December 3, 2024

When a gifted playwright’s work is adapted for the big screen, the transition from one medium to another can be quite challenging to pull off successfully. And, if the adaptation gets it wrong, it fails to do justice to the source material, an outcome that often unfairly reinforces the blanket denigration often accorded to film as an “inferior” artform compared to others (like literature or the stage). Such is the case, unfortunately, with this l… read the rest.

When a gifted playwright’s work is adapted for the big screen, the transition from one medium to another can be quite challenging to pull off successfully. And, if the adaptation gets it wrong, it fails to do justice to the source material, an outcome that often unfairly reinforces the blanket denigration often accorded to film as an “inferior” artform compared to others (like literature or the stage). Such is the case, unfortunately, with this latest adaptation of work drawn from the writings of August Wilson, a stage-to-screen cross-over comes up short compared to previous conversions of his material (like “Fences” (2016), which succeeded brilliantly). This tale of two siblings (John David Washington, Danielle Deadwyler) who match wits over the fate of a family heirloom – a piano with a hand-carved façade featuring images of their slave era ancestors – depicts their heated discussions over its ultimate dispensation, one option aimed at selling it and the other bent on retaining it as a treasured piece of family history. As this scenario plays out, however, complications emerge when the ghosts of their deceased relatives and other spirits make their surreal presence known in steering the quarrelsome brother and sister to settle the matter. It’s an intriguing premise, one that speaks volumes about dealing with the ghosts of one’s past, what they endured in their lives and how the impact of their experiences has been passed down to their descendants. But many of the film’s scenes fall prey to one of the key pitfalls that often undermine theatrical adaptations – a series of overlong, stagey, tediously talky conversations that may work on Broadway but that try the patience of viewers on screen. What’s more, many sequences launch into seemingly unrelated exchanges whose connections to the primary narrative often seem tangential at best, segments that are further undermined by loquacious and not particularly interesting dialogues. And, as for the fantasy sequences, their excessively disparate nature is wholly incongruous with the remainder of the film, looking more like they belong in a movie like “Carrie” (1976) than an August Wilson production. While writer-director Malcolm Washington’s debut feature definitely has its strong suits, such as its fine ensemble of performances, inventive cinematography and meticulous period piece production design, it lacks the integral components needed to make this a compelling and engaging watch. To be sure, August Wilson deserves better than what’s materialized here, a film that’s largely forgettable and a pale shadow of his other cinematic adaptations.

show less

January 2, 2025

<em>'The Piano Lesson'</em>, despite peaks and troughs, is largely a good watch. I could feel my interest increase and decrease fairly consistently throughout though, so no doubting more could've been done to keep me more interested - but that I still was, in fairness.

John David Washington and Samuel L. Jackson are two that perform well, but the person that I would rank as the standout is Danielle Deadwyler - great performance! I didn't actua… read the rest.

<em>'The Piano Lesson'</em>, despite peaks and troughs, is largely a good watch. I could feel my interest increase and decrease fairly consistently throughout though, so no doubting more could've been done to keep me more interested - but that I still was, in fairness.

John David Washington and Samuel L. Jackson are two that perform well, but the person that I would rank as the standout is Danielle Deadwyler - great performance! I didn't actually know her 24 hours ago, though I do now after this and <em>'Carry-On'</em>. Michael Potts merits props, too.

It does feature a noteworthy enough story, the music is decent and there are some solid moments in there - the rendition of "Berta, Berta" with Jackson & Co. particularly stands out in my memory. I now see that this is based on a play, which is indeed very apparent in a few scenes.

show less

January 17, 2025

This is based on August Wilson's play and you'll never be in any doubt it came from the stage. The style of presentation and the construction of the story is entirely theatrical and that didn't really work so well for me on a big screen. It's all about a piano. "Boy Wille" (John David Washington) thinks that by selling it, they could improve their lot. Sister "Berniece" (Danielle Deadwyler) thinks over her dead body. That sentiment might actually… read the rest.

This is based on August Wilson's play and you'll never be in any doubt it came from the stage. The style of presentation and the construction of the story is entirely theatrical and that didn't really work so well for me on a big screen. It's all about a piano. "Boy Wille" (John David Washington) thinks that by selling it, they could improve their lot. Sister "Berniece" (Danielle Deadwyler) thinks over her dead body. That sentiment might actually prove closer to the truth than anyone wants, though, as the story develops and it becomes clear that this beautifully carved piano has no intentions of moving anywhere - and that it comes with quite an haunting provenance. Both characters see this instrument as an integral part of their past - a past peppered with brutality, slavery and hard labour, but can they reconcile any role it has in their future. Samuel L. Jackson features sparingly as family patriarch "Doaker" but barely imprints himself on the story (I think it'd have preferred Colman Domingo), Corey Hawkins plays the preacher "Avery" as if he were trying to be Eddie Murphy and the rest of it proceeds in a disappointingly soapy style as it mixes all the usual family melodrama with a ghastly, violent history and the tiniest elements from a horror movie towards the end. It does look good, but there's very little pace to the whole thing, there's far too much dialogue for a cinema feature and though the camerawork does sometimes give us an intensity as it mingles amongst the "Charles" family, for the most part this is enter stage left, exit stage right sort of stuff that ought to have stayed on it's original medium.

show less