MovieChat Forums > Much Ado About Nothing (2013) Discussion > Would Fillion have been a better Benedic...

Would Fillion have been a better Benedick?

posted 11 years ago by Polly_Plummer
23 replies | jump to latest

As this review says, Nathan Fillion would have been an obvious choice for Benedick - maybe too obvious. But Alexis Denisof, though not bad, left something a bit lacking in my opinion. I'm wondering if this might be a case where Joss Whedon gave the plum role to a friend he wanted to boost but not necessarily the best man for the job...

http://relativelyentertaining.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/sigh-no-more-jo ss-whedons-much-ado-about-nothing-is-here/

[–] maxpierreburke 11 years ago

I don't really think so. He was good in that small, yet funny role. Denisof was fine as benedict...

[–] Polly_Plummer 11 years ago

"Fine" is a good word for his performance in my opinion. He was not bad, not great. I would have like to have seen someone knock it out of the park.

[–] maxpierreburke 11 years ago

True...

[–] Ephisus 11 years ago

He was definitely bad, probably more because of a general lack of effort by everyone on the film, than a lack of talent.

[–] alansmithee12 11 years ago

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but I couldn't respectfully disagree more. The character needed to have the range for both comedy and drama, and Alexis seemed to be able to dig out both for this role. Actually, given how many subtle and obvious acting choices that Denisof made with the character's lines and actions in the adaptation, I'm surprised that this isn't the first time I've heard someone suggest Nathan over Alexis.

Personally, I think if Joss would have given the role to NF it would have been a case of casting for the purposes of name recognition rather than an appropriate fit.

Don't get me wrong, I think Nathan is a more than fantastic actor (and I loved him as Dogberry), but in this case, for me anyways, after having seen what Alexis did in this role, that the right choices were made in the initial casting decisions.

[–] Thomasina 11 years ago

It depends on how much ham you can stand in one meal. I thought that the small amount of Fillion's overacting style that we got with him playing Dogberry was fine as it was (that role is supposed to serve as comic relief anyway), but if he had had a much bigger role like Benedick, it would have sunk the movie.

[–] moviechic_Carrie 11 years ago

I was pleasantly surprised at Denisof's physical side of comedy. I didn't really expect it from him and wondered before seeing the film how it would play. I've already seen the movie two times and it's nice to hear the audience reactions of laughter.

[–] NoWeaponForged 11 years ago

I think Nathan was best as Dogberry. If someone was going to replace Alexis I'd vote for Alan Tudyk, myself. He and Amy have plenty of chemistry, as seen on Dollhouse and Alan has plenty of versatility. Plus we know he's funny.

Oh it's just flowery and a little bit like Yoda

[–] coolcleangreen 11 years ago

my answer is no. Alexis Denisof won me over when he rolled across the ground trying not be seen through a floor to ceiling glass wall. lol. never saw him as a leading man until this movie. well done. Nathan Fillion was too obvious a choice for lead, he was perfect as the bumbling security chief.

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

[–] FreelanceStuntdouble 11 years ago

While I absolutely love Nathan Fillion. I think Alexis Denisof was the better choice. Besides thinking Alexis would do a better job playing the role...I hate to say it, but I think Nathan just got to chubby to play Benedick. He was suppose to be a soldier. With Nathan's current physique he just can't pull off the role of a captain or a soldier anymore.

You gave up everything you had to find me. You found me broken.

[–] eesmith1009 11 years ago

It's very likely Fillion would have made a better Benedick. A lot of actors would have made a better Benedick. But, I was really grateful to see Fillion as Dogberry. He was a perfect fit for the role.

As to Denisoff, I felt like he didn't understand what he was saying for at least the first half of the movie. As an actor who has studied Shakespeare myself, it becomes really obvious when other actors don't fully understand their lines. Benedick as a character is such a fine line between sarcasm, cynicism and earnestness that it becomes very challenging to play with honesty and believability. Denisoff fell into the too cynical side of things and it just didn't work. When he embraced the goofiness in Benedick (perhaps channeling a bit of Sandy Rivers from HIMYM) that's when it started working for me...almost. But, when you are playing a role very popularly performed by a master like Kenneth Branagh, it's really easy to fall short.

