User reviews

This movie version is pleasant enough but does not have the power of the stage play upon which it is based. Spoilt brat that I am, I saw the original production at the RNT in 1990 with the amazing Alec McCowen as Uncle Jack. I am a great fan of Michael Gambon, but he is simply miscast in that role for the movie. Not so Meryl Streep, who does a superb overpowering aunt. The delightful Catherine McCormack and Rhys Ifans do a good job of the love interest. This is nevertheless a shadow of the stage play. My better half liked it, but had not seen the stage version. For lovers of Irish drama the film is worth 90 minutes of your time.

What distinguishes stage from screen? If a viewer had only Brian Friel's play, `Dancing at Lughnasa' and its cinematic adaptation to judge from, he or she might be tempted to answer that, while stage is highly engaging and meaningful, screen is superficial, insulting, and thin in content. Friel's play is structured in such a way that a film version necessarily provides a fascinating comparison of the two mediums. However, director Pat O'Connor's efforts tend to demonstrate the weaknesses of cinema rather than the strengths. Adapting a play to the screen has often proved to be a tricky business; it involves some pitfalls which this film does not manage to avoid.

Screen is extremely literal. It allows for--in fact, often demands-- a sense of realism seldom conveyed on stage. The makers of `Dancing at Lughnasa' are clearly appreciative of this fact, and have made valiant, if not always successful, allowances for it. The primary result of their efforts is a heightened sense of setting. The world these characters inhabit feels real. We get shot after shot of Irish countryside; set and costume design seem perfect for Ireland in the 1930s. Mark Geraghty's production design is one of the best things about this film. Additionally, excellent accent work by all the actors proves perfectly convincing and adds depth to the setting.

However, such a literal medium has its drawbacks. In particular, young Michael's narration, which was used to achieve a specific effect in the play, seems unnecessary here. The play's Michael is full-grown and speaks young Michael's lines as his `memories' take place in the action on stage. The film makers did well to recognize that there was no cinematic equivalent for this; having the adult narrator speak the child's lines would have seemed ridiculous. However, in removing that aspect of the narrator's role, they stripped away most of his significance, as well. The film's narrator seems like an afterthought, occasionally intruding into the action to tell us that what we are seeing is a memory. We could easily forget that the events are, in fact, happening in flashback.

While some of the abstract elements of Friel's original play do not translate well onto the screen, individual performances are only aided by the medium. Since film is not hindered by the simple vocal requirements of stage, the actors are able to convey much more subtlety of meaning. The players in this film version are, without exception, excellent. Meryl Streep stands out as the proper, reserved Kate. Her manner is nervous and slightly shrill, but conveys genuine concern for her sisters. When Kate opens up and allows herself to dance, Streep shows a joyful abandon which is believable and pleasant to see. Another standout performance is delivered by Michael Gambon in the role of Father Jack. His lines are spoken with calm assurance, betraying Jack's senility only by their complete lack of relevance. Gambon's distant eyes and quiet detachment reinforce the feeling that he exists in a world entirely different from the rest of the family, a point which is absolutely crucial to his character. Supporting characters are also portrayed dead-on. This film has some of the best acting that could have been hoped for.

Despite these considerable advantages, the movie runs into trouble when it tries to adapt Friel's plot to the screen. Film is so much more visual than theater that it demands a great deal of variation in order to keep the viewer interested. Since we do not have the benefit of the actors' physical presence, we need other things to hold our attention. In attempting to add variety to the play's structure, screenwriter Frank McGuinness breaks up Friel's original dialogue into smaller scenes, most of which involve household chores. McGuinness also tries to represent some events which the play's dialogue only alludes to. The result is a film which is so fragmented that we lose sight its content. Friel's dialogue is integrally important to his play, and the same is true for the film. However, the way that the film breaks up this dialogue among tiny scenes is extremely distracting. We lose sight not only of the dialogue's meaning, but of the relationships between characters. Since the adapted structure requires that the five sisters rarely appear in the same scene together, it is very difficult to get any sense of the dynamic in the household. Ultimately, so much time is spent with action rather than dialogue that the characters lose a great deal of their depth. Perhaps film makers did not trust their audience to be as interested in the characters as in the events.

It is somewhat unjust to evaluate an adapted play simply in light of the original. However, this cinematic version fails to hold up even on its own terms. It is difficult to conceive what value those who have not been exposed to the original play could see in this adaptation. What we get is a good-looking, but ultimately insubstantial, portrait of five women who could all stand to let their hair down a little bit more than they do. I can't help but think that Friel had more in mind than demonstrating the value of letting one's hair down.

