This New Netflix Film Has Great Performances But Doesn’t Really Work

The latest adaptation of August Wilson’s “The Piano Lesson” premiered Friday on Netflix.
“The Piano Lesson” is set in 1939 and centers Boy Willie (John David Washington), who travels from Mississippi to Pittsburgh with his friend Lymon (Ray Fisher) to sell watermelons and convince his sister Berniece (Danielle Deadwyler) to sell their family heirloom, a storied piano. Samuel L. Jackson portrays their uncle Doaker in the film. Michael Potts, Corey Hawkins and Skylar Aleece Smith also star.
Through flashbacks, the film follows the story of the Charles family, who were enslaved and then traded for the piano by their enslaver Sutter (Jay Peterson). The patriarch of the Charles family, Boy Charles (Stephan James), carved his family into the instrument; years later, Boy Charles steals the piano from Sutter’s family and is murdered by them. Berniece swears the piano is haunted by Sutter’s ghost but also values its meaning to their family. Boy Willie wants to get rid of the piano and build a more stable future for him and his family.
Much of the cast has close ties to Wilson’s play, which first premiered in 1987 at Yale Repertory Theater and starred Jackson as Boy Willie. Washington, Fisher, Jackson and Potts all starred in the Broadway revival of the production in 2022. Denzel Washington serves as executive producer of the Netflix adaptation, his third Wilson on-screen production after “Fences” and “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom.”
The new adaptation is a family affair. Both John David Washington and director Malcolm Washington are sons of Denzel and Pauletta Washington. It arrives about three decades after Wilson’s production was first adapted for the screen. That 1995 film starred Charles S. Dutton, Alfre Woodard, Lou Myers, Carl Gordon and Zelda Harris.
Many critics and fans have lauded the cast’s performances, and magazines have plastered the Washington brothers and Deadwyler on their covers.
In this chat, senior culture reporter Candice Frederick and senior culture editor Erin E. Evans talk about the cast, their performances and what works — and doesn’t — in this new adaptation of Wilson’s Pulitzer-winning play.
So, it’s nice to start out by talking about the cast and their performances. When I think about Black star power, this lineup is a prime example. John David Washington stars as Boy Willie, and I loved seeing his passion for this role; it’s unlike any of his other work. Deadwyler portrays his sister Berniece, and I’m a huge fan of her, though I am ready for her to get the kind of film that is as good as she is. She always brings a stellar performance to the screen, and that’s no different here. Jackson is their uncle Doaker and, I mean, who doesn’t love to see Jackson in another role? Washington and Jackson — along with Fisher and Potts — reprised their roles from the Broadway revival in 2022, and you can tell how familiar they are with portraying these characters. There are so many other known names in this adaptation: Hawkins, James, Gail Bean, Erykah Badu. The acting isn’t the problem for me in this …. — Erin
Oh yeah! I was really pleasantly surprised to see some of these people pop up. James and Hawkins in particular, because I really didn’t even know they were in the dang movie until they appeared on screen. They are such good actors, and this is no exception. But ask me what either of their characters were even about … because I couldn’t tell you. That’s especially true for James’ Boy Charles, who is entirely seen in flashbacks that are pretty to look at (the cinematography is gorgeous throughout the film) but give you exactly nothing of what you need. I see the studio heavily campaigning for Deadwyler as a Best Actress Oscar contender, and it’s just really unfortunate. Because both she and John David Washington are interesting to watch here, but the film is doing them no justice. I really wish I had the opportunity to see John David Washington do this on stage, because his performance is obviously very lived-in, and I couldn’t stop watching the choices he made even when he didn’t have dialogue. But so much of the film is like inside baseball for people who already have seen this story in its many other forms. Neither the performances nor August Wilson are done justice here. — Candice
OK, but the way I quickly went online to see what August Wilson’s play was actually about as soon as I left the theater after watching this movie … it’s not that it doesn’t more or less follow the plot of the source material. It’s really the ghost allegory that comes off very strange in the new movie. I should say here that I have yet to read Wilson’s play, but I did just want to double-check the ghost element, which is extremely pronounced in this new movie. Like, it’s straight-up horror in these moments and they weigh pretty heavily on the film.
A Slant review of the film really hits the nail on the head: “With a full arsenal of special effects, they give into the temptation to go full William Castle, literalizing the metaphorical ghosts of a play that’s so rich in theme, character, and dialogue with standard haunted-house imagery.”
There’s a delicate way that screenwriters Virgil Williams and Malcolm Washington could have approached this adaptation, so as not to lean so much on scaring audiences or infusing the scenes with the type of dread that is rooted in the horror genre. It really takes away from the intent in Wilson’s work.
