MovieChat Forums > Much Ado About Nothing (2013) Discussion > It just doesn't work

It just doesn't work

posted 11 years ago by nychicacharm
33 replies | jump to latest

I love it when Shakespeare is told in a modern setting. I think more people are willing to be exposed to Shakespeare when it's told in a modern setting. I think there's so much room for creativity and plays on the modernity and Shakespearean language. Romeo + Juliet with Leonardo Dicaprio and Claire Danes is a great example. A modern setting and feeling pulls you in with the great combination of the Shakespeare language pulling you slightly out. It works in Romeo + Juliet, even though most teenagers don't want to get married after first meeting and most people don't get banished today, the whole thing is perfect and keeps you in. Rival gangs/families feuding. Parties you wish you were at. Fast cars. Romeo and Juliet saying their famous lines in a swimming pool. It's great.

But here's my problem with a modern Much Ado About Nothing. It doesn't work. You're getting pulled out by so many things that it doesn't feel right anymore. The classics Shakespeare comedy traits of mistaken identity, tricks, overhearing conversations, etc don't work best in Pasadena, but in a theater or when it's actually presented as a period piece like the Much Ado About Nothing with Emma Thompson and Kenneth Branaugh. But chic, waspy people that listen to contemporary jazz in Pasadena don't fake funerals and deaths, worry about honor and virginity in a wife, expect someone to kill another for dishonoring a loved one, have princes, or have police officers arrest people for scheming and ruining weddings. It's all too much that pulls you out. Or at least that's my opinion. Whereas I think stories like Romeo and Juliet with violent teenagers with guns and fast cars, or Anthony and Cleopatra as current world leaders, or a Hamlet today works. The stories and language in a modern setting pull you in more because you feel like these characters, emotions, or events could happen today but you're still aware that all the better it's Shakespeare. These plays that your friends complained about reading in high school might suddenly jump off the page for them even though it's the same words and story they read back then.

But Much Ado About Nothing in Pasadena? No. I think that's why people left the theater when I saw it. However, I still enjoyed it. I think a lot of the people were miscast. A lot of the play's great dialogue, monologues, and wit fell flat and short with the actors' delivery, especially Amy Acker (Beatrice) and Alexis Denisof (Benedick). The entire play mostly rests on Beatrice and Benedict so if they fall flat, it's hard to enjoy the rest of the story or even care about them if they can't even get the banter and wit right. And that's the main problem with Wheton's Much Ado. Black and white film and furthermore acting ruins it. Much Ado is a comedy because the lines itself are funny when delivered properly. You don't need to add slapstick comedy to make it funny. Beatrice and Benedict going at it and the little one liners are what make you laugh and make it all believable. But black and white Pasadena with unnecessary slapstick comedy that doesn't make you laugh with all these Shakespeare elements that don't fit pulls you out. I like that Whedon used Fran Kranz (stoner Marty) from Cabin in the Woods. I was pleasantly surprised when I recognized him and I'm glad he's getting more exposure and did such a great job. However, maybe I'm too nit picky and no one felt this same way and thought it all worked perfectly and didn't feel "pulled out," but this is my interpretation and I'm wondering if I'm alone.

I encourage people to watch the 1993 version of Much Ado About Nothing with Kenneth Branaugh and Emma Thompson to compare with this film and Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof. Maybe you won't agree, but I think it's interesting and worthwhile to compare the differences for better or for worse.

[–] mlaiuppa 11 years ago

Shakespeare works anywhere anywhen.

New York Shakespeare Company Joseph Papp production of Much Ado with Sam Waterston and Kathleen Widdoes set in turn of the century U.S. using Spanish American War. Perfectly perfect production.

So much better than the Branaugh blah.

I've seen Shakespeare updated many ways. Hamlet done in the 30s with rival mobs. Merry Wives of Windsor in Windsor, Ontario in the 50s. (both performed in the U.S.)

I remember Richard Chamberlain doing a lavish production of Hamlet set in the early 19th century.

Shakespeare is universal and sometimes works much better when updated and relocated.

