I wish to watch FENCES again in the future ... but possibly on stage, where it belongs, for now.
I must admit what many others before me said ... this movie cannot decide to which medium it belongs. It's not the first time, of course, that a stage play is adapted on screen, but at least in other cases the directors recognized that the theatrical style couldn't be translated the same way.
I understand that Denzel Washington took particular care in directing this movie, it meant such a lot to him that I can see all the love and care he put in bringing it on screen by staying extremely faithful to its roots. But sadly he couldn't see that changes needed to be made. And by this, he could easily maintain the same spirit of August Wilson's work.
Of course this is not a bad movie, and you can see it in things like ALL the performances from the cast, not just those by giants like Washington and Davis; everyone gives the best they can with their characters, and you can find sincere admiration for what they represent, or for what the story represents.
I can see why it is a Pulitzer winner, but still, all these great elements don't come out as powerful as they could be on stage, where things like the passing of time (in the movie, even if they say it, you don't feel like MONTHS have passed, maybe just a few days between a scene and another, kinda like in DUNKIRK, where even if they said the scenes on the beach lasted a week, you felt like three or four days) or crucial plot points could be staged way more naturally and with possibly more impact than the movie.
I'm not saying you can't make a movie out of FENCES ... but you should remember that you're making a MOVIE, based on a stage play, but still a MOVIE.
I must admit what many others before me said ... this movie cannot decide to which medium it belongs. It's not the first time, of course, that a stage play is adapted on screen, but at least in other cases the directors recognized that the theatrical style couldn't be translated the same way.
I understand that Denzel Washington took particular care in directing this movie, it meant such a lot to him that I can see all the love and care he put in bringing it on screen by staying extremely faithful to its roots. But sadly he couldn't see that changes needed to be made. And by this, he could easily maintain the same spirit of August Wilson's work.
Of course this is not a bad movie, and you can see it in things like ALL the performances from the cast, not just those by giants like Washington and Davis; everyone gives the best they can with their characters, and you can find sincere admiration for what they represent, or for what the story represents.
I can see why it is a Pulitzer winner, but still, all these great elements don't come out as powerful as they could be on stage, where things like the passing of time (in the movie, even if they say it, you don't feel like MONTHS have passed, maybe just a few days between a scene and another, kinda like in DUNKIRK, where even if they said the scenes on the beach lasted a week, you felt like three or four days) or crucial plot points could be staged way more naturally and with possibly more impact than the movie.
I'm not saying you can't make a movie out of FENCES ... but you should remember that you're making a MOVIE, based on a stage play, but still a MOVIE.
