August: Osage County -- A Soap Opera?- Page 3

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 12:27am

nomdeplume, you have seen the play. So therefore I can't argue with you on how you liked or disliked it. Sorry the show was not what you may have expected it to be.

I enjoyed the play. Did I think it was brilliant right after seeing it? Not really. it was a show, as I have said, that I had to think about for a bit. It is a very over the top play but after sifting it around in my head, I found it to be a pretty brilliant piece. For me there was much more beneath the surface and each actor, for me, was actually more than one character. They each embodied so many different personalities and pulled it together brilliantly into the characters we saw onstage. The only real "flaw" I found with the show was the portrayal of the granddaughter. I just feel that Ms. Fordham played it more like Christina Ricci's Wednesday in The Addams Family movies. Just a bit too deadpan. And I saw the situation with her and the fiancee coming the moment he interacted with her. But these were minor things for me. As a whole, I would see the play again. And If I get back to NYC before it closes, I plan to.

And I agree with you about posting your opinions not based on other posters, but on the piece itself. That is what I have been trying to get across to Tkt2Ride.

Updated On: 12/16/07 at 12:27 AM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 12:38am

I can understand that an actor would also like to see Osage to see the acting of these other actors.

For me I connect more deeply to the underlying play, so while I appreciate the acting, it is the play itself, even if not well acted or presented, that seals the deal for me. Though I confess, much as I like Shakespeare, that is one author I have to have actors who understand the rhythm of the verse as I can't stand to hear Will butchered since I'm so familiar with his work. Then again, it is verse and poetry which puts it in a different category from other kinds of work.

I think it is fine to post here to discuss subject matters of play that you want to or don't want to see, as in soap opera, etc. as Tkt2Ride has, and he/she has been very honest about not having seen the piece yet.

A lot of theatregoers wouldn't know the difference between a soap opera and a well-crafted play, but if you do and don't like soaps, you try to avoid them because you are looking for something else.

You are welcome, Tkt2Ride.

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 12:55am

I guess I'm just horrible at expressing myself, but the intention of my original post was to question why the need to knock people who liked the play in your review of the play as you've done in your most recent post. Despite asking us to focus on "THE PLAY" you still manage to find room to insult "a lot of theatergoers." August seems like rustic theater to me, and a lot of the negative remarks have a distinct odor of elitism to me... that was my point... which I guess is either not interesting... or I have failed to communicate it.

kmc

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 12:56am

I agree it is fine also to post here. But as I have said, some of Tkt's comments were ones I don't feel are valid having not seen the show.

And I did connect with the underlying play. There are reasons why what happened happened. And I found myself in conversation with people after the show and a few friends who have seen it as to why it happened and how the family became so dysfunctional. It is not layed out for you, but it is definetly there, in my opinion.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 1:33am

Hm?

A careful read of what I wrote reveals that "a lot of theatregoers" are not able to distinguish between a soap opera and a true play. That was only directed toward my own and Tkt2Ride's preferences as we like one but not the other. You follow?

Other theatregoers may just like both and they are either not able to distinguish between the two genres or do not care if it is one or the other genre. Really you are reading too much into that if you view it as "insulting" some or certain theatregoers.

Different people are looking for different kinds of theatre. It pays to be careful in making your choices because live theatre can be very expensive and you don't want to feel like you've wasted your money when if you were diligent about finding out about the play first you could have avoided it.

Personally I put a lot of effort into researching and choosing what plays I am going to see and I find it really pays off. If you know which of the upcoming plays you want to see early on, you can often see them on heavy discounts or comps if you are prepared and the opportunity arises during previews.

[KJisgroovy]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 2:01am

"A careful read of what I wrote reveals that "a lot of theatregoers" are not able to distinguish between a soap opera and a true play. That was only directed toward my own and Tkt2Ride's preferences as we like one but not the other. You follow?" I follow what you are saying, but that isn't what you wrote originally. Go back and read it carefully. You wrote that a lot of theater goers are too stupid to tell the difference between a soap opera and a well crafted play... you didn't say stupid... but the implication is there... or perhaps not stupid... but unsophisticated. As if there are unwashed masses watching soap operas thinking they are plays... but golly gee... you... you can tell the difference. Whatever. I read too much into everything.

You have to be choosy in picking a play. It costs you an arm and a leg... it's important you seem something that is worth the loss of a limb. And the disapointment in wasting money on a failed production is epic... I am totally with both of you there. I bristle at your elitism... which I suppose I could be implying without cause. So. There it is.