... to enjoy this film. I had five Italian aunts and the insights into their sisterly relations appear to me spot on. So often in relationship stories, each character is a paragon of one virtue. Not true in "Dancing in Lughnasa" where the women are not prototypical but rather complex and totally unself-conscious individuals.

As one of the finest actors of her time, to her credit, Meryl Streep doesn't overpower the excellent ensemble cast. Even the men players, who are figuratively essential but literally superfluous to the survivl of this family, are presented as whole people. They are neither villains or heroes; just men. Go figure!

In a film that depends on the actors' considerable restraint in exposing the internal and external dramas of the plot, there are two wonderful moments of abandon near the end: the essential dances of life ... the dance of faith, hope and charity and the dance of decadenced, despair, and destruction.

An overall enjoyable entertainment, the film fails only in not giving the audience a better understanding of the implacable, irreversible outside forces in the world working against the family. This is film after all where we expect to be shown as well as told.

I wasn't really sure what to expect from this movie, since I had no idea what the play was about or anything. The only actor in the movie I had heard of was Meryl Streep, but that didn't matter because she was the reason I went to see the movie. As always, her accent was pitch perfect, right down to the Donegal vowels. Her performance was also incredible, which deserves some recognition but probably won't get any. The rest of the cast was also wonderful, particularly Sophie Thompson as Rose. If anyone else should get recognition, it should be her because her performance was heart-wrenching and bittersweet. So GO AND SEE IT!!! NOW!!

Welcome back to another edition of Adam's Reviews!! **queue in intro music**

Today's movie review is family drama Dancing at Lughnasa (1998), based on an Irish play the flick is about the five Mundy sisters during the summer of 1936. The film is a narrative of Michael, the love child of the youngest sister, Christina who tells the story of the time he felt happy and complete with his family. He meets his father for the first time if for a short time as his father has enlisted to fight in Spain during the beginning of World War II - beginning of Francisco Franco. Michael also meets his uncle, Jack, who comes back after a 25-year stint on a missionary in Africa who also brings a different perspective around normality in life. The film does suggest that Jack has bonded more with the local African customs as shown in the movie's opening credits therefore not having the same Catholic beliefs as others within the household. The film is mostly shot at a small farm in Ireland and we are invited to a family where the five women and child have been living in such close quarters for so long that only silence and farm routine make it bearable.

The family is on the brink of disruptive changes including the job loss of some of the sisters and the hardship and heartbreak which occurs around them. Each sister yearns to lead a life of her own whether it be to make something of their own, be on an adventure or just simply marry someone who loves them. The acting is great and again the queen herself Meryl Streep outdoes herself with a flawless accent and as the elder reserved sister who is trying to hold the family together at all costs. The other actors do amazing including Kathy Burke as the chain-smoking Maggie who may not be the eldest but plays out the backbone of the family. The film revolves around a dancing festival that marks the Feast of Lughnasa, which from research is a pagan celebration that challenges the very Catholic foundation of the Irish community. This pretty much is parallels to Jack's new found mindset he has returned with from his missionary. It took me awhile to understand what was happening, so a heads up, this film needs time and attention required to view it. A heart-felt, well-acted movie around to keep a family together whilst, a very cool scene of the sisters dancing one last time before realising that change is inevitable. Michael Gambon's role as Father Jack was conventional as he speaks out the dialogue with calm assurance with a twist of truth and distancing himself from reality. The only flaw to me is how the characters development didn't go to the depth that it should have so to have each character more interesting and understanding. Overall 6.2/10

I may be alone in this but I see movies for one of two reasons: I'm trying to learn and grow through the experiences of others or I am trying to escape from the real world for a little while and be entertained. 'Dancing at Lughnasa' is a poetic ode to ... well thematically it suggests that life is full of very brief but powerful moments of happiness. Seek out those moments and wring as much joy out of them as you can. Then basically you should enjoy the memories because life, according the film, is a crescendo of misery and tragedy that will destroy every good thing in it. If this sounds like the movie for you, be my guest. It falls quite neatly into the 'glad I saw it; happier never to see it again' category.

There are great performances from all of the leads in this film. Meryl Streep turns in yet another great performance as the oldest of five sisters who is trying desperately to keep her family together. Michael Gambon gives an inspired performance as a damaged brother who returns to Ireland after 25 years as a missionary in Uganda. The interplay between all of the characters is wonderful, and from a technical standpoint I thought that the film was very well shot and directed.