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

New York Shakespeare Company Joseph Papp production of Much Ado with Sam Waterston and Kathleen Widdoes set in turn of the century U.S. using Spanish American War. Perfectly perfect production.

I saw that, on Broadway, when I was quite young - loved it! The Watch as Keystone Kops - perfect. And Bernard Hughes' Dogberry was sublime - as is Nathan Fillion in Whedon's version. Very different, but they both know better than to overdo, this is a deeply serious man, who happens to be very silly and butchers the English language. It's the seriousness of the characterization that makes the comedy funny.

This past weekend, I revisited Whedon's version, Branagh's, and my DVD of the Waterston version.

The last suffers, a bit, from being dated as well as being a filmed (opened up a bit) theatrical production. Effects that worked onstage work sometimes less well filmed. But Waterston holds up better than well - he was wonderful. And I will always hold a special spot in my heart for this production. I took acting lessons, years later, from A.J. Antoon, who directed it.

Branagh's version, while offering us the delight of hearing him and Emma Thompson deliver some of Shakespeare's best line-duels, is top-heavy for me. The score has some excellent themes, which are MUCH overused. The bombast and extreme lushness of flesh and setting provided us are at odds with the sharp-pointed dialogue. People fling furniture about to indicate their depth of distress - "acting out," rather than just acting.

And, frankly, I find Branagh's performance problematic, as much as I like and admire him. The Beatrice and Benedick scenes are marvelous, but in every single monologue, and most of his non-Beatrice scenes, I find myself admiring the vocal ability, but uninvolved with the character.

Another issue with the Branagh film is the enormous differences among the actors' ability to handle the language. Michael Keaton works very hard, and he's a great actor, but Beetlejuice in Messina does not work. Denzel Washington is perhaps the most gorgeous film star in the world, a marvelous actor, and has the right presence for Don Pedro, but his "natural" delivery is a stark contrast with the stylization of the British actors.

Whedon's version, by contrast, coheres very well for me - the actors have something of the feel of a theatre company; they know each other, have worked together, and the breathless, rapid feel of the 12-day shoot provides a sense of immediacy and excitement rarely found in a filmed Shakespeare adaptation.

I loved what Whedon did to make Boracchio a comprehensible human rather than a plot device.

And there are cinematic references, in Whedon's black & white film, to screwball comedy, noir, and I think Fellini as well. It's a labor of love, and it shows, and I love it.

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

[–] nfaust1 11 years ago

First of all, I'd venture to say most people watching this or any movie know what they're watching isn't real life, but made up, fantasy life. You discuss "believable" in terms of what's realistic, and the two things do not have to be the same thing. So it was not "believable" to you - that's fair. But using as your criteria, people don't do this or that today, does not expose what's faulty in the film's conception but rather what's limited in your thinking; limiting your enjoyment of the film. Shakespeare's plays were not written to be viewed as realistic comedy-dramas anymore than Neil Simon's THE ODD COUPLE was written to realistically convey the effect of divorce on two middle aged men. Shakespeare's intention, beyond manipulating his viewers with a good all round story, was more poetic than realistic. On top of which, when the original productions were done at the Globe, the actors wore Elizabethan cloths; therefore, the plays were originally conceived to be done in modern dress no matter what the country or era the action. In this, director Whedon follows the playwright's original intention to a "T".

Your criticisms may express what made you uncomfortable about the movie, but your comments do not take into account or apparently recognize what director Joss Whedon actually did to put the play on the screen and make it a cinematic experience. Note how, in the early scenes, Whedon takes his time, keeping many characters in the frame, and does not cut around as much as he does later. He does this, I believe, to get the viewer ready to listen carefully, and to jolt us right away with the anachronisms so that after a while we may accept this modern dress world expressing Shakespeare's action. Now that didn't work for you; it did for me, and brilliantly, I must add. Why do I call Whedon's direction brilliant? Because he does not grandstand, nor call undo attention to his choices; his directorial choices are all centered within the piece and are not laid on top. His direction is sly, confident, sophisticated; he respects his viewers' intelligence, inviting us to enter a modern looking world existing within the context of William Shakespeare's comedy-drama. The actors deliver their lines without performing them, as if what they are saying is in fact merely dialogue. And my goodness, to my ear, it sounded like smart, witty, insightful talk, coming from people who are smart enough to make the observations the writer has given them to make. Watching the movie, you don't sit there thinking, wow, this guy really knows how to direct, you thing instead about what's going on moment by moment; which is, in fact, the very best kind of direction.

