August: Osage County -- A Soap Opera? — Page 2

I see a lot of theatre and this is all about opinions.

I like the play even less when I hear accusatory defenses of it. If you like the play, defend it, I don't care who likes it.

To me it's just a well-acted dirty sitcom/soap with no underlying play structure that redeems it. The heat is not captured within the play as within Williams' plays. Covering up the windows on the set is not enough, sweat on costumes is not enough, it needs to be integral to the play itself.

If you think of the buildup for the torture in the steam room in Williams' Not About Nightingales, that's one of the best examples I can think of offhand about the plot of a play creating incredible oppression regarding heat, scalding heat at that, and it has a huge tension buildup to that. Trevor Nunn's direction brought it to full effect on Broadway a few years back; I could hardly sit in my seat to watch it in the steam heat torture scene, even though intellectually you can tell youself it's just actors on a stage and its not real. Now Nightingale is a great piece of theatre that takes you believably into another place and time.

In Osage, the "heat" is just a tack-on.

"I like the play even less when I hear accusatory defenses of it."

What? Why? What effect does that have on the play? I could be some yahoo in a mental asylum and that would effect how you liked the play? I don't understand.

"Not About Nightingales" has no comparison to "August:Osage County." The heat in the first was integral to the plot, part of the plot... in "August: Osage County" it was part of the setting... and not really an important part. It doesn't need to be integral to the play itself... it's just a part of the setting... do the tables need to be an integral part of the play? In "Not About Nigthingales" it obviously is integral to the play, but in "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" it just adds to the flavor... "August" falls more in the second category. You seem to be comparing apples and oranges.

"I see a lot of theatre and this is all about opinions."

This was my initial point. Much of what I have read about August: Osage county has less to do with opinions about the play... but about other people's opinions about the play and the intelligence level of the people who have those opinions. Again, this is not directed specifically at you... but a lot of what I have read about the play... I don't understand why it seems so necessary for people to say "it's not as good as..." It isn't the plays fault that you think O'Neill is better. Criticize the play for what it is, not what it is not. I just don't think you can fault a play for not meeting YOUR expectations. Obviously... some expectations are the fault of the author... but most are not.

"Now Nightingale is a great piece of theatre that takes you believably into another place and time"

I hope at this point, you don't think I hate you... or whatever... because I think this next bit is key... I can not comprehend your taste. The Nunn production of Nightingales was amazing! But I really can't understand you calling it a great piece of theater. That play, as written, couldn't be more bursting with stereotypes... couldn't be further lacking in "character and originality." Talk about a potboiler! Melodrama! It was great, nasty fun. But a great piece of theater? I'm not so sure.


kmc

---

What is your vested interest in Nightingale? Not sure where you are from, but have you spent a summer in that part of the country? August is a very hot summer. Tempers rise in the heat. It makes a lot of sense. They don't have to walk around fanning themselves constantly or talking about how hot is is for you to know that it is hot. As I posted above, I don't think the show had a chance with you from the beginning so it is not surprising that you don't understand why August is part of the title or even realized what part the heat played in the show and story. There doesn't need to be a build-up to an explosion. Trust me, I have lived through many a hot summer with some of those family members portrayed in the play.

---

KJ, I agree. It is not phony. Maybe some people don't like it because it hits a little to close to home maybe?

---

art isn't easy. Or easy to take at times.

---

Quite possible but I am going more with the heat as rays of sunlight are prominent on its website and also the use of the color yellow.

---

I walked in only knowing basically what it was about and that it was a dark comedy. I had also heard a bit about it from a friend and knew there was a lot of buzz about it. I did not decide to see the show based on what I read here or anywhere else. And I would never make comments or judge a show based on what I read. I would see the show 1st. Which is what I think you should do. it is not totally ugly and nasty. It really kills me when people read all of these threads and then have strong opinions on a show they did not see. So no offense Tkt2Ride, but I really have to take most of your comments with a grain of salt, so to speak. And can't really put much stock in them, which I hope anyone who reads them doesn't either. If you don't want to see this type of show based on what you know ie: heard or read about, fine. But you really have nothing to base some of your comments on except what you have read or heard.

"can see how something like this might work as a good fundraiser for certain charity groups."

See a show before you make a statement like that.

---

And it is fine if you did not like the play. But then to go as far as to say:

"Pretty obvious that "August" was added to the title just to put it alphabetically at the top of any list published in media or theatre chart, as at TKTS."