As depressing and as inevitable as the conclusion is, the story is very engaging and kept me hooked from start to finish. Overall not really my cup of tea but if, to paraphrase Hobbes, you like to be reminded that life is 'nasty, brutish and short' than this is the film for you. probably good to watch if you feel like being reminded of your own little miseries or, on the other hand, if you delight in seeing that others are much worse off than you.

This is a pretty film visually, and some of the acting was good. Although I have not seen the play on which it was based, it seemed to me that this would be better as a play than a film. My favorite films are those that make me think, or evoke strong emotions. This one did neither. It did have a nice aesthetic content, visually. And, Meryl Streep gave one of her usual masterful performances. But, I didn't care about any of the characters, except the little boy. The film just left me cold, and it didn't seem memorable.

Given the luxury of owning films via DVD collections offers the opportunity to revisit at will the works the viewer found worthy of purchase. Such is the case with the luminous 'Dancing at Lughnasa', a 1998 release by director Pat O'Connor to the tunes of a lilting screenplay by Frank McGuinness based on Brian Friel's 1990 play of the same name. Though low key and not a popular hit at the box office, this is one of those rare films that combines a very simple tale about common folks brought to life by a cast of extraordinary actors.

The story is set in Donnegal, Ireland in 1936 (just before WW II)choked the world) and simply relates the life of a family of five single sisters and the love child of one of them. The action is spare, centering on the visit of their brother home from the missionary work in Uganda inalterably changed from the experience, on the loss of job of the supporting eldest sister, and the return of the errant father of the love child for the summer, and other daily challenges. The stresses and strains these small events play on the sisters is eventually climaxed in the dancing festival that marks the Feast of Lughnasa (a persistent pagan celebration that challenges the very Catholic foundation of the Irish community), a compelling event that parallels the returned priest brother from the mission fields where he has gained insight into the desperate need for community, happiness, dancing and celebration as the essential needs of humankind.

The cast is flawless: Meryl Streep is superb as the elder sister bitterly bound to holding the family together at all costs, Catherine McCormack as the mother of the lovechild, Kathy Burke, Sophie Thompson and Brid Brennan; Michael Gambon as the deranged returned brother; and Rhys Ifans as the errant father of the child. They interact and play like fine chamber music. The brilliantly green and gorgeous countryside is captured eloquently by Kenneth MacMillan. In every aspect of production the film fits like a tightly intertwined puzzle. It simply glows. Revisiting 'Dancing at Lughnasa' is an even finer trip than the first exposure. Highly Recommended.

OK, we should all know by now that Meryl Streep is one of the few Americans who can do a believable accent. So, she makes use of that ability here as a woman in 1930s Ireland. She and her sisters spend their days making the most of life.

Some of us may think that there are a few too many stories about Irish people making the most of life. Maybe so, but really, who doesn't like making the most of life? And after all the terrible things that have happened to the Irish, do we really wish to slam them like that? So anyway, "Dancing at Lughnasa" isn't any kind of great movie, but worth seeing, if only once. Also starring Rhys Ifans (who later starred in "Little Nicky", "The Shipping News" and "Human Nature").

Brian Friel's touching and heart rending ensemble piece about five disparate spinster sister's united by their need for a man is miscast and mis-directed here with too much concentration on the metaphoric environment instead of the more pertinent subtext of the family. The end result is uninvolving and unmoving cinema in which everyone involved seems to confuse profundity with trying to hard.

The acclaimed stage play from Brian Friel has been successfully adapted for the screen in this visual treat from Pat O'Connor. The beautiful landscapes of Donegal do not smother the intelligent performances such as from Meryl Streep (Kate Mundy), Catherine McCormack (Christine Mundy) and Rhys Ifans (Gerry Evans). Those critics who have condemned the movie for being simple and about ordinary people seem to miss the point. This is meant to be a simple story about ordinary people - and that is why it is so moving! More importantly though - 'Dancing at Lughnasa' is also entertaining and really deserved better than the mixed reviews on initial release.

Five maiden sisters, all of an age, welcome their brother back from Africa, where he has been a missionary. He is going senile. The setting is a small town in Ireland in 1936.