The real test of a Shakespeare production, on stage or screen, is how the low comic characters are played. Here it's Dogberry and his crew, played like officious, put upon cops. Nathan Fillion's Dogberry was a revelation; internalizing what other actors would probably explode over, he makes the moment of offense, when called an ass, his own and mightily funny, even a bit touching. This is the kind of performance that gets an Oscar nomination.

By the end of the film, when the second marriage ceremony takes place, everything we need to understand the action and Shakespeare's thematic points have been solidly laid out. Whedon achieves the moment of epiphany, and it got to me, as well as the rest of the theatre audience I was sitting with (basically young people, I think); no one walked out. Benidick's final line, though I knew it was coming, made me choke up. There's really more to screen entertainment than what you would call believable realism. Your view is narrow and you limit the possibilities of fiction in any form when you demand such a rigid view from works of all kinds, not just for the screen.

[–] coolcleangreen 11 years ago

i disagree with you. Shakespeare's dialogue may be antiquated but not his concepts.

Generally, people don't want to marry someone who they believe is cheating on them. The concept of "betrayal" is still relevant.
Even if not royalty, business moguls are often described as holding empires and their children as heirs/heiresses, its not a leap to call them princes and princesses; same with criminal dynasties. The concept of "royalty" still exists. (BTW, welcome to the world Prince George)
People, today, fight and kill and get arrested when in a conspiracy, whether poilitical, criminal or family drama. The concepts of "conspiracy" and "revenge" are still relevant.
Faking death for honor... a bit out there, but people have done crazier things. The point is to teach that fool groom a lesson about slander. The concepts of "honor" and "reputation" are still relevant motivators in business and relationships. Plus, people can still sue for slander/libel.

i too loved 1993 MAAN (actually liked it better than this version), but i thoroughly enjoyed this version as well. Acker was lovely as Beatrice. Denisof completely surprised me. I couldn't stand the girl who played Hero, she was awful. i absolutely loved Whedon's choice to play Conrade as a female cohort - completely streamlines Don Jon's motivations and makes Spencer Clark's Borachio a much more interesting character with his obvious boyish infatuation with Hero.

---
"the whole world's on fire, isn't it?"

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] libbygowen-878-727034 11 years ago

I agree, nychicacharm. Much Ado About Nothing has always been my favorite Shakespearian comedy, and I tend to enjoy Joss Whedon's work, though I'm not in the camp of folks who love everything he does just because he does it. I judge his work project to project, each on their own merits or lack there of. Sadly this is one of those projects lacking merit.

First of all, the performances were god awful. GOD. AWFUL. Shakespeare is not meant to be performed with the same understated, "naturalistic" delivery of modern dialogue plays and films. Most of the time, when people try to use that delivery device, the words come across flat and unaffected. Now, I don't appreciate that a lot of performances of Shakespeare are overcorrect, thus rendering them overwrought, but truly brilliant Shakespearian performances strike that middle ground. Everything in this movie (Claudio aside) was so understated, it just came across as lackluster and flat. Likewise, the heart and the comedy of Much Ado's script is based on two things: the childlike wonder and vulnerability of the love between Claudio and Hero, and the electricity of wit, banter, and sexual tension between Beatrice and Benedick. Denisof's delivery of Benedick was all one note and flat. Acker's Beatrice was marginally better (at least she seemed to understand the lines she was reciting and wasn't flat in her delivery), but she still missed out on all of the merriment that makes Beatrice the character that she is. Acker came across cold and bitchy, not boisterous and merry. Beatrice is meant to be untouchable in her mirth and commitment to just being herself, on her own, not untouchably aloof and cold, like some Messina mean girl! And the two of them together. Good grief. Zero chemistry. That first exchange of wit between Benedick and Beatrice is one of the greatest love/hate flirtation/fights ever written, and it was just... flat. Flat flat flat. There was no electricity between them, no urgency, just nothing.

