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/

[–] GladiatorUA 11 years ago

Yes, if it was shot ten years ago. Or at least five. When Nathan was in much better shape.

Right now, Denisof fits the role much better.

[–] harveythepooka 11 years ago

I don't know if I really blame Alexis Denisof. I thought he was one of the weakest in the production, but what really didn't work for me was the scenes when he was talking to himself. IMO, that would be really hard to do, to talk for minutes in a scene totally alone. Maybe it was the direction but those were the scenes that didn't work for me. But I did think Amy was better in her role than Alexis was in his role and if there would have been a better Benedict the whole movie would have been better.

I don't think that Nathan Fillon could have done a better job though, he did great for his short role, but I don't know if he could have done the lead roll.

[–] bringonthelucie 11 years ago

Denisof was great, but the way he played Benedick wasn't exactly perfect to me. He came off too much as a jerk, which surely Benedick is, but I think that in the play he reads as someone who puts himself on a pedestal because he considers himself a martyr, so his arrogance comes from a sadness and emptiness he has in his life, and I didn't quite get that with Denisof. It doesn't invalidate his performance or the movie, but that interpretation I had of Benedick when I read the play was more resonant to me.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] leighbrent1832 11 years ago

Nathan Fillion has said in interviews that his only prior experience with Shakespeare had been as a witch in MacBeth in High School English plus attending Joss Whedon's brunches where friends (didn't have to be actors -- Anthony Head - Giles in Buffy and also English - said that Joss's Hamlet was the best he had ever heard.) read Shakespeare in Joss's backyard. Fillion has said when he read through his part he tried to back out of the film. He would not have done Benedict -- too much Shakespearean dialogue. Joss had to talk him off the ledge. And I agree with others, currently too hefty for the role.

Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker had done Benedict and Beatrice 10 years earlier at a brunch and Joss loved their interpretation. He loves Shakespeare -- his own family (who were in show business) when he was a child would sit around reading it aloud. Denisof, as mentioned in an earlier post, was in England's Royal Shakespeare Company and studied at the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts (Lamda- one of the top acting schools in England). He probably did all his Shakespearean acting in England with his excellent English accent (used in Buffy and Angel) so had to acclimate himself for this role as an American.

[–] rick-586 11 years ago

Making no comment on Alexis Denisof's performance, I'll just say as the movie started I assumed Fillion would be Benedick.... that just seemed like perfect casting. (I'm sure I saw Denisof in the trailer - but had forgotten).

[–] neztra 11 years ago

Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof have great on screen chemistry. I thought it was excellent casting. Fillion would have been an amazing Benedick as well, but he was perfect in his role as well. So funny. :)

Bam said the lady.