Likewise, Acker was a bit flat for me for the first half of the movie. It was as if neither of the leads understood their motivation until they were being "tricked" into falling in love with each other. It looked like Acker was mostly jut copying Emma Thompson's performance initially. She eventually crafted it into her own character. But, it never really worked.

However, the supporting cast in this movie was phenomenal! Kudos especially to Sean Maher for his believable performance of such a one-dimensional villain and the idea to cast Conrade as a woman was a stroke of genius! Overall, this wasn't Whedon's best work - I mean it was only filmed in 2 weeks and Shakespeare is extraordinarily challenging. But, it was still very enjoyable with some interesting work.

[–] Max_cinefilo89 11 years ago

As an actor who has studied Shakespeare myself, it becomes really obvious when other actors don't fully understand their lines.

Considering that Denisof is quite familiar with most of Shakespeare's work, having performed many of the plays with his co-stars by participating in readings that Whedon frequently hosts at his house (including Benedick in Much Ado), your observation is erroneous.

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

As to Denisoff, I felt like he didn't understand what he was saying for at least the first half of the movie. As an actor who has studied Shakespeare myself, it becomes really obvious when other actors don't fully understand their lines. Benedick as a character is such a fine line between sarcasm, cynicism and earnestness that it becomes very challenging to play with honesty and believability. Denisoff fell into the too cynical side of things and it just didn't work. When he embraced the goofiness in Benedick (perhaps channeling a bit of Sandy Rivers from HIMYM) that's when it started working for me...almost. But, when you are playing a role very popularly performed by a master like Kenneth Branagh, it's really easy to fall short.

I think Denisoff made a very good Benedict. I think his experience with The Royal Shakespeare Company really stood him in good stead here. Benedict has to be both funny and morally upright. I love Benedict so much. He alone of Shakespeare's hero's takes a stand immediately for the right. Denisoff did this very well. All he needed was to hear Beatrice say,
'My cousin is innocent',
and he stood against his commander, his friend and the common customs of his society. There was not the hint of a waver in Denisoff's performance. You knew that he was ready to kill Claudio because Claudio had maligned an innocent girl.

_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] lulumary123 11 years ago

Agree eesmith1009! Fillion has got a certain roguishness about him that would have been a nice addition to the character. Alexis Denisoff is pretty good, especially when Benedick gets all earnest and stuff at the end, but honestly I was confused by many of his line readings.

I agree that Amy Acker was a flat Beatrice (no pun intended) - Beatrice needs to have a bit more of a spark, when she waxes cynical about not wanting a husband, you need to... feel cynicism, Acker comes off as sort of a petulant whiner who had no luck at the club last night ("Men, like, TOTALLY suck") I did feel a little of that old Fred and Wesley chemistry between them though, which was sweet.

I found the line readings, by most of the actors, rather stiff. I also enjoyed Sean Maher, at least he had some energy! They needed more time for this, I think. Shakespeare requires subtlety and careful understanding by the actors and director to animate the archaic dialogue to its full flower.

PS - But what's with Nathan Fillion gaining 50 pounds, he looked enormous!

"A sword is useless in the hands of a coward" - Nichiren Daishonin

[–] alansmithee12 11 years ago

Denisoff fell into the too cynical side of things and it just didn't work. When he embraced the goofiness in Benedick (perhaps channeling a bit of Sandy Rivers from HIMYM) that's when it started working for me...almost. But, when you are playing a role very popularly performed by a master like Kenneth Branagh, it's really easy to fall short.

I'll give you credit for being one of the few people I have read who actually bothered to justify what it was they didn't entirely agree with when it came to his performance. Even though I disagree with your criticism, since this is a subjective medium, I can't fault you for it.

As to Denisoff, I felt like he didn't understand what he was saying for at least the first half of the movie. As an actor who has studied Shakespeare myself, it becomes really obvious when other actors don't fully understand their lines.

This, however, I can not credit you for. The way you write it suggests there is only one way to interpret Shakespeare's writing and thus makes me question how well you actually have studied the way it has been interpreted over the centuries. Indeed, the fact that his work was written for the stage means that were, and always will be, different ways to interpret how his words were married to the page.

[–] pinky_lerue 11 years ago

Bite your tongue. Fred and Wesley DESERVE TO BE TOGETHER.