Sunday Morning

Saw it. Didn't like it.

His films are steadily declining.
Started off strong with in the company of men. Your friends & Neighbors echoed that while feeling a little more of the same.
Nurse Betty is an obvious attempt at mixing his "style" with the more accessible hollywood means. Kinda failed at that.
Possession is his most accessible hollywood picture so far and a very bland one.
And now a film that adapts his stage play that should have stayed a stage play.

It's definetly his attempt to go back to his "early roots"
And it pretty much follows the formula, if you want to call it that.

My problems:

His utter lack of style. He seemingly doesn't care to make things interesting whatsoever visually. Kind of like the kevin smith approach to filmmaking. And like the typical playwright, He's caught up in his own words. It works for some filmmakers, but even elia kazan had things going on visually that were interesting.

His attempts at misogyny, homophobia, etc.
Perhaps he himself is those things, I mean who really cares, but his display here wasn't neccessary. His characters need a good slap or better yet, punch in the face and then need to move on.
His films don't seem to be really about the ways men and women relate anymore

Self-referencing.
One of the worst things today about modern horror films are the needless jabs at the genre. The shameless commentary while-we-indulge in it attitude of films today got old, quick.
The shape of things does the same thing, but in a manner that upsetted me even more. The film ends up becoming what rachel weisz's character in the beginning comments on: A fraud.

MrN

I just saw it this afternoon and I wasn't exactly enamored by it, but I'm glad it wasn't another Nurse Betty (didn't like it) or Posession (haven't seen it).

In many ways Shape of Things is like Labute's first two films but not nearly approaching the shock/relevance.

I think I did like it more than you, Sunday Morning - I felt it had somethings to say about self-improvement (is masturbation? ) Yes Rachel Weisz is a baddie, but I think she had some right ideas - though her expression of it was bad, since it is infringing on other people, but the film tries to sidestep that.

As far as the style, yes it is self-referencing but I don't necessarily think thats a bad thing. Some of the best directors seem to make the same film over and over again. Its like they only have one story and they're slowing telling it through numerous films. I thought it was interesting that there are a mere 4 characters in the whole film - that beats Labute's Your Friends and Neighbors by two. No doubt due to the stage roots of the story. And the music in between scenes was very reminicent of In the company of men.

Looking at his films in general, I'm not sure I would say its really misogyny he's going for - might even be the opposite because his worst (as in bad) characters are men.

Anyway, back to this film. Like I said I really liked some of the ideas of the Weisz character - and the fact that she was willing to argue her ideas to the point of getting physical with some guy. Too often people don't stand their ground to gain acceptance or 'keep the peace.' The film might have worked better if maybe she didn't do it just for her project - in fact there's a hint about it when they reference the whispered dialogue - but it might have been too obvious to back off on the ending.

The main story seemed to be realistic in that there's always some guy who meets a girl and suddenly you don't see him anymore and he totally changes. In contrast the Jenny/Philip relationship is shown to end because Jenny couldn't accept Philip for what he was yet didn't do anything to change him.

Anyway, thats the most I've written about a film I didn't really like - I think it totally failed in the third act.

Was it just me or was the guy who played Philip really seem out of place - I don't know if its because he is unknown to me or the character he played, but I really didn't like him.

5/10.

Frank TJ Mackey

I saw it and I liked it quite a bit.

My take on LaBute is that either you like his films or you don't.

I liked Nurse Betty and Possession as well.

Of course it's not likely he'll make another "In the Company of Men" but these are still well written and funny.

kevin75

it has rachel weisz so that means i want to see it. rachel =

bothanspy

I didn't realize this was the same director as In the Company of Men. I remember thinking when I watched the trailer for shape of things how much it reminded me of that movie. I'm going to try and catch this with sundog soon. Hopefully I will like it even though y'all dont.

SPY

Laertes

Agreed. (Although I think Possession falls apart after the first hour.)

I enjoyed "The Shape of Things."

Giles

Haven't yet seen it but I am very curious how much of the story was changed for the screen adaptation of it. I really liked the Broadway/Washington DC Studio Theatre productions I saw. Notably for the Broadway version where Smashing Pumpkins songs were used to coincide with actions within the play: (i.e, "Today is the Greatest"). Undoubtably the most effective aspect of the play was the end

Laertes

Giles, I've only seen the movie, so I'm interested in that last scene. Did the actors sit in the audience?

Off-topic: I take it from your handle that you'll be mourning the end of BtVS tomorrow. AARRGGH, hope she doesn't die. (I'm spoiler free, so don't tell me anything....)

sundog

For the movie, Labute uses all Elvis Costello songs. I thought they were effective, used mainly for transitions between scenes.

As for the end, it's similar, though hardly as effective as you've described, not being a theater space and all. But I think that Labute uses settings and frame compositions to create a compelling enough environment. Some of the associations he creates get a little heavy handed but also funny in some aspects.

A review I read made a good point that since Labute uses the same actors from the play, they have their characters down pat. And I tend to agree, each actor moves assuredly through the story, even taking up the slack between them and Labute's machinations.

And Giles, a question about the play's ending:

Laertes

Upon reading more carefully, I now see that my question was already answered. Sorry.

Giles

In regard to your spoiler question.

Secondly the film has been critised for being shot to tight to it's characters, the story works to it's advantages in play form

sundog

Giles, about the end:


As for the criticism you mentioned, the progression of Adam in the film is rather overt. Labute creates vignettes. Each scene is like a mini-drama and after its done the movie cuts ahead significantly, (using music to punctuate or introduce a new scene) leaving some gaps in what the (film) audience sees that only occasionally characters comment on.

Giles

RMSpuhler

I loved the Broadway version and the Studio Theatre version (Giles, did you see Twyford or Redford as Evelyn?), and I loved the film. However, I think Weisz's character is seriously defanged here - too much eye-watering at the end...

RS

Giles

Twyford, I know she was just nominated for a Helen Hayes award for her performance as Evelyn.

Giles

What a disappointment, my friend and I totally agreed that this worked as a play and not as a film. The editing and confines of a camera doesn't let the actors/characters breathe, interact or even react to each other. In any film the choices of the film editor and director manipulate the film audience, on stage all the characters have to interact and act off each other in tandem. Even the dialogue seemed strained and overly theatric. The movie is identical to the play version with only one scene not included in the film version, which was a scene in a restaurant.