Btw, although I'm not in love with the film, I don't dislike it the way many people do. Before it came out, I sort of anticipated that it would be more or less what it ended up being (in terms of the basic choice made to have Flan and Ouisa in different places telling the story). I'm not sure that there was a better way to do it. Does everyone here dislike the film or do some people feel as I do (that it's more than respectable and inevitably very different in feel than the original stage production even while keeping virtually all of the text)?
I was sorry that they didn't cast Kelly Bishop in the film (in her original role of Kitty), and since John Cunningham was never going to get cast as Flanders, perhaps he could have been Larkin. Much as I love Mary Beth Hurt, and I like Bruce Davison a great deal, they weren't exactly going to bring in many people, and it would have been nice to reward Bishop and Cunningham with better roles (since they did end up in the film, and as a couple). But the casting is generally sound, and the film conveys the play. It simply lacked comedy, but I think that was inevitable. I'm not sure there was a way for the comedy that the play can have onstage to happen in the film. It comes a lot from Flan and Ouisa talking to directly to us, and that sets up a conspiratorial (not the best word) quality that carries through.