Exactly, WesternSky2 - the first trailer gives the impression that everyone is coming together after a long estrangement and that things might be difficult but everything will work out. Can't wait to see this and hear the movie audience reaction when the story doesn't end so neatly.
"...ah, gays and their wit. Hell must be a laugh a minute!"
-Evie Harris
Oh my god, people. It's a TRAILER. Yes, the marketing for this is all wrong, but the material and the cast are basically foolproof altogether. I mean, with the right editing, you can make Mary Poppins look like a horror movie (YouTube it if you haven't seen it).
The tone of the movie will be fine. There is nothing uplifting about this story. We all know that. Let's wait until November to start sharpening our spears, shall we?
I have seen the film, and have to say that the trailer does not fully represent it. The screenplay is very faithful to the play (letts wrote it himself) and it is much darker than this trailer lets on. The scoring is just not good, and they really cut together a very PG version. I assure you, it is NOT that.
Merryl is fantastic in it, and Julia is very good. And to those who said Benedict Cumberbatch steals the show, you are right. He took a role I never liked onstage and made me care immensely.
I am one of those crazies who thinks Benedict Cumberbatch steals everything he's in. He was on the Letterman show last night, and they had a tiny clip from STAR TREK, and I thought - yep, he's stealing this one, too!
"Funny you say that since you were defending it like it was a personal affront to not like there trailer on the OT board."
How and where exactly was I defending the trailer like it was a personal affront to not like it? I posted a link to the trailer, which I liked quite a lot, and said "Can't wait! I smell another Oscar nod for Streep." That's my opinion and prediction based on what I saw. Personally, I couldn't care less what you or anyone else thinks of it. And I have no idea whether or not the movie itself is going to be any good. I'll find out when I see it on opening day. And since you've allowed a 2 minute preview to influence you to the point of writing off the film and waiting for the DVD, I'll let you know what you missed.
I liked the trailer. I mean, I get it. They're trying to get people to want to see the movie, not steer them away, so of course they aren't going to highlight the dark undertones, etc. I mean, why tell people it involves incest, etc? Just let that be a plot twist.
The only thing I'm not into is Streep. I don't think she does "dry wit" very well. Parsons was pure perfect onstage when I saw it. I'm just not sure Streep is the right casting, but we'll see.
I loved the play (never saw it, but read the script), and I liked the trailer too. It's enough to intrigue a general audience, and enough to get those who know the show curious too. Quite a few good names in that cast (especially that Streep kid, she might go far), so I'm looking forward to it.
I saw the first NYC screening a few months back. February? I forget. The projector bulb burnt out toward the end of the movie, and it took 30 minutes to fix it. But whatever, I saw A:OC, and I consider myself the coolest person alive.
You are all right, the trailer makes the film look like a sunny family rom-com. But the film was not that. Now, I saw the play four times on Broadway, with three different Violets, so I know a thing or two about my AOC. The cast - especially Streep - is phenomenal. The tone of the movie matches the tone of the play. The script is pretty much there, just trimmed down a bit (for example Johnna is practically a non-speaking role), and it all works very well. They found some intelligent ways to "open it up" for film, but it never felt forced. Benedict Cumberbatch could get an Oscar nomination for a role that didn't register as much on stage. And Julia Roberts, while no Amy Morton (who is a god among men), does well.
This was the first cut of the movie, so surely things will change. But it was a pretty thrilling screening, and I hope the final cut of the movie is as good as I believe it can be.
Shoot me for saying this, but save for a MARY REILLY here and a LARRY CROWNE there, I've always enjoyed Julia Roberts. I thought she looked kinda good in the trailer and thank the lord we didn't have to hear her bray in it.
Johnna IS practically a non speaking role: even in the play.
(I've liked lots of Roberts' work as well. I never understood all the hate for her.)
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
Meryl Streep has officially stepped down from the Leading Actress category for awards season, and will be petitioned for Supporting.
It's hardly a supporting role, but this could be a smart move for her and the film. And if the awards do decide to place her in leading, they can. (ie: Kate Winslet, who won Best Supporting Actress for THE READER at the Golden Globes and went on to win for the same performance at the Oscars, as a lead.)
It's funny to think about why this would be the case, but at first blush my instinct is to say that cases of "category fraud" tend to go in opposite directions between the Tonys and the Oscars. Big name actors (or showy parts, like Trunchbull) in supporting roles tend to petition to Lead; at the Oscars, they'd rather lowball themselves to muscle into a potentially easier category to show-off in. Kristine Nielsen's nomination last year was one of the few Tony examples I can think of lately of a Lead role being scuttled to Supporting/Featured, but she just had a borderline role and a much, much better chance of winning.
Whereas this happens all the time at the Oscars. Philip Seymour Hoffman in DOUBT. Bérénice Bejo in THE ARTIST. Hailee Steinfeld in TRUE GRIT. Jennifer Hudson, of course.
Maybe I'm missing all the counterexamples as I focus on this pattern, but it's interesting to me to say the least.
Words don't deserve that kind of malarkey. They're innocent, neutral, precise, standing for this, describing that, meaning the other, so if you look after them you can build bridges across incomprehension and chaos. But when they get their corners knocked off, they're no good anymore…I don't think writers are sacred, but words are. They deserve respect. If you get the right ones in the right order, you can nudge the world a little.