That's not a critique of the play itsef, that is just a nasty slam against the show all the way around. Maybe you should have a seat at the Weston dinner table!

---

"For this kind of entertainment, I'd probably pick Jerry Springer because I know it will make me laugh and cry."

If you are not intelligent enough to tell the difference between August: Osage County and the Jerry Springer Show, then the show would not be for you.

"I just prefer something different and this I'm afraid isn't different."

I'm not sure what you are comparing the show to. It isn't different in what way? Where are the parade of plays that August is similar too? Different than what?

"They should try their best not to attract people like me who would not find this enjoyable."

So then, stuff should only appeal to the people who already like it? No one in the whole world should ever take a chance on something they find challenging? No one should ever try to cross over to a different level? No should ever attempt anything that they might be afraid of? I don't understand. So... playwrights should write for a small target audience and not attempt to reach beyond that? Am I misunderstanding your comments... because they seem almost fascistly ignorant.


kmc

---

"Ignorant? Please? I probably could have written the script myself"

Yes. Ignorant. Because you have gone from saying that the play doesn't appeal to you... to in the last couple posts criticizing the caliber of writing... writing that you have not read/experienced. Tracy Letts is a Pulitzer finalist.

---

Tkt2Ride...I read all of the comments for shows here, I read articles and reviews. if there is a show that I don't care to see, I won't see it. But there are times I do end up seeing a show I had not planned to see and enjoyed it. I had NO desire to see Altar Boyz. Ended up seeing it last year and really enjoyed it. I didn't plan to see The Homecoming last Saturday afternoon and boy am I glad I did (Another dysfuntional family!). It is fine that you feel that this is a show you may not like, but don't make such specific crticisms of it until you see it. And if you don't see it, there is no way you can judge it enough to say some of the things you have been saying and be taken seriously. That's the point I am trying to get across to you but you don't seem to be getting it.

---

Updated On: 12/15/07 at 07:49 PM

I suggest you do a search then and read some of the other threads on the show.

As far as your comment that the show could be used for the good, I just don't get that. Art and theatre run the gammut. Theatre addresses all aspects of life. Good and bad. Shows aren't really for "use". They are to entertain us and make us think. You are drawing your conclusions by what you have heard and read. It is a bit confusing, did you read the script then? it is just sad to think that you may let someone or some others lead you to think/believe things rather than actually finding out on your own. I never said I don't like your examples. But I think it is hard to compare them to a show you have never seen, only read about. And I don't spend a lot of time seeing "stuff". I fly to New York twice a year and see what I can. The rest I see locally. And speaking for myself, I am not attacking you for not seeing it. I am just saying not to judge a show unless you have seen it. And as far as a limited audience goes, it is selling rather well.

I have read just about all of the threads here on the show. Not sure if you have read them all. Some contain spoilers. You may want to search for them and read through them.

As far as your comment on Jerry Springer, do you honestly think they are trying to help these families? Have you never seen what the producers of that show do to exploit them? They are doing more damage than trying to help these families in most cases. They are going for ratings.

As far as being traumatized, I saw Caroline or Change. My mother was a real life Caroline. I cried. But I was not traumatized. I have seen families and my own family that were represented in part at Osage. I laughed, was shocked but was not traumatized. I go into every show with an open mind. No matter what the subject matter is. And I have seen some brilliant shows over the years. I will not let this board, reviews or even word of mouth change my mind if I want to see a show. And I will not make comments such as you have if I haven't seen a show. I can fully respect you not wanting to see the show because of its subject matter. What I can't respect are your comments that go beyond that. Again, comments one can make only after seeing the show. be it this or any other show. That is my point. But you seem to fail to understand it. Don't live for or rely on what people say here, take a chance and see something you wouldn't ordinarily see. And then you can come back to the boards, discuss it and be able to say "I saw it, and this is what I thought".

---

Updated On: 12/15/07 at 11:04 PM

I feel I did not get my money's worth in seeing Osage because it is just a soap opera and not a good play.

When I pay money for a ticket I want a good show. I may not even like the subject matter of a show but if it is handled with finesse I can still admire and enjoy the work, as in Betty's Summer Vacation, because Durang knows how to craft and give you worthwhile, even brilliant theatre, rather than what is to me an unworthy soap opera.

It helps if people focus their responses on the piece of art itself rather than other posters. Everyone's reaction to the play and feelings and thoughts about THE PLAY ITSELF is where to keep the focus. Different thoughts and reactions are valid as individual responses to the play, and everyone is welcome to express their personal response TO THE PLAY.