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

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 1:09pm

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.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 1:25pm

My thought is that you went into t he play already thinking that you would not like it. You yourself said that you tend to avoid these type of plays. So it seems that the play really never stood a chance with you. So why, if you avoid these plays, did you see it in the first place?

Updated On: 12/15/07 at 01:25 PM

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 1:30pm

"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

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 1:54pm

What is your vested interest in Osage? Your defense of the play is not convincing when it is all emotion rather than logic. The play lacks theatrical structure. Without solid defenses of the play, I like the play less and less. Because to me it says it doesn't have a reason for being, the play is just a regurgitation of so much daily soap opera and daytime TV degeneration of culture. Further, to the extent this play is supposed to reflect an actual family I do not buy its honesty either. It is like seeing a bunch of people through the distorted prism of a perverted mind, not the actual characters as they are. That's how it comes across to me, it's disingenuine.

Nightingale created tremendous dramatic tension with regard to heat, making the heat integral to the play. That is something very difficult to accomplish and it was done very well.

For Osage County to have "August" stuck before its title, there should be a better reason, and it should be integral to the plot of the play, which I don't think it is. If I thought it did I would say so.

There is no build-up from suffering from the heat, for example. There are just fast-paced nasty explosions all over which constantly dilute and remove dramatic tension. Leaving it a letdown, flat. Updated On: 12/15/07 at 01:54 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 2:02pm

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.

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 2:04pm

"it is all emotion rather than logic."

Obviously, I really liked the play. So. I have gone a tiddly bit over the top in my defense of it. But, I did think I was making some logical points... none of which you really seemed to address. But, s'alright. I really can't understand where you are coming from... I can see it on the map... just can't seem to get there... not by bus or by plane. So, I guess the failing is mine.

I really felt like August:Osage County was one of the least phony things I've ever seen... certainly theatrical... melodramatic... but in the way life is. So I bristle when I hear people say it isn't "honest." There were dishonest moments... but on a whole... it rocked my socks.

Not related but. Um. Also. Disingenuine. Not a word.

kmc

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 2:09pm

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

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 2:10pm

Perhaps. Or it isn't how life "should be." Or for that matter... how art "should be."

kmc

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 2:12pm

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

[BrookArtsCenter]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 3:49pm

Could it be that the title "August" is a wry wink at the other definition per Merriam-Webster:

marked by majestic dignity or grandeur

Interestingly enough, the google ad on the Merriam-Webster page was for August:Osage County.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:29pm

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.

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 4:53pm

Humm. the art of reading is still a challenge for some. I followed the thread because I was interested to learn more about the show. From what I have read and the strange emotional responses I got, it seems some have taken this play home with them.

A very good reason I'd probably skip it. I do go to Disney shows (in the Movie Theatre) rarely. (must have missed my TLM posts?) as well as many others. Somewhere I know I mentioned The Seafarer, I just know I did. For this kind of entertainment, I'd probably pick Jerry Springer because I know it will make me laugh and cry. At least though I know it will make me laugh and then want to move to Sweden.

Lots of variety on Broadway. I just prefer something different and this I'm afraid isn't different. I said there was a place for it but not for me.

uncageg- this hits close to home? Isn't that suppose to be the whole point of it? To be real..just real ugly and nasty? My own home didn't include all of these elements but add in a few Relatives and it comes very close.

I can't help but see this plot as a Social Workers nightmare. I can see how something like this might work as a good fundraiser for certain charity groups. Other than that though it could also serve as a form of exploitation. Some will use it to justify bad behavior. Basically, a Soap Opera. Just call it what it is. Plenty of people watch them and even more live them so why so defensive?

I am grateful though that nondeplume pointed this out before I had to experience a really bad night of theatre for myself. After an hour of it, I would have to leave and check out Sweeney Todd.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:15pm

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.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:18pm

The word I meant is "disingenuous", thanks for pointing that out.

The play did not "hit home" for me, no. It raced around and ended up nowhere for me.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:58pm

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!

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 5:59pm

You speak as if the art of reading is a waste. Before this show made it's way to a stage, it was still just a story. I might like Caroline or Change, it sounded interesting but this doesn't seem to be it. It seems to be going even more extreme than O'Neil, maybe even Shepherd will go for Entertainment? That is disappointing. I am not a theatre reviewer. I am a patron. No where have I said otherwise.

I will support shows that I want to see. I will not and try my best not to support shows I know I will not like. You may see whatever you want to. If you really wanted me to go and see it, I would hope you could at least try to find something in it I can appreciate. So far, I have got a lot of angry response, even from you uncageg? I'm disappointed. I'm afraid I can't even appreciate the sets and costumes from that era, so it would be very difficult for me to ignore the dialog.

Based on what the show is all about, I don't think I am far off at all in my comment about Social Workers. I know a few. They struggle mightily trying to save children from families much like this. It's my opinion and it is based on the facts of what this show is about.

This was a discussion of whether this story fit the realm of being a Soap Opera. That was my own comment from another thread so why wouldn't I comment here? Every shows goal should be is to reach their target audience. They should try their best not to attract people like me who would not find this enjoyable.

