Dear Americans Please Stop Screwing Up Shakespeare - Much Ado About Nothing (2013) Discussion

[–] Nightstar_INC 12 years ago

Unfortunately you Brits don't know how dumb and greedy and uncaring Hollywood is. They won't care what you say and if you make a Western, Hollywood will say "If you can make money, we'll distribute your British Western. And if somehow Brits with English accents sound terrible trying to speak like a Wild West cowboy, well, if you still make money we'll support you. In the mean time, we will bastardize some of our own movies as well. I think we need to remake Cassablanca and Gone With the Wind. We think we can do way better than those older primitive film makers."

As a die hard movie buff, I realize a lot of people hate these adaptations and these remakes and sequels, but when given something different, new, and possibly refreshing nobody here supports it as much. It's once in a blue moon that US audiences would and unfortunately the US mentality when it comes to film is infecting the rest of the world. How come big US blockbusters make so much money overseas as well, but some of the blockbusters internationally never get known in the US or even in North America at times?

Hollywood is on autopilot and as long as they can make money from a film, they will take advantage of it. Please don't suggest a British Western, because I think Hollywood scans these pages too and will end up taking your idea. Heck, they loved Daniel Craig playing a cowboy already, they might just sign up Hugh Laurie, Jude Law, Ricky Gervais, and hell even Judy Dench to star in their next Western. Oh how I hate thee a lot Hollywood.

reply

[–] gcassidy2 12 years ago

Somehow, John Cleese seemed to work in Silverado. At least for the role he was in.

reply

[–] NVDan 12 years ago

Somehow, John Cleese seemed to work in Silverado

Richard Harris in Unforgiven seemed to work, too.
He was also pretty good in A Man Called Horse.

___
Aliens? Us? Is this one of your Earth jokes?

reply

[–] clyons 12 years ago

Those are American films. Did the OP say British actors should never appear in westerns? No. Did he say American actors can't do Shakespeare? NO. Have you learned how to read a post since we last met? Sadly, no.

reply

[–] NVDan 12 years ago

Those are American films. Did the OP say British actors should never appear in westerns? No. Did he say American actors can't do Shakespeare? NO. Have you learned how to read a post since we last met? Sadly, no. []

Was I responding to the OP? No. Are you any smarter than when we last met? Sadly, no.

___
Aliens? Us? Is this one of your Earth jokes?

reply

[–] clyons 12 years ago

Actually I am, but I don't really need to be.

Are you saying you AGREE with the OP? Didn't think so.

reply

[–] NVDan 12 years ago

Actually I am, but I don't really need to be.

Truthfully all you are is just as delusional about your abilities as always. Which isn't surprising. You obviously aren't respected in real life so you troll in the mistaken belief that it makes you appear intelligent.

Are you saying you AGREE with the OP?

Obviously not, but thanks for proving my point about how your trolling is a failed attempt to make up for your failings in real life.

___
Aliens? Us? Is this one of your Earth jokes?

reply

[–] clyons 12 years ago

Okay, then your post is nonsense--you were responding to the OP, and disagreeing with him, and your point--that Richard Harris has appeared in American westerns--is ridiculous. So what? Errol Flynn appeared as the hero in a number of classic Hollywood westerns, that remain classic Hollywood westerns, for all that he was Australian. The OP was not saying "No Americans can ever do Shakespeare". The OP was making a joke about how Hollywood generally does about as good a job with Shakespeare as the British film industry has done with westerns, and that's true.

Individual actors or filmmakers from either nation might distinguish themselves in either genre (if you want to call Shakespeare a genre). But in any event, talking about a Hollywood movie as if it was British, because a British actor was the star just doesn't hold any water at all. "A Man Called Horse" and "Unforgiven" are American films. There were ALWAYS some British actors working in Hollywood--so many in the classic era that they had their own colony, their own social scene, their own clubs.

So think what you like about Mr. Whedon's rendition of Much Ado (which I think will be forgotten in a trice); the fact is that the OP made a solid point about how Americans are not properly trained in Shakespeare, and that Mr. Whedon made no effort to make sure most of his players could handle the Shakespearean argot. He just invited them to a 'party', and made a home movie, and obviously the OP isn't being serious when he threatens to have his country turn out bad westerns in response.

See, that's called an argument.

Not surprised you didn't recognize it.

reply

[–] NVDan 12 years ago

Okay, then your post is nonsense--you were responding to the OP, and disagreeing with him, and your point--that Richard Harris has appeared in American westerns--is ridiculous.

I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with these simple concepts. As is obvious to everyone who isn't here just to troll, I wasn't responding to the OP. But thanks for demonstrating how difficult it is for you to grasp simple concepts.

Individual actors or filmmakers from either nation might distinguish themselves in either genre (if you want to call Shakespeare a genre).

As my comment and the comment of the poster I responded to were pointing out. Again, perhaps you should try to understand what's being discussed before responding. It would be a lot less embarrassing for you.

So think what you like about Mr. Whedon's rendition of Much Ado (which I think will be forgotten in a trice);

This reminds me so much of when you were trolling the Serenity and Firefly boards and totally embarrassed yourself with your prediction about the critical response to Serenity. You'd think you would have learned your lesson then, but apparently you're incapable from learning from your mistakes.

...the fact is that the OP made a solid point about how Americans are not properly trained in Shakespeare, and that Mr. Whedon made no effort to make sure most of his players could handle the Shakespearean argot.

I'm not sure rather it's more embarrassing for you to point out that you're contradicting yourself in regards to "actors or filmmakers from either nation might distinguish themselves" or that you're ignorant about this project.

...obviously the OP isn't being serious when he threatens to have his country turn out bad westerns in response.

The saddest part is you think you're actually stating something that isn't obvious.

See, that's called an argument.