The girl who played Hero was also just boring. One note. The only credible performance came from Kanz who played Claudio. He, I could get behind. He understood his lines and delivered them with feeling appropriate to the moment and character. So, well done to him. Nathan Fillion was also very good, but criminally underused. I wish he'd been cast as Benedick. His was the one place where the choice to be more understated worked (the character of the night's watchmen is generally more of a fool and rendered as broad comedic relief, but Fillion's more subtle approach worked well).

Then there was the black and white filming. I'm not opposed to a film being in black and white as long as it is done with intention, and it's well executed. Well. The black and white added nothing, and again, it was flat! Literally! Contrast is the soul of black and white, and the film was not lit correctly for it. It's hard to take a film seriously when something so basic is always a bit off. It left me wondering what prompted the decision- covering up other mistakes or the like? Trying to be "artsy" because for some reason, nowadays people think if something is black and white, it's automatically "artsy"? Just one more thing that pulled me out of the story. Actually, I think that was my biggest issue. I was never IN the story. Everything kept me from ever leaving that headspace of "I'm watching Joss Whedon's Shakespeare project he did in his house", and instead entering the story with the characters.

I do believe Much Ado could be done well in a modern setting, but it would need to be updated and given a different context. I've always imagined doing an update of it, and thought of a few settings where it could translate seamlessly. This offered nothing new. If you watch the 1993 movie adaptation, the performances (Keanu Reeves aside) are phenomenal. They all- not just Branaugh and Thompson, but Kate Beckinsale, Robert Sean Leonard, Denzel Washington, (and Michael Keaton is over the top, but it's hilarious and works perfectly)- strike that balance between understated and overwrought, the chemistry and electricity is all there. Likewise, the setting is essentially the same. It all takes place at the one big manor. Yes, they wear period clothes... but that's it. So watching the Joss Whedon version, I just couldn't help but ask... why? What was the point?

[–] leighbrent1832 11 years ago

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I always like to back up my opinion with info. It just makes me happier. So I decided to highlight people you mentioned. I'm not saying that only training makes a person on the level of a Mark Rylance, first Artistic Director of Shakespeare's Globe in London, from 1995 to 2005. and considered one of the best interpreters of the Bard (and on youtube I've read posters putting him down) but I am saying that there is training and knowledge with most of the following actors. Also, he played Hamlet when Alexis Denisof was in the production -- see below.

http://www.space.ca/article/QA-with-Alexis-Denisof

Here's a quote from Alexis Denisof in the above interview:

Had you personally done a lot of Shakespeare before taking on the role of Benedick?
I actually studied acting in London at the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts because I had an interest in Shakespeare and classical theatre in general. And then when I finished that, my first professional theatre job was a Royal Shakespeare Company production of Hamlet. I played the role of Fortinbras and also choreographed the big duel between Hamlet and Laertes at the end. Then I went on to do some of the other plays from time to time in England before I came to Hollywood. Although since then my interaction with Shakespeare has strictly been with Joss at casual afternoon readings at his house from time to time.
- See more at: http://www.space.ca/article/QA-with-Alexis-Denisof#sthash.43K5tmGV.dpuf

Guess the famed Royal Shakespeare Company didn't realize that Denisof was at sea with Shakespearean lines when they took him on. Also, LAMDA is one of the top acting schools in England -- you have to audition. RADA, LAMDA AND Central are the primos. Why he went to England? -- he said because he liked Shakespeare. His time in England paid off -- he may have the best English accent that an American actor has acquired (as demonstrated in Buffy and Angel).

Reed Diamond - you didn't mention but I was a fan of Homicide: Life on the Streets has a 3 year MFA from Julliard's drama department -- they only accept 8 students a year according to my understanding and they do a lot of classical acting. Jessica Chastain who was Ralph Fiennes Coriolanus film graduated from there as did some one who went to my high school in Kentucky which I find surprising (though not when I attended). I swoon whenever I see anybody with that credential.