But... Tkt2Ride went from saying they didn't want to go see the play... to attacking the way the play was written... which is both ignorant and delusional... I don't have a problem with being choosy... but saying you could write a better play... when you have no idea how well written that play is... I can't get down with that... though... I suppose it's not my responsibility to do so.

Thanks to Uncageg who is far more articulate in his opinions and ideas.

kmc

[bkonbroadway]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 3:00am

I think this thread is closer to a soap opera than the show is.

So I saw the show last week and went into it blind. I knew nothing about it and sat in the last row for $26.50. Now, I don't really like soap operas, but I liked the show. A lot. I was kinda bored for the first 15 minutes, but after that I loved it! Yes, there were flaws, but when I left I thought to myself, "That was pretty f*^#$d up!" I also left feeling like I spent only $26.50 on 3 1/2 hours of quality entertainment that kept my attention for the majority of the time. For that and many other reasons, I thought it was a great play. This is my personal opinion, you can either agree or disagree, that's not really the point of this post.

So here's the point and what I would like to discuss: Whose story is it? Is it Violet's or Bev's? If it's Violet's story I think I would characterize this as a tragedy. If it's Bev's story...a melodrama.

PS.
"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"

A Chorus Line did the same thing and I think they did pretty well for themselves. I'm not saying that this was the intention of August: Osage County, nor am I comparing it to A Chorus Line....but when it all comes down to it, good or bad we're all artists trying to put something we made out there and maybe get paid for it.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 10:42am

To discuss your question....I don't think it is just Violet or Bev's story. I felt that as the play unfolded, it was everyone's story. But I think I know why you ask the question. Correct me if I am wrong but are you asking who is "at fault" so to speak, for the event that takes place? I have kind of rolled that around in my head and have decided that it is both of their stories. And I think that leaves a few questions in the air. (I am trying not to give anything away so I hope you are following me) But I think that it is most everyone's story and I think a few of the characters triggered the events. Also, when did you figure out the role of the housekeeper? I also thought the first 15 minutes were a bit slow although I lost most of it due to a very rude audience that it took a number of us to finally shush from talking.

As far as the title, I will say again that the play takes place in August. August in Osage County. if you pull up a listing of everything playing in NY, it isn't even on the first page and for Broadway listings it is 3rd down. I don't understand this thought. It is pretty obvious that the month of August plays a part in the play. So I really don't think it was the intention of the playwright to put it at the top of the listing.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 11:17am

It's a funny accusation that you are "elitist" if you use your brain and realize a show is just a cheap soap opera and you've been cheated of the money that you spent to see it.

Under that theory, everyone should be a dumb consumer and go and spend money for trash and run around and say it's great.

As I said before, it doesn't hit me as a real story for anyone in the play. It's more the seeing of a family through the prism of a mind which perverts every one and every intention into something lurid because that mind itself is warped.

Hm, like the perversion of clear sight and intelligence into "elitism"! Funny that a poster would try to insult me just because I don't like a show, but to me that shows me how weak the supporting argument for the show is.

Durang and Busch are delightful because they make fun of such run-on luridity by sending it up. Osage just drops it into the mud.

I hope the play itself does not get nominated for any awards because I think it is unworthy. And no one has yet produced an argument that convinces something in the play's structure elevates it out of being a pandering soap opera. Structure is different than an individual's emotional response to a play.

Play structure takes a long time to learn and appreciate. Putting in that time and effort makes someone educated or erudite, not elitist. However, if you want to define elite as being a member of leadership, then I will take the lead here to shine the light, as I see it, on the weak underbelly of this play. Updated On: 12/16/07 at 11:17 AM

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 11:27am

Interesting discussion of Osage at All That Chat.
Osage discussion

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 11:29am

And another...
Washington Post's Peter Marks didn't care for

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 11:39am

nomdeplume, I don't see you as an elitist. It is evident that you don't care for the show. And that's fine, to each his own. But your negative comments are so strong that they come off as if your opinion is the final opinion. Don't put theatergoers down because they don't see a show the way you do. Personally, since you have voiced your negative opinion on the show, I think you totally missed it. There were many layers to this show. And I enjoy these type of shows where things are not just laid out for you but make you dig beneath the surface. From reading your posts, you seem to not have or wanted to do that. it sounds like you wanted everything laid out for you. Doesn't always happen. The show explored what keeps family together, for what that is worth for some families, and what tears them apart. How parents neglect children and how desperate one can be to be happy. How someone is looking for "family" no matter how dysfunctional they are. It also shows how kids can ultimately become their parents and how their spouses can see that. It's all there. Although the show is full of laughs, it is ultimately heartbreaking. It represents just about every family out there in some way.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 12:03pm

uncageg, I can dislike a show, and fight to the death for your right to see it, like it and support it at the same time.

