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.

[–] agilebrit 11 years ago

Know what else doesn't work? A giant wall of text. Paragraphs are your friends.

That being said, I loved the movie and it worked great for me. Amy's delivery of Beatrice's speech about how she wished she was a man so she could call Claudio out was chilling and passionate. Claudio's distress when he thought he'd been cheated on was palpable. (Fran Kranz was in "Dollhouse" before "Cabin," and he's amazing in that too.)

Does the play work with "modern" sensibilities? Not particularly, but so what? If you go into it realizing what it is, you should be fine.

-----
My blog, as if you care: http://agilebrit.livejournal.com/.

[–] bart-229 11 years ago

It's a pity that Amy Acker has absolutely no ability to speak the verse.

[–] DarrenDirt 10 years ago

Dollhouse would be worth watching JUST for the performance of Fran Kranz ... but it's a great time investment for so many other reasons too!

But worry not, agilebrit, the OP did not see the solid "Much Ado" film that most of us really enjoyed (especially knowing how little standard-preparation work was done for this compared to most big -- and terrible -- Hollywood film releases... heck, Clark Gregg was literally a last-minute replacement!) Instead, OP apparently saw some lesser Shakespeare film by someone named "Wheton". :p

- - -

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

[–] LucusNon 9 years ago

Paragraphs are your friends.

Back in school (long ago) I had to read and write a lot of long paragraphs. Ever since then, I can devour paragraphs of just about any length, no problem.

Back then I developed a trick that I still use sometimes. When a paragraph is too long for me, I simply imagine a paragraph break after every few sentences. I add them in my mind while I'm reading.

[–] lexyladyjax 11 years ago

So have other Shakespearean works set in modern settings: HAMLET in the 20th Century with Ethan Hawk, HAMLET in the 1920s with David Tennant, CORIOLANUS with Ralph Fienes, Ian McKellen as RICHARD III set in a thinly veiled Third Reich setting, Roman Polanski's 1971 MACBETH, Kenneth Branaugh's HENRY V, slightly modernised and finally, possibly the best ROMEO AND JULIET ever filmed, Baz Luhrmann's 1996 version set in a gang violence context with Leonardo deCaprio and Claire Danes.

In 1993 I saw the Kenneth Branaugh version of MAAN. I loved it. There's a great deal to love about this version, including the hint that Borachio is in love with Hero. That hint's entirely missing from the Branaugh version. Did you catch Borachio's hungry look at Hero? He loved her, that's why he fell in with the plan and the reason he fell apart and confessed all at the news of her death. This makes everything make sense in terms of plot outcome.

Some things you just can't ride around...

[–] m_wonderful 11 years ago

First time I've seen a Shakespeare play on film. I've seen plenty in theatre.

It worked perfectly fine for me. It's such a great play you have to almost try to make it not good.

To me, I just got caught up in it and enjoyed it. Maybe it makes a person feel special to pick apart things like "Prince of what?" or about faking deaths in modern times, but eh, I think my feeble mind can grasp it's a Shakespeare play and times were different.

To me it's an awesome film I'll probably see again.

[–] whomever23 11 years ago

Honestly, I was okay with the acting (particularly Amy Acker), and I think slapstick is *entirely* appropriate for Shakespearean comedy. You think they took themselves more seriously in Shakespeare's time??

But I agree with the primary complaint. Many of the ideas in the play don't make sense in modern times. I mean, they kept calling Don Pedro a "prince"--what?? And yeah, the idea of fighting a dual or faking a death seemed fairly ridiculous.

Also, what war were they coming back from at the beginning? Why was Don John in constraints? I feel like Joss just took the original language and slapped it into a modern setting without even thinking about whether they would fit. It's difficult to call it an "adaptation" because he didn't adapt it.

That said, that was all mostly a minor distraction for me. I really enjoyed the movie. It probably helped that I follow Joss's work and like a lot of those actors.

[–] sevenmarie 11 years ago

there are princes, etc. still left in the world. i had no problem with that.

i also figured Don John was in restraints because it was HIM they were at war with?

[–] summeriris 11 years ago

Shakespeare loved slapstick, he must have. He wrote such wonderful scenes that cry out for slapstick. Anyone who has watched 'A Winter's Tale. and seen Autolycus in action knows this.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so.

[–] davismargaret 11 years ago

I agree. I had no problem with the black and white and modern dress, but the characters are too shallow and postmodern to understand, much less care about, virginity, and without moral outrage, the plot crumbles. You're telling us it's horrific for Hero to be porking some dude, but when it turns out it was Margaret, Margaret is described as "innocent?" And if the filmmaker really trusted his audience to grant importance to chastity, he wouldn't have felt it necessary to depict Margaret rutting in such a gross fashion. In Shakespeare, it was flirting from her mistress's bedroom window was so compromising. As the villain says,

...but know that I have to-night
wooed Margaret, the Lady Hero's gentlewoman, by the
name of Hero: she leans me out at her mistress'
chamber-window, bids me a thousand times good
night,--I tell this tale vilely:--I should first
tell thee how the prince, Claudio and my master,
planted and placed and possessed by my master Don
John, saw afar off in the orchard this amiable encounter.

