To crib a phrase (Greg's), bad dialogue has never been something that I stomach well in art – specifically plays and film-type art, natch.Unlike my co-author, I DID go to see August: Osage County
Here’s the thing: I didn’t DISlike the play by any means, and in fact enjoyed it most of the time. But, and this is a huge but, I did not like Act 3. I thoughts Acts 1 & 2 were generally very
good and felt very real. The language was theatrically heightened, but not to a point where it felt like it was something that no one would ever really say. That’s my pet peeve in plays that are meant to be realistic: people talking like poets; regular people speaking in such flowery, elegant language that it sounds like it was written by a super-clever playwright and then spoken by actors, rather than sounding and feeling like human beings talking to each other in the way that 99.9% of all human beings talk to one another. Shakespeare is one thing; Beckett is one thing; I have no problem with stylization. But if you are doing a contemporary, realistic drama in a contemporary, realistic setting with contemporary, realistic characters, your dialogue probably ought to be contemporary and at least somewhat realistic.In August: Osage County (can I refer to it as A:OC?) the language was pretty theatrical, but still felt like real people talking, so I bought it for the first two acts. But the third act felt like it went completely off the deep end. The first scene of Act 3 is the three sisters of the family talking in what I can only term "theater-speak." That heightened, gilded language that doesn't even approximate the way people actually talk to one another. I know it's theater, so I forgive some of that, but especially because Acts 1 & 2 did such a good job walking that line between poetry and realism, I felt Act 3 was really jarring in its total lack of realism. Lines like "I don't even recognize myself anymore!" felt like super-stereotypical, sledgehammer-over-the-head
Dramatic Lines *cue crashing, dissonant music*. In this Act 3 opening scene, the three sisters talk with each other about their vitriolic, batshit-crazy, prescription-pill-addicted mother; it wasn't what they were talking about that I didn't like, it was HOW they said it. The story they tell about Pill-Poppin'-Mama hiding pills in her…um…genitals (sorry?) was great and funny, but the line that caps the story -- "I felt like saying 'mom's pussy' was a bit gauche!" -- is overwritten in exactly the way I thought the entirety of Act 3 was overwritten. Case in point. It would still get a huge laugh to say "I just didn't want to say 'mom's pussy'!" Why does it have to be so inorganically erudite? "Gauche"? Really?? Does somebody I’ve never chatted with tend to drop the word “gauche” in conversation casually? Maybe some characters in some other plays could get away with a clunky line like that, but not this character, who is a plain-jane Midwestern gal (even if she is supposed to be an academic). Why can’t she get away with this line? Because she has never given any indication in the first two acts of the play that she talks in such highfalutin "playwright language."And smashing plates on the stage? Speaking of things that never really happen. Isn't that retired from modern drama except as parody? I’m a guy with a decently bad temper and a generally poor way of expressing my anger, but I’ve never smashed a plate, nor have I ever seen anyone smash a plate (except onstage), nor have I ever even HEARD of anyone smashing a plate out of anger (though I suppose that’s not something you would advertise -- but if it did really happen, don’t you think in calmer moments the plate-smasher might laugh and potentially even brag about such histrionics?). And just dramatically, it's so worn out! Am I wrong? Tell me I'm wrong! I mean, the scene itself was fine; we just really didn't need plates to be actually smashed to indicate "anger." (Pill-Poppin'-Mama breaks her plate after her two daughters each smash one, and says "oh, are we breaking shit?" -- which WAS funny.) But the first two plate-smashes are utterly earnest and totally wrenched me away from the play's at-that-point-already-fragile reality. Future Dramatists of America, repeat after me: plate smashing is dramatic parody, not dramatic!
Yet, what do I know? The world at large is raving about A:OC – see: the New York Times review Greg already linked to below, this celebrity discussion-blog, and, obviously, the Pulitzer Prize committee. I already mentioned that at the show my fiancée and I saw, people shot up out of their seats to cheer like their asses were on fire. (Maybe their asses were on fire, in a manner of speaking: the show was 3+ hours long, and included two intermissions.) At the end of the day, it was a good play – 3.5/5 stars from this Culturephile isn’t BAD, people! – I just confess to being a bit surprised at the halleluiah chorus being sung for what, in my opinion, is only 66.6% of a great play.





This bandwagon/John Mayer/Rilo Kiley mini-debate makes me think a (tiny bit) deeper about what is "fun" vs. what is "good" – probably the single most over-debated topic in all of art and culture. It's the classic 




