Let me give you a comparison example of family drama to point out what I do admire in a playwright's capturing of family relationships. I find Conor McPherson to be a wonderful playwright and story teller. In The Seafarer there is a scene in which the sighted brother blows up and as the audience you have a sudden fear that he may attack the sightless brother. It is the sightless brother's response to his brother, and what he tells the others in the room that his brother will do at that point that reveals their long relationship at a family level of closeness, the deep level of understanding of how another human being ticks from longtime close association that makes McPherson a master of observation of human behavior. It rings truer than anything in Osage to me. I don't want to give it away that much.

Osage doesn't have anything that hits that depth and the closest scene that comes near it is when the daughter stages a coup and sends everyone on a pill hunt. But even that is more manufactured to me than coming from a deeper subconscious level on the part of the playwright. McPherson seems to have seeped his scene from knowledge of the human heart rather than the constant fake antagonism of television. McPherson could even be oblivious to his revelation of human behavior because it probably came from an intuitive place, where the best writing and structure come from.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 12:14pm

Then we must agree to disagree. We both got something different out of Osage.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 12:16pm

Of course.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 12:34pm

Gotta chuckle, you are seeking out all of the negative things about the show to share here. There are also tons of positive things out there to. But i won't post the links. You can find them and read them, if you so chose.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 12:44pm

uncageg, that is because there were so many favorable reviews and the show was strongly recommended to me that I was surprised when I saw it that I was left feeling so differently about it.

And I began to feel that all I had seen was a soap opera and posted this before the other reviews came out where some reviewers had felt the same way. I thought I might be alone in the bunch, but there were others.

Sometimes, after you read or see a show, a discussion can provoke a deeper understanding and you can find a layer or a level you missed. I haven't read or heard anything yet that does that for me with this show, but I may. The work of a truly great writer is like that--think William Faulkner with all his levels of interpretation in his works. I haven't found that with Letts yet, despite all the attention the play has received.

[bkonbroadway]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 2:37pm

"Funny that a poster would try to insult me just because I don't like a show, but to me that shows me how weak the supporting argument for the show is."

But you just insulted anyone who DID like the show by saying:
"It's a funny accusation that you are "elitist" if you use your brain and realize a show is just a cheap soap opera and you've been cheated of the money that you spent to see it.

Under that theory, everyone should be a dumb consumer and go and spend money for trash and run around and say it's great."

Also, you keep mentioning the lack of structure. What do you mean by structure? Do you mean a clear point of attack, climax, denumat, etc? If that is what you are saying about structure, I do think all of these structural elements are pretty clear in the show. Maybe that's not what you mean by structure...I don't know.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 8:31pm

bkonbroadway, I disagree with you on the insulting part. You have, however, raised a very good question in what do I mean by structure and you are right that I do not mean simply are the parts there, like an inciting incident, etc.

You have asked a hard question and it may take me a while to come to the answer, not just one post and perhaps not just one thread.

In a well-crafted play there is a sense of a unity of the whole that you often do not perceive until you get to the end of the play, and sometimes after that, thinking back on the play. It can be a series of events through the play that are all related to the situation and outcome of the play, for example. (You can't lock down the definition because you will always be able to find the exception to the rule that still works for another reason.).

[Seafarer spoilers]

In The Seafarer, things are happening like the setting of Christmas, the Irish in the play being Catholics, the sightless brother being visited by his sighted brother with the underlying knowledge that family helps out when another member of the family is in trouble--ostensibly here the brother who has lost his sight, the background knowledge that Jesus could make the blind see and redeems souls, the revelation of the presence of the devil in their midst known only to the sighted brother, the sightless brother and friend singing Ave Maria while the Devil cringes. You don't know if the sightless brother will somehow regain his eyesight in the play, whether the sighted brother will injure someone or lose his soul in the card game or what will happen, and imagine being set up for a convention where someone sits down to play poker for his soul with the devil and doesn't tell the others in the room that it's the devil perhaps because he's given up hope of escaping hell. Will the devil cheat at cards? You have a lot of questions.

Then the devil appears to win until it gets discovered that the sightless brother, whom the devil has said he has no chance with because he's a true believer, turns out to be the winner of the final hand. The devil looks at the sighted brother and says to the effect that someone up in Heaven loves him. And you think back over the course of the play and realize that it is the fact that the sightless brother is present and is an uncorruptable true believer, sighted or not, that the devil never had a chance. And we have seen and heard the brother drunkenly singing the Ave Maria with the Devil squirming but didn't connect the reason why he was singing was his religious faith, even when soused.