We all have our own reasons for seeing a show. I understand you may want this to do well because you liked it. Then my chore for you would be to show me how this is different than what I can see regularly on Television?

Of course again uncageg, this is the impression the show is making on me. Just imagine how I would come out feeling after a show like this? This is why these type of boards are a good thing. I believe, at least in my case, my extended family traumatized me enough. I am not a glutton for punishment. Even for the Art.

I'll wait for the sequel. The one that hopefully has this entire family in therapy and hopefully serious about trying to mend their evil ways.

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 6:42pm

"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

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 7:32pm

KS-
Ignorant? Please? I probably could have written the script myself. Why is that going so far over your head? Are you the writer? One would think so since you seem unable to do anything but be argumentative. I would hope at least that person is a better salesperson than yourself.

I am also intelligent enough to see that at least Jerry Springer tries to help these very tragic and screwed-up families. The families themselves exploit their circumstances with their insane behavior. Poor Jerry at least hopes a little bit of his understanding will come across at the end of his shows. I don't watch it regularly, I just happened to see a couple of his shows after it followed another show. They kind of make you feel relieved you decided to not visit certain relations anymore because they really are criminally insane.

I have no plans on seeing Jerry Springer either. I wish you wouldn't keep grabbing up straws to support your theories. All in the Family used Archie's, crass, abusive behavior to make fun of him but unfortunately too many people are really like Archie and I never found it entertaining, just annoying.

I keep writing this but you just aren't reading, how sad, that this has a limited audience because of it's material. Have fun with it but don't expect to be able to bully me into seeing it either or attacking what I find entertaining or not.

Should you try to traumatize people and make them hate your work? Depends on your motive. All I have seen from your arguments are that you really do fit into this sort of family.

Forgive me if I choose not to spend my money on it and I greatly appreciate that nondeplume saved me the grief.

*******************************************************

uncageg- You may not take the reviews here under scrutiny but I think I benefit from them, even yours, even if,at times, we may disagree on what we like. Usually some like it and some don't. I don't live near NY so I have to pick and choose. My impression are just as you say, throwbacks, that come from the impressions that I am getting from the two of you who really liked it or appreciated it.

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 7:37pm

"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.

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 7:41pm

"that this has a limited audience because of it's material."

Late in it's Chicago run, the cancelation line was a circus. They turned many desperate people away.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 7:49pm

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

[Tkt2Ride]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 8:32pm

Desperate may be the key word here. I unfortunately have not seen too many support your claims here. Nice that she was up for the Pulitzer, so sorry that she lost.

I wish her luck but I don't idolize her. Sorry. Almost as sorry as I am because you may be able to read but clearly you don't understand my meanings. Nor do you seem capable of reviewing this show objectively.

I am sure the show will survive even if I choose not to go. I just tried my best to point out the obstacle and why it is important to see the big picture when dealing with subject matters such as this.

***************************************************************

uncageg- It should be clearly obvious that I was trying to review the script and background of this show. Why shouldn't I? I was reading this thread for the two reasons I mentioned. It seemed like a Soap Opera and it's content appeared to be more exploitive then dramatic.

Unfortunately, the arguments have failed to bring out any of the depth I was hoping for. I am sorry you don't like my examples. I much rather see how this show is different than why I shouldn't make comparisons.

I am happy that you have seen different shows. I like original work too, depending on the subject and how it is presented. I can't spend as much time as you can to see stuff. I don't think we go to see shows for the same reasons. It's too bad this one seems too familiar to me. So I really doubt I would like it. Have I liked things I thought I wouldn't? Rarely, usually I find myself asking why did I waste my time?

Unfortunately too, so far nothing anyone has said was positive enough to even tempt me to see it. That is rather sad since this kind of material could be used for the good.

Like I said, I'm not following everything the media is hashing out. I have been looking here, mostly in vain, to get a better understanding of the material.

See, I find that some stories need to be told because they do offer society a look into what is ugly and mean about the World. A reference to it's benefits for social organizations doesn't have to be taken as a negative suggestion. They and our society needs all the help it can get. Since I already got the message, I read here hoping to read of an interesting and provocative take on the subject. So far, the best I can gather is if I really want to know how this person dealt with it, I best read the book first.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 11:04pm

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

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 11:31pm

I understand your meanings. They are insipid, small minded.
If you read my posts, I acknowledge flaws in the play... I happen to think the play triumphs in spite of them... opinions are not objective... in these posts I was sharing my opinions and criticizing others... this cannot be objective (another word you don't seem to understand the definition of)... I'm sorry to get SO personal... but I am frustrated. Sigh. A great work really gets its greatness from its subject matter... it is in the presentation, representation, writing, craft, acting... this was the point I have failed to articulate to you clearly enough...

Also, Tracy Letts is a tall, sexy, balding dude. With a penis. Which means he is not a she. Objectively.

kmc

Updated On: 12/15/07 at 11:31 PM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 11:49pm

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.