MovieChat Forums > Indignation (2016) Discussion > Tedious

Tedious

posted 8 years ago by Heymjo
13 replies | jump to latest

I really wanted to like this movie. I am drawn to movies and novels about teen angst. But I found this film just plain tedious. The problem lies with the dialogue. Just as film acting is different from stage acting (smaller, more thought than seen), so, too, is dialogue. If you listen to the speech patterns and the actual structure of the sentences and monologues, they feel very theatrical. The language doesn't flow. This is especially true in the "debate" seen between Marcus and the dean. They are delivering speeches, not talking to one another. In fact, every character feels as if he/she is delivering a stage monologue. IT works in a stage play, not in a film. Dialog is often adapted for film when a play is re-created as a film. As a result, I found that I got bored. I wasn't interested in these characters because they never felt real to me.

[–] CTReviews 8 years ago

Very fair observation.

[–] DJWinston 8 years ago

Not fair at all. This movie is adapted from a Philip Roth novel, not a stage play.

I gave this film an 8. And the language was one of the strong points for me. Films most certainly do not have to have the common vernacular language of everyday life. God forbid we nevermore put Shakespeare on the screen because his language "doesn't flow." And how about those Ben-Hur guys, talking like wooden Romans. There are very particular reasons that the language in this film is a little more arch and formal, and it works beautifully for the intentions of this story.

I forgive the film a couple of distracting little ticks---Mr. Lerman's weight seemed to fluctuate about 15-20 lbs. from scene to scene--what was up with that?, and the storyline about the proxy business in chapel was not believable in the least---but for my money the extended scene between Letts (outstanding work worthy of an Oscar nom) and Lerman is worth the price of admission by itself.

An interesting story filled with insight into our human condition, with beautiful language, beautifully filmed and acted. Definitely gets an 8 from me.

[–] Heymjo 8 years ago

I never said it was adapted from a stage play. What I did say was the dialogue felt very theatrical. Theatre dialogue is different in cadence and structure than film dialogue. Regarding Shakespeare, you go into a film of a Shakespeare an play knowing you are seeing film of a Shakespeare an play. The mind set and your ears are set for a different kind of experience. I am glad you enjoyed the film, but I never "bought" the way the characters spoke. The dialog fir me seemed stiff and unnatural.

[–] littlekaren 8 years ago

Agree with your assessment. Often, dialogue driven flicks can get on my nerves but the back 'n forth between Lerman and Letts was mesmerizing. And the twists at the end of the film? Fabulous.

[–] DJWinston 8 years ago

From an interview with Danny Burstein (who plays Marcus' father):

When did Indignation come your way? Before or after Fiddler on the Roof?
The summer before. I first started talking to James Schamus about a year and a half ago, and he thought of the two of us — Linda Emond and I — because he'd seen us in Cabaret. You get so many scripts, either offers or stuff to audition for, and ninety percent of the stuff you feel like you can stop reading after page twelve. I sat down and I was on page ninety-seven when I looked up at my clock. I laid in bed to read the script and I looked up at the clock and it was like one-thirty in the morning. I thought, "This script is incredible." [Schamus] is maybe one of the greatest screenwriters ever. He really knows how to write dialogue and how to shape scenes and how to create drama. It's an honor to be working with him, especially on his directorial debut.

[–] Nidratime 8 years ago

I enjoyed the dialogue, but I never felt swept away by the characters such that I cared what might happen to them. I was curious to know what happened, but I didn't shed a tear over it. It was clearly a well done film, worthy of seeing, but somewhat distant emotionally ... for me.

[–] kay_rock 8 years ago

A lot of people love this for the language, but I have to agree with the OP. Parallel monologues, no matter how poetically written or spoken, are not dialogues. They feel so artificial and contrived that the viewer is constantly dragged out of the narrative. Others use Shakespeare as an argument in favor of poetic speech. However, Shakespeare may have written poetically and in a vernacular we don't use any more, but at least his characters were talking to each other, and not at each other. And that is the key difference.

It's not the natural or unnatural flow of the word choices, it's the flow of communication between characters. That is what is lacking here. Each player merely waits for his cue and speaks.

Movies are IQ tests; the IMDB boards are how people broadcast their score.

[–] nutsberryfarm 8 years ago

roth is really funny. this looks like the director/screenwriter have no sense of humor or are using his book to be 'taken seriously'. 

The food I've liked in my time is American country cookin'-Colonel Sanders 🇺🇸

[–] DwarvesAreVeryUpsetting 8 years ago

I bought the formality of the speech because it was set in the 1950s. If you read books or watch films from that era, upper middle class white people spoke quite differently than they do today. My dad grew up during WWII and he frequently uses very quaint language.

COMPLETELY disagree about the headmaster scene. Nothing about it felt stilted to me. 15 minutes of powerful acting. The two actors were incredibly connected, just look at how deeply Tracy Letts is listening to him.

[–] lexob9 7 years ago

of course dialogues were different. yes they were monologues, even theatrical and its not how we speak everyday. but it was how people spoke at the time film is set. thats why it works. at that time people were hung up on politeness and it was rude to interrupt that stage like flow of monologue and everyone had to obey conversational laws. so it describes real situation of that time and all is left to do is to just accept it and concentrate on content

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fluffset 7 years ago

this movie become boring after the hospital scene. Looks like it got nowhere to go, no achievement to accomplish, just mumbling and mumbling and mumbling, & then THE END. By the way, superb depressing acting from Percy.

THRILLER IS MY FOOD!

[–] Jack724 7 years ago

For me, the best parts of this movie are the scenes between Marcus and the Dean Caudwell. Outside of film, I enjoy plays and other live performances. The material discussed in the dialogue, especially that involving Bertrand Russell and atheism and whether such things are adverse or positive for American society was fascinating to me.

There was a lot of humor in their interactions and I was delighted because of that! I intend to read the Philip Roth novel when I have the time .