Does sex matter, or not? Why is the heroine's honor is worthy of defending to the death, but her cousin has a one-nighter (in the opening scene, presumably to explain the animosity between her and Benedick) and that's no biggie? This is an incoherent sexual universe.

I also thought the acting was generally flat. Hero was meh. Enjoyed Dogberry.

[–] robl0051 11 years ago

I felt that he was more upset by the idea that she had been with this "other man" for more than one night, that it had actually been going on for some time. He was a very sensitive guy who felt he had been lied to. I got that it was originally about honor, but everything else the character did pointed to the fact that he lacked confidence, and in a modern day situation would probably be more pissed about the dishonesty than the sex.

The 1996 Romeo and Juliet had über-rich/possibly criminal kingpins play "kings" and "princes" in modern times. Guns were "swords," just like in Whedon's film, leguizamo calls for DiCaprio to duel in that film, just like in Whedon's. I don't see why you can forgive those things in that Shakespeare adaptation, and not except the fact that these uber-rich folk in Whedon's film could have corporate wars, or possibly criminal ones as well. Why is it okay for the two families to be rivals in the 96 film, for no explainable reason I might add, but unexceptable for Don Jon to be fighting his Brother because that's what being a bastard has taught him to do. In my opinion, you've got no reason to complain, OP

[–] mightyodinn 11 years ago

Porking some other dude *on your wedding night* is still pretty low.

[–] macbethp 11 years ago

I saw the movie today and, not familiar with the actors, wasn't sure who was in that opening morning-after scene, though Beatrice's flashbacks were helpful. Thanks for clarifying.

That Beatrice and Benedict had been lovers certainly puts a different spin on their merry war. Old theatrical joke "did Hamlet and Ophelia sleep together?" "Only in Chicago."

I also enjoyed Dogberry!

[–] NoWeaponForged 11 years ago

It's not about her virtue as much the idea that she would be with some other guy the night before her wedding to Claudio. Claudio is very insecure. He can't even talk to her on her own.

I love the Branaugh version as well, but that in no way stopped me from enjoying this just as much. Everyone using an American accent also worked well for me. In Branaugh's version having all but three characters be British was always a bit odd. That didn't really stop me from enjoying it though.

I loved it. Everyone in my theater seemed to enjoy it as well. My only sadness was I had to drive one hour to the only theater in my area showing it, and I don't live in a tiny town. I live in a major suburb of one of the largest cities in my state, and there is still only one theater showing it in that city. Sad really.

You didn't like it, okay.

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

[–] georgep53 11 years ago

I loved it. The audience was totally into it and no one left. I've always liked black and white photography so this was really nice for a change. I can't say anything negative about Denisof and certainly not Acker who's a delight to watch here.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] huwdj 11 years ago

Worked for me.
I liked the setting and the music and the two leads. It's a different kind of Much Ado than the Kenneth Branaugh and Emma Thompson version which, as you might expect, is a Shakespearean tour de force. This version is lower key and friendly and I don't think you have to contemporise the story line to enjoy the play/film in a modern setting.
It's interesting you quote the Romeo and Juliet version of a few years ago because for me it was a big disappointment. Despite some of my favourite actors and director I simply couldn't understand what they were saying most of the time

[–] mabisatva 11 years ago

Late to the party, I wanted to say this, that Whedon's version is, to me, a black and white remake of Branagh's tour de force. Acker is good, but other than that, this disappoints and even repels me. I was looking forward to this version, however, even to Benedick's "Senor Looove" (said with disgust) I am starkly reminded of the version by Branagh & Emma Thompson.

Is it possible that film version is the version these actors studied to learn their parts? Hmmm...the concepts like honor and vengeance (sadly) don't cross the gulf of the ages well to our "society" and or civilization. The elocution is lacking, too.

As to the former lover arc, that also disappointed me.

"Remember, no matter where you go, there you are."
<i>Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension</i>

[–] locusnola 10 years ago

Is it possible that film version is the version these actors studied to learn their parts?

No, it is not possible. The last thing any actor would do to prepare for a role is watch someone else playing it. I speak from decades of acting experience.

Whedon's actors had participated in the director's Shakespearean play readings on Sundays at his home - where this adaptation was filmed. They are comfortable together, they know each other's work, they have something of the cohesion of a threatre troupe, and I love that.

Are the actors here as skillful with the verse as Kenneth Branagh and Emma Thompson? No, they aren't. But they have the heart of the matter - know what you mean, and say it in the words given the character. And there is a much more even level of verse-skill, not the soar-and-plummet disparities in the Branagh film.

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