It's based on the Tony-winning play by Frank McGuinness, and has quite the cast, starting with Meryl Streep and Michael Gambon. Like many a show, it's narrated by a character, a child in the movie, but now grown up to mediate his impressions into an adult perspective. It's also got some fine images, thanks to cinematographer Kenneth MacMilan. The performances are excellent, the movie maintains its interest throughout... but the underpinnings of the story are muddled. There's definitely an air of the paganism that the author still sees in rural Ireland, at least in 1936, and love of family, and poverty, but there's very little there that hasn't been explored, and better, in many another work out of Ireland. The net effect is sentimental and nostalgic rather than possessed of any depth.

Like all those who have criticized this movie, I too missed the point, because to me it just seemed a less than ordinary movie about ordinary people. I never saw the stage play, perhaps here lies the rub: that kind of continuity that films need (and plays don't, being divided into macro scenes) is totally lacking. The result is that the structure of this movie slackens and shows gaps as big as those of matter at the molecular level. I agree, the setting is beautiful: movies dealing with peoples who have strong traditions and attachment to their land must inevitably try to make the landscape one more actor. But when a work of "art" (lesser art) shows so blatantly its inner pathos-inducing mechanism, then the use of a spectacular landscape just makes things worse, as in the case of Dancing at Lughnasa: "folkloristic" in the worst acceptation of the term. Exemplary in this sense the voice off of the boy, Michael, who in the end has the nerve to say something like "I will remember those years as the most beautiful of my life" after having spent the whole movie interacting with the characters much less than any of the bushes in Mundy family's courtyard.

This movie was completely wonderful for every single moment. The cast is terrific from top to bottom; the cinematography is gorgeous, even the soundtrack is memorable. It is the type of movie where very little happens, but it does not matter a bit. The characters are intriguing enough to hold your interest. I do not know how Streep does it; I think her talent is limitless. Everyone else is great too. For 92 minutes you will forget everything else and if you can allow yourself, you will be swept away by this movie.

It's 1936 Donegal, Ireland. The narrator Michael recalls his childhood as his uncle Father Jack Mundy (Michael Gambon) returns home from Africa after 25 years. He is suffering from dementia. Kate Mundy (Meryl Streep) is the oldest of five sisters waiting for their beloved brother. Christina Mundy (Catherine McCormack) is the youngest and mother of Michael. Gerry Evans (Rhys Ifans) is the father.

The performances are great. It doesn't hurt to have Meryl and Michael Gambon at the top of the cast list. In a way, there is probably one too many sisters. Their stories get a bit scattered. The middle trio doesn't have the required attention. In fact, I didn't get the two that left. Their story is quite sad, but that all happens with the closing monologue. Maybe the movie could spend more time with them. The movie could spend more time with every one of those sisters.

Excellent cast of five sisters set in poor but beautiful rural Ireland in 1930's: brother returns from missionary work in Africa: oldest sister loses job as teacher causing final break-up of household. The most interesting stories appear to take place after the movie has finished.

If you enjoy Irish scenery and good acting, then this film may be enjoyable. Otherwise, it's a disappointment. There's not much of a plot, except how a family of five sisters manages through the economically difficult period of the mid-nineteen-thirties. This story line withers away, however, and the viewer is left to ponder the meaning of the film. What character development there is stops midway through the middle of the film. We expect the oldest sister to either take charge of the situation or undergo a personality change. We expect the unwed father of the boy to develop a closer relationship with his son and the mother, but he prepares to join the Republican forces that are fighting Franco in Spain. We are left with nothing except the narrator's voice, representing the boy, to tie up some loose ends.

Not since "Steel Magnolias" have I seen a film that centralized dynamic female roles on the silver screen. It's rare, if not completely impossible these days that a movie is carried by female characters with male actors as "supportive" roles. This film not only does THAT, but does it SUPERBLY. That isn't to say that the male actors were not good in it. I'm merely saying the movie was carried by female roles rather than male ones -- an absolute delight to see. It is by far one of the best films I've seen all year and I recommend it to anyone who is 1. a Meryl Streep fan or 2. craving to see a divine film about extraordinary women.

For me, Dancing at Lughnasa is a thoroughly depressing and pointless film. Populated by unsympathetic, morose and flat characters, this story starts to develop, sputters and then utterly falls apart. You are left wondering what Pat O'Connor could have possibly been thinking. No matter how good the acting, how fantastic the locations or how great your desire to connect to the film or its basic premise: if a film has an undeveloped or unintelligible story, it just doesn't work! Never will. Be forewarned if you are considering this for a rental: unless you're into despair and depression you might want to consider something else.