Osage doesn't have the setups for the ultimate payoff, it just seems to move from one lurid event to another without reason, just for the luridness. Doesn't do it for comedy like the plays of Durang and Busch, but instead tries to get us to buy it as serious. Please.

And here is another play which I did not like at all because it was so nasty and mean while I was watching it, Dying City by Christopher Shinn which was at Lincoln Center Theater earlier this year. Until afterward I had my "Aha!" moment and realized that the two brothers had an incestuous relationship and the brother who presented as straight really wasn't and that was what was behind his horrible treatment of his wife. Once I got it I very much admired the play and would have seen it again to take another look to find the additional nuances setting that up. Again, a well-crafted play, much as I didn't like the meanness in the subject matter or the ill treatment of the wife. It also explained why, when the brother decided to take a nap in their bed on a last night before the soldier brother shipped out, the wife was so furious and not forgiving of that and insisted the brother leave, almost as if by her instinct she understood what the nature of their relationship was. There were other clues and undertones, too.

Those are examples of what I mean by structure as in the construction of the play.

© 2007 nomdeplume by pseudonym, all rights reserved Updated On: 12/16/07 at 08:31 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 8:46pm

The setups for the ultimate payoff in Osage were definetly there for me. And I think they are pretty obvious.

The Seafarer was not on my list of shows to see until I planned out my shows last week so I may try to see it if it is still running when I get back to NYC.

[bkonbroadway]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 8:56pm

I regret to inform you that I could not read the majority of your last post because I have not yet see The Seafarer, but plan to probably next week. I have been to the box office twice but haven't acutally gotten tickets yet (long story).

Anyway...the way I would like to look at it, in the end (and I'm sure there are many arguments against this theory) is that this show is a tragedy, and Violet is the tragic hero. Here it goes:

*spoilers* She has an elevated stature of the matriarch of this family of mostly bold and strong women who is comfortable with her current lifestyle. He drinks, and she takes pills. All is well. Her tragic flaw is probably pride and overconfidence that lead to her ultimate demise of having all of her loved ones against her and seeing her for who she truly was. I don't know if they have lost love for her, but they have lost respect. She was so bold to tell everyone the "truths" about themselves, but in the end, has to face the truths of what she has done. She is left, in the end, in a "death" of some sort because she is alone and unloved and with the only comfort being who she has disregarded as a person this whole time: the Indian (Native American) housekeeper. Her weakness has been completely exposed. What is to be learned from this tragic hero? The proud and overconfident will fall.

So that is my take on it. I'm sure there are arguments against this theory, but so be it. I'm sure there could also be an argument that it's Bev's story (which I tried to discuss in my other post). People reading this, feel free to disagree...just don't be nasty about it. Thanks

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 9:09pm

bkonbroadway, I appreciate your taking the time to map out your Violet as the tragic heroine theory.

I have some problems with that, here they are. Since Violet has already been in rehab once for her drug/pill addictions, she isn't really on the downward ascent of the tragic hero. She would have lost any status as a dominant figure of the clan back then. The husband while he was around obviously didn't love her anymore, he was just looking for a caretaker out of duty. The family is only showing up for the funeral and going to leave some time after it, including the younger daughter who has decided to go to NYC with her boyfriend. No one has to be convinced in the dinner scene when the daughter takes over, it is almost as though it is par for the course and everyone knows she's an addict. And remember, the mother is not nice, and a tragic heroine has to be a heroine for some reason, and not just on it (sans "e") in pill form.

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 9:10pm

I agree with you bk.

I also feel that part of the setup was everything going on with the sisters. Each had their own crisis to deal with. Two came home because they "had" to and the third is trying to get out. It became oviouse that the two were going to go back and deal with their own lives and the one would leave. And as for the Aunt, it was obvious to me that she was now going to distance herself after her big revelation. The sisters had their "bonding" time together, but you knew it was only going to last for that short time before their seperate lives took over again.

[nomdeplume]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 9:18pm

If you agree, uncageg, then what is heroic to you about the mother? What is she trying to do that is noble, despite her downfall?

[uncageg]

Posted: 12/16/07 at 9:35pm

Despite her downfalls she is still trying to be a mother. Even through all of the pills. And I think she knows that she has pretty much lost the respect of her kids. When she's lucid. But no matter what, she raised her kids. I wouldn't so much call her a hero. And I also think that when she finally dies, her family will be right back at the house, but I don't thinkg the atmosphere will be the same. I think there will be a sense of relief and also a real sense of sadness. Moreso then when the father "died".