Amy Acker

Shakespeare has always been a part of Acker's life. She grew up in Dallas doing Shakespeare in the Park as well as acting in his plays in high school and in college at Southern Methodist University. After she graduated, her first gig was working at American Players Theatre, a Shakespeare-centric company in Wisconsin.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/06/19/amy-acker-much-ado-about-nothing-movie/2439603/ Whedon says that Acker is the best actress he has ever worked with and Acker/Denisof are his go to couple. They did Bea and Ben 10 years ago at one of his brunches and he loved it. And Whedon grew up in a show biz family who read Shakespeare out loud for fun.

Guess Nathan Fillion is a natural -- Fillion only did one scene in high school English as a witch in Macbeth (I did more than that in our high school reads of 3 plays.) plus the Whedon backyard Shakespeare readings thru the reads.

Fran Kranz does not have professional Shakespeare acting background but if he was in the Yale drama dept. which it sounds like he probably was (he's a Yale graduate) he would have gotten excellent training-though I'm more familiar with the MFA program with grads like Meryl Streep--it's up there among the best drama schools on the graduate level. See below quote:

That’s how I got into acting in high school: performing Shakespeare plays. That’s when I really started falling in love [with acting.] In college, I did King Lear, Merchant of Venice, Antony and Cleopatra, Henry IV, Part 1 and Twelfth Night. That was as a student, though.

And since the film got an 84 on Rotten Tomatoes, many critics like it. Again, its just their opinion.

[–] libbygowen-878-727034 11 years ago

Okay. And Keanu Reeves played Hamlet at a famous Shakespeare theatre in Canada. What's your point?

Unless the actors you've highlighted got into LAMDA or RADA or the RSC or wherever else based on THIS performance (which they didn't), then listing their training & résumé has little to do with anything I said. I said nothing about training or capability. I talked about the performance at hand.

Likewise, everything you mentioned is theatre based. Theatre & film are like cousins- related, but NOT in the same immediate family. So to talk about a theatre school background & stage résumé is kind of apples & oranges. Perhaps on stage & with a different director, Denisof is brilliant. I don't know, because that's not what I just watched.

So while I agree with you that info & research is a boon to one's argument, in this case, the info you are providing is largely non-sequitorial.

[–] gerrandr 9 years ago

Spot on.

[–] DarrenDirt 11 years ago

OP, by the same token do you also disapprove of this:
http://www.digitaltheatre.com/production/details/much-ado-about-nothin g-tennant-tate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjmqSJ0ElNs

- - -

Chipping away at a mountain of pop culture trivia,
Darren Dirt.

[–] BenignPillows 10 years ago

I have to agree with you, OP. Although I love Joss Whedon, will be a whedonite to the end of time, and enjoyed parts of this movie - it asked just a little too much. The plot didn't fit a modern, American setting. I also thought the movie would have benefited from a longer shoot than 12 days. Some scenes could have used more takes.

[–] chuck-526 10 years ago

I tend to agree Shakespeare just doesn't fit into modern times all that well. Bastards are always bad guys? Aristocrats control the world? Cousins share beds? Huh? And once you start tweaking to "make sense", the tweaks can very quickly become substantial.

I did enjoy some of the clever bits of the setting for their own sake (playing music from an iPod, locking keys in the car, zip ties for handcuffs, etc.), even though they didn't fit especially well. For me the Pasadena setting provided the armature on which the events of this production were hung, and not much more.

Mainly, I took the setting not for what it was, but rather for what it was not. Effort wasn't directed toward period costumes and scenery, nor toward creating a context where the events seemed natural. That left all the focus on the language. (Fortunately I picked up from another poster here the hint to turn on the subtitles and see the bard's every word - what a difference.)

The picture on the poster of a guy with a snorkel mask and a martini glass in the pool was a pretty strong clue this was a "quirky" production ...and I'm one of those that finds quirkiness quite attractive.