PDA

View Full Version : William Friedkin: Bug (2006)



Chris Knipp
11-16-2006, 12:13 PM
Another play adaptation not to miss

The Exorcist’s William Friedkin makes a strong comeback directing Bug, the screen version, adapted by original playwright Tracy Letts, of his off-Broadway powerhouse about trailor trash paranoia that rocked the Village’s Barrow Street Theater two years ago. The Barrow Street Bug didn’t require any big names or high production values – the stage didn’t even have a curtain – for its startling effects. Twenty dollars got you an evening of strange thinking and unpredictable behavior. The NYTimes called it “the season’s wildest ride”; The New Yorker’s sketch suggested it was the best play in town. This time there are new faces, all fine, though they couldn’t be any better than the original stage cast. Here is Harry Connick Jr. playing Goss, a brute menace and an unwelcome surprise for Agnes (Ashley Judd, replacing Jessica Ferrarone in the original stage cast). Goss is Agnes’ ex, turning up unannounced after two years in stir.

This obviously wasn’t a play that needed a lot of opening up. Claustrophobia is one of its most essential elements. Friedkin wisely keeps his film version simple and boxed-in, adding sweaty closeups that show just how intense and brilliant the acting is, and just a couple of shots of other loicales.

Agnes resides in a sleazy motel room on the edge of the desert -- which is the play’s set -- and works in a bar with her lesbian friend R.C. (Lynn Collins). In the film we get a glimpse of the crowded dive. We also see the motel from outside and above. Agnes, for whom life is an obvious struggle, is tormented by the loss of her little son, who disappeared years ago in a supermarket. Later R.C. brings an odd, seemingly recessive guy named Peter (Michael Shannon) whose gradually emerging story becomes the film’s/play’s focus. He claims to be a Gulf War veteran. A fifth character is a man who claims to be a doctor, played by Brian F. O'Byrne.

Bug is about process, and the process is Peter’s taking over of Agnes’ fragile mental and physical world and the destruction of his own in a compulsive, creepy, but somehow exhilerating display of sleazy folie a deux. The insects that he sees everywhere, inside and outside, parallel the contagion of his diseased mind, which sends out invisible tendrils that envelop Agnes. Letts’ astonishing dialogue metes out madness in gradually increasing doses. The fun is watching this happen and looking for transitions in the seamless and maniacally clever writing. Friedkin’s filming gives a kind of lunar, hallucinatory edge and the action’s intensity bursts from the screen. But all in all, nothing could outdo that evening at the Barrow Street Theater. It’s surprising that the whole thing works almost as well in a movie, but where it doesn’t, you realize that theater has certain powers found nowhere else.

The main US reviewers who check stuff out at Cannes and assess its commercial potential (Hollywood Reporter, Variety) think Bug is a bust. The title seems to remind them of Saw, and they judge this to be at best a cheap horror movie that can draw in an audience only through sensational trailers. That is shortsighted. Bug is horrific, but it’s mainly a psychological study, executed with a wildly audacious taste for theatrical surprise and an uncanny ability to calibrate progressive character revelation. Friedkin appears to have returned to his roots here in dealing with a play and handling it with a fine minimalism. It is true certainly that an unsophisticated audience may find Bug disappointing, or too talky. But its real audience is the savvy Barrows Street kind, art house folks not unfamiliar with Beckett, Pinter, or Sam Shepard.

cinemabon
11-16-2006, 07:24 PM
I'd like to ask Freidkin what' s taking him so long with "The Book of Skulls" (1972) Robert Silverberg's novel about four college student in the search for immortality. It was the first time I ever read a story in literature where one of the main characters was this 'cool' gay man. Silverberg, a resident of the San Francisco community then (he lives in Oakland now), brought science fiction into the main stream.

In reading your review and subsequent reviews r/t "Bug," Ashley Judd requested and got a body-double for her nude scenes. I went to imdb... low and behold, there is Chris Knipp! He was the only reviewer to give it full stars. However, Chris, I did enjoy your thoroughness. Well researched and authoritative.

Chris Knipp
11-18-2006, 04:51 PM
Not many people have really seen the movie Bug yet.

oscar jubis
11-26-2006, 12:24 AM
Lions Gate had announced an early December release at 2,350 theatres. Then they changed their mind and pulled the release. Now it's scheduled for "sometime in 2007".

