so obviously 20 and the sex scenes (which in the book are horrifying) are so sanitized (I'm not even sure what they were meant to be doing in the first one) that the whole thing goes past without imprint. I don't mean to say that I wanted something more explicit, but this meant-to-be-sordid relationship seems so benign it doesn't explain enything and doesn't make sense--just like everything else in the movie.

[roquat]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 12:40am

Bump. Anybody else see it?

[Renthead#1]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 2:29am

No but I saw Nightmare Before Christmas in 3d.

[neddyfrank2]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 2:32am

Renthead- How was it?

[BroadwayRandy0711]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 6:35am

I guess this question also goes for all of the other authors who insist on giving us their point of view on certain issues that no one gives a damn about.
I have never read the book and only saw the movie so my opinion is only based on what I saw. But IMO, this story is actually interesting. It lets you see the struggle that he had as a child and how he was able to overcome it and become a decent adult. I did feel as though it was a good movie, just that it was lacking something. What it was lacking I could not tell you. When it was overwith I did feel some completion, but I still yearned for more.

On another note - I hear that the Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D is a lot of fun.

[JerseyGirl2]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 3:25pm

I heard all the cool kids are using the search feature this year!

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?boardname=off&thread=914668#2577302

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.cfm?boardname=off&thread=914020#2565378

[Fiction Writer]

Posted: 10/28/06 at 5:13pm

puh-lease.
This is a totally different topic.
I've heard the movie lacks Burrough's wit/humor. Most of the book is laugh out loud funny.
I haven't seen it, yet, since it hasn't opened in Vegas, but the book is so funny.

[roquat]

Posted: 10/29/06 at 1:19am

Yes, exactly. It's hardly funny at all--it's trying to be a heart-wrenching drama instead, but with characters who are never believable.

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 10/29/06 at 10:43am

I liked the performances and the look of the film a whole lot, but none of the relationships were established as well as they should have been, especially the Augusten and Bookman relationship. In the book, I could buy it, but in the movie, nothing indicated that they were "in love" as both characters state. I could say the same thing for the Deirdre/Fern and Deirdre/Dorothy relationships. I just didn't see why she was with either of those women. The film managed to be simultaneously rushed and drawn out at the same time, rushing past important parts, and drawing out the more trivial moments. Hope, as a character, was almost completely nonexistent. That said, I loved Brian Cox's and Jill Clayburgh's performances. Benning was in fine form and Joseph Cross gave a solid performance.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 10/29/06 at 2:08pm

I really have no desire to see this movie...I absolutely hated the book.

[roquat]

Posted: 10/29/06 at 4:26pm

To TheQuibbler--There seemed to be an attempt to make Agnes (Jill Clayburgh), into a warm sympathetic "second mother" to Augusten, which was nowhere in the book. I couldn't tell if this was another attempt to humanize the characters, or if Jill Clayburgh just couldn't help being warm and empathetic. What do you think?

[TheQuibbler]

Posted: 10/29/06 at 9:55pm

I have a feeling it was the writer's doing, not Ms. Clayburgh's. I couldn't remember if that was in the book or not, thanks for clearing that up. I think Clayburgh was just doing her best with what she was given.

[jarretSF]

Posted: 10/29/06 at 11:38pm

I saw this not having read the book, and thoroughly enjoyed it. I think Annette Benning gave a great performance, and Joseph Cross is a star in the makng. Brian Cox was great as he always is. It has its flaws, but was well acted, and enjoyable.