What a dreary movie, but a safe one to say you "loved." Because it has Irish or Scottish scenery (yes, that's good) and because it has Meryl Streep in it (phony badge of authenticity - she is soooo pure!). If this movie were authentic, it wouldn't have needed the famous American actress in it to bring in the viewers. And its previews would have included a hint of the other dreary 90% of the story, instead of the very few moments of life it had.

Streep is no stranger to phony films; look at "The Deer Hunter."

Watchable but instantly forgettable film of Brian Friel's award-winning play which provides its greatest pleasures through the strong performances of its ensemble cast. Five independent-minded sisters living in Donegal in the mid 1930s face the possibility of change when economic and emotional circumstances conspire against them. The return of their brother from religious missions in Africa signals the beginning, and as the pagan festival of Lughnasa, which celebrates the harvest and forebodes the coming of winter, is celebrated around them, they must come to terms with changes in their own relatively comfortable middle class world. The ten year old son of one of them views events with a nostalgic eye which nonetheless sees the hardship and heartbreak which occurs around him.

Despite director Pat O'Connor's valiant attempts to ‘open out' the play, the film is still extremely theatrical. The inclusion of landscape shots and the restaging of certain scenes in outdoor locations unavailable in the theatre does not really make the film cinematic. It merely adds visuals to what is still a complex series of linguistic exchanges which delineate and explore character. Authentic production design and costuming and the persistent presence of a traditional-themed score by Bill Whelan contribute to the feeling of the film, and with the help of good accent work by the cast, it manages to successfully evoke a feeling of time and place. However it remains an extremely well produced stage play on film, and is still bound by blocking and staging conventions which allow the actors to meet and greet one another to exchange their thoughts and feelings. The closest the film comes to a visual symbolic system is the use of dance and ritual to underscore the social and emotional tensions. The undercurrent of paganism which defines the relationships between people and their sense of the cosmos is constantly evoked (as it was in the play), and the film begins with a credit sequence featuring images of African tribes people in traditional costumes. But other than the climactic dance scene where the sisters celebrate their sisterhood to the strains of ceili music, the film rarely manages to escape the enclosed and cerebral world of the stage version.

But paradoxically, the reliance on actors plying their trade on well written words (rather than visuals) is the thing which saves the film from itself. Meryl Streep gives a convincing performance (and manages a creditable accent) as the repressed, authoritarian schoolteacher who heads the female clan, and she is more than matched by Michael Gambon's endearing performance as the slightly baffled priest whose exposure to the customs and rituals of Africa have coloured his perceptions of home. The rest of the cast (the non-stars, so to speak) are equally good, particularly Sophie Thompson as the simple minded Rose and Kathy Burke as the chain smoking Maggie. Catherine McCormack and Brid Brennan (the latter a veteran of the Abbey Theatre production) have less showy roles, but work distinctive characterisations in with those of the others with ease and skill. Supporting male performances from Rhys Ifans and young Darrell Johnston are also good, and the film also comes with a rich voice over provided by Gerard McSorley (who played the part of the the child at an adult remembering in the stage version).

This aspect of the film alone is probably worth the time and attention required to view it, but on the whole it is a less rewarding experience than the play itself. While an unfair basis upon which to criticise a work of adaptation, the material was perhaps fundamentally unsuited to cinematic treatment. Though Frank McGuinness has done his best to translate the themes and character issues, and has successfully done so insofar as it applies to theme and character, this is not so much a film version as a film of the play with some additional settings and scenes which prevent it from becoming completely unwatchable. What power it has comes from the power of the play, and it is mostly evinced at the level of verbal discourse. Theatrical adaptation is a minefield for film makers and has produced varying results in the past. Dancing at Lughnasa does not distinguish itself in the annals of this sub-section of film history, but for those patient enough with its lack of genuine cinematic interest, it offers certain pleasures which should pass the time painlessly enough.

I don't really know what else to say about this. It was dull. Dull, dull, dull.

The acting was fine, but with nowhere to go. And I don't think it made much sense to have the boy as the narrator. I'd personally favor the eldest sister, Kate, or the 'simple' sister, Rose in that role.

So much more could have been done with this film. The character of Father Jack was interesting, perhaps there could have been more with him, or maybe we could have found out more about Kate whom we get almost no understanding of at all. And why did the boy love that summer? We don't actually see enough of him to figure it out.

This movie did not intrigue or entertain. It could have been better, but it wasn't. Try it out if you'd like, but my advice is, 'Don't waste your time.'

I can't think of anything to add, change, improve, edit out, etc. about his film. I knew almost nothing about it when I saw it, so I was caught totally by surprise by its excellence. The best film I have seen for a loooong while.