I also just thought some of the flashbacks really lacked depth to me. I felt like I didn’t learn much because they were either too brief or too empty. For a film that aims to be rooted in the history that binds these characters, I felt like I didn’t really learn much about that history? I wonder how they did it on Broadway, or even in the 1995 version of the film (that has been sitting in my Tubi queue for weeks now). Because this just didn’t feel very cohesive to me.
Many others have told me that they’ve long had issues with how Wilson’s plays are adapted to the screen (including “Fences” and “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom”) because they’re so contained and don’t usually translate on the big screen. I think there’s a way to do it, though (and for what it’s worth, I really liked “Fences”). I just think that Malcolm Washington, who also directed the movie, and Williams were hyper focused on things that maybe Wilson already did — the dialogue — and not enough on its presentation on film. Some of the cutaways, outside of the ghost scenes that actually worked in this horror context, aren’t as effective because it’s hard to be invested in whatever connective tissue the film is pointing at in several scenes in the past. I really left that theater just scratching my head. — Candice
Candice, I was Googling “The Piano Lesson” before I could even step onto my subway train home from the screening. I’m a big fan of August Wilson’s work, but had never read this play nor had I seen it on Broadway nor had I watched the 1995 film adaptation at the time we saw the film. I also really expected to watch a nice family drama, with perhaps some horrific family trauma baked in; I did not expect to be scared here. And you’re right about the flashbacks, Candice, they really didn’t add much to the film. One thing I’ve been thinking about is that we don’t really see the horrors of what happens to their ancestors, like it’s kind of gestured at in these flashbacks. But honestly, the horror aspects of the film might have been better served by letting these flashbacks and the narration actually play out on screen. Show us, don’t tell us, as we often say in journalist circles. There’d be no need for literal horror elements like the ghost of Sutter popping up every so often if they had done that. — Erin
I wholeheartedly agree. Those flashbacks are so unproductive. — Candice
I actually had to text a few friends to see if they’d read this Wilson play after I saw the adaptation. I couldn’t figure out if I was just ignorant to the fact that there were some ghost/haunting storylines or what. Once I learned that, yes, Wilson actually does inject these themes into this work, it didn’t make me actually feel better about how these horror aspects actually played out. I figured it’d be smart to watch the 1995 adaptation while doing this chat. I’m quickly realizing that the film — starring Charles S. Dutton as Boy Willie, Alfre Woodard as Berniece, Courtney B. Vance as Lymon, Carl Gordon as Doaker, Lou Myers as Wining Boy — actually does a decent job of handling Sutter’s ghost haunting the family — it’s pretty subtle in the beginning of the film — piano keys playing though no one is seated there, screams from off-screen when a ghost appears to Berniece’s daughter, Maretha (Zelda Harris). But the adaptation also suffers from the same directional choice: The flashbacks don’t add much to the story. It’s too much narration and not enough actual substance. — Erin
I mean, I love a great horror movie. What I don’t love is a movie that doesn’t seem to understand what horror is, or aims to maybe capitalize off the new horror craze in a movie that it doesn’t really belong in, which might be what’s happening here. It’s a very heavy-handed and clunky way to interpret something that I believe is rather subtler than what we get here. It feels awkward and off-putting. — Candice
From what I’ve read, it at least feels true to the source material. But honestly, by the time we got to the end, I just breathed a sigh of relief. Like, thank goodness that’s over. I couldn’t even articulate everything I saw beforehand at the time. I was just happy that the characters got some sense of closure — even though I definitely did not. By this point, I think I was like, “OK, fine.” Still, I had a shitload of questions about who some of the people they were even going on about were and what exactly happened before everyone piled into this one living room. — Candice
LOL, the “OK, fine” point is me. When Boy Willie pulls up to that land he wanted to buy in his pickup truck, I was like, OK, well, I guess that’s a wrap, huh? I remember leaving the theater too stunned to speak. Like you, Candice, I love a good horror film — hell, I love a bad horror film — but I just couldn’t get over the fact that I witnessed an exorcism at the seat of a piano while watching an adaptation of an August Wilson play. — Erin
LOL wait, you just reminded me of the exorcism, which is right around the time that I rolled my eyes so hard they fell to the back of my head. It was so over-the-top! I kept wondering: Who is this film for and what does this film even want to be? It just got so off the rails at this point. — Candice
It really comes down to the strange interpretation of the source material for the big screen. So many choices were made that may or may not have tried to engage with the interests of today’s audiences, but there should be no reason why a film so rooted in engaging with history has to fit inside a contemporary landscape. — Candice
“The Piano Lesson” is really only held together by its talented cast and August Wilson’s original work. If you want to watch a film adaptation of this play — without the literal horror moments — just watch the 1995 version, which is streaming on Tubi. — Erin