Chris Knipp
11-27-2006, 12:48 PM
That's too bad. It's really disturbing to me that something that was hot on the stage is viewed as a turkey onscreen. There's just no logic in it.

I'm happy that in contrast at least The History Boys is getting a lot of distrubution, more than I would have expected, and it's showing at some very mainstream cineplexes out here.

oscar jubis
06-07-2007, 01:13 AM
What kept me from tuning out were the intense performances by Michael Shannon (whom I'd never seen before) and Ashley Judd (who became an instant favorite of mine with her lead performance in Ruby in Paradise back in 1993). I have no complains about Friedkin's direction. I just don't think the play is very good. So instead of reading film reviews after the screening I read play reviews.

"The snorted lines and fly-papers, wife-beating and self-mutilation, right through to the inexorable, despairing conclusion, constitute a spectacle rather than an experience; we watch but feel little."
(Ian Shuttleworth, Financial Times, London)

"The young Frankenstein antics in Bug could certainly prompt sober reflection on a world in which too many young men are killed and mentally as well as physically maimed -- as exemplified by Gulf War veteran Peter's delusions. That said, don't scratch that itch to look for deep meanings but just grab the the edge of your seat and indulge the guilty pleasure of following Letts do his takes on Marathon Man and Psycho, and gleefully pile incredibility upon incredibility for a final crescendo of kitschy theatricality."
(Elyse Sommer, CurtainsUp.com)

Basically, for the last 45 minutes, I had a hard time suspending disbelief. I increasingly had difficulty believing in the characters. Is this material supposed to be some bizarre horror fantasy? This statement from the playwright doesn't dispel that notion:
"I’m interested in exploring the theme of people who have slipped out of the matrix. They’re alienated and lonely. But I really don’t know where this stuff comes from. It’s generated subconsciously." (Tracy Letts)

Chris Knipp
06-07-2007, 09:23 AM
It's really a splendid play in its way--you've surely cherry-picked the play reviews (they're hard to find online now, pushed out by the film ones)--but I realize when I watch the film in London last fall I was seeing a snapshot of a good stage experience, and it might now work very well onscreen for many. In fact I did note when I wrote about the film that it showed how some things can be achieved better on stage. One is forever influenced by how one first sees a piece--you, on screen; I, on stage. The New Yorker said it was the best play in New York at the time--and The New Yorker is reliable--and that's why I went to see it, and I was not disappointed.

Review (a more typical one) of the play in its NY production:

http://www.talkinbroadway.com/ob/02_29a_04.html

And the acting was superb.
Discussing Shannon's performance as Peter Evans in the 2003 Off-Broadway production of Tracy Letts' Bug, Ben Brantley wrote in the New York Times, "Mr. Shannon is an uncanny blend of calm and agitation.... I've seldom seen a young actor turn up the volume of a performance so slowly and skillfully."

oscar jubis
06-07-2007, 09:39 AM
At least we can agree that the performances are good. It's what kept me from walking out.

I would also agree that the play received its share of good reviews. I know I'm being selective with my two quotes from reviews in that they reflect my negative opinion of the play. I think the statement by Letts is quite revealing.

I'm still curious as to whether any of it is meant to be plausible/realistic/credible.

You describe "the fifth character" as "a man who claims to be a doctor". Are we meant to doubt he is? Do you believe he is a doctor? A very poorly imagined and realized character, in my opinion. I hope we're not meant to believe he is indeed a psychiatrist.

Chris Knipp
06-07-2007, 09:17 PM
Before you form a negative opinion of the play, it would be best to see the play. Anyway, Bug is certainly from a theater of the absurd, surreal, and expressionistic, and not to be taken at all literally. In ths kind of drama a sort of basic feature, one sees it in Beckett, Ionesco, Pinter, the most influencial figures, is that the exact identity or nature of characters is often kept in doubt or in flux. And of course, as Bug progresses, one more or less has to be increasingly open to the possiblity that it's all happening in somebody's mind. Whether he was a real doctor or not, or a psychiatrist or not, or even exists, at that point seems somewhat uncertain. That was a very good actor playing him, in fact it was Brian F. O'Byrne, up for a Tony for his performance in Stoppard's trilogy at Lincoln Center this season, and remarkable in Frozen and Doubt, which I saw here in past years. An Irishman.