Yes, using straw men and not knowing what you're talking about could be called an argument. It's just an embarrassingly bad argument.

___
Aliens? Us? Is this one of your Earth jokes?

reply

[–] clyons 12 years ago

I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with these simple concepts.

Maybe if you learned how to actually EXPRESS simple concepts?

As is obvious to everyone who isn't here just to troll, I wasn't responding to the OP.

You were on the OP's thread, disagreeing with what he said. I call that a response. You can call it a jelly doughnut, if you so desire.

But thanks for demonstrating how difficult it is for you to grasp simple concepts.

And you, for demonstrating how you substitute weak repetitive rhetoric for points.

As my comment and the comment of the poster I responded to were pointing out. Again, perhaps you should try to understand what's being discussed before responding. It would be a lot less embarrassing for you.

I'm not embarrassed, and "A Man Called Horse" is not a British western. And is thus irrelevant to the discussion. And I can't help but feel that even you are capable of perceiving this, which is why you keep trying to turn the discussion in some other direction, like how embarrassed I supposedly am. Somebody sure is.

This reminds me so much of when you were trolling the Serenity and Firefly boards

Yes, because having an opinion you don't like is trolling.

and totally embarrassed yourself with your prediction about the critical response to Serenity.

Which went on to be a major hit, and spawn multiple sequels, and Joss Whedon certainly did not end up having yet another flop show afterwards, and then taking on the job he was meant to do, namely direct movies based on other people's re-interpretations of comic book characters he had no role in creating or casting or even reinterpreting--simply playing with them like action figures, and he did a great job. In a movie nobody will be watching in the distant future, but they will still be doing Shakespeare. Which I'd like to think was his point in making this thing, but how would I know?

You'd think you would have learned your lesson then, but apparently you're incapable from learning from your mistakes.

First I'd have to make some. Perhaps you could offer me some pointers?

I'm not sure rather it's more embarrassing for you to point out that you're contradicting yourself in regards to "actors or filmmakers from either nation might distinguish themselves" or that you're ignorant about this project.

Seriously? You accuse ME of not being able to follow simple concepts?

The saddest part is you think you're actually stating something that isn't obvious.

To you, no. And that's embarrassing for someone, but not for me.

Yes, using straw men and not knowing what you're talking about could be called an argument. It's just an embarrassingly bad argument.

And how many times have you used some derivative of the word 'embarrassment' in this one post?

You must be truly humiliated.

reply

[–] NVDan 12 years ago

Maybe if you learned how to actually EXPRESS simple concepts?

I've expressed it just fine. I wasn't responding to the OP. How you have trouble understanding something so simple is the real mystery.

So you agree with him? If not, then yes, you were responding to him, even if you didn't have the guts to do so directly.

No, I don't agree with the OP. And (try to keep up) I was responding to someone else in this thread. Sorry if you're having trouble following that.

And you, for demonstrating how you substitute weak repetitive rhetoric for points.

I know you'll have a hard time understanding this, but I was pointing out your confusion. The point being that you're not very good at trolling despite the years of practice you've had.

I'm not embarrassed, and "A Man Called Horse" is not a British film.

I understand you lack the self awareness to be embarrassed. Just like I understand that "A Man Called Horse" isn't a British film. Perhaps if you weren't trying so hard to troll you'd realize no one has claimed it was a British film.

Yes, because having an opinion you don't like is trolling.

No, having an opinion different from mine isn't trolling, but condemning a TV series and film you hadn't seen is.

Which went on to be a major hit, and spawn multiple sequels, and Joss Whedon certainly did not end up having yet another flop show afterwards, and then taking on the job he was meant to do, namely direct movies based on other people's re-interpretations of comic book characters he had no role in creating (or casting).

I know this is difficult for you to admit, but nothing you just posted has anything to do with the critical response to the film. Have you forgotten that you bet Serenity would get less than 50% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes?

First I'd have to make some. Perhaps you could offer me some pointers?

Well, you could start with not making predictions about movies you haven't seen. I know you hate to admit you made a mistake regarding Serenity, but we both know you did.

Seriously? You accuse ME of not being able to follow simple concepts?

It's more of an observation than an accusation.

And how many times have you used some derivative of the word 'embarrassment' in this one post?

Less than is applicable.

You must be truly humiliated.

Since all you've done is embarrass yourself further I'm not sure why you think I'm the one humiliated.
But you go ahead and pretend you've proven something. I'm sure the delusion makes real life tolerable to you.

___
Aliens? Us? Is this one of your Earth jokes?

reply

[–] clyons 12 years ago

I've expressed it just fine. I wasn't responding to the OP. How you have trouble understanding something so simple is the real mystery.

You were responding to the OP by agreeing with somebody attacking the OP. And you understand this perfectly well, but being extremely stubborn, and somewhat anal-retentive, you can't admit it.

I know you'll have a hard time understanding this, but I was pointing out your confusion.

And I know it's impossible for you to admit this, but we both know I wasn't the least bit confused. For the record, I accept that you don't think you were responding to the OP because you were actually talking to someone else, but you were, in fact, responding to him, whether you think so or not. If he hadn't posted, you wouldn't have responded. You were offended on Whedon's behalf (it's like your hobby) and you wanted to find somebody to agree with about how wrong he was to question your Master's Bardic street cred.

The point being that you're not very good at trolling despite the years of practice you've had.

Good, because trolling is never my aim. Truth is. And I hit the bullseye once again.

I understand you lack the self awareness to be embarrassed.

But you just said I WAS embarrassed (like 90 times), so apparently you lack the intelligence to know when you're contradicting yourself.

like I understand that "A Man Called Horse" isn't a British film. Perhaps if you weren't trying so hard to troll you'd realize no one has claimed it was a British film.

Then why bring it up, since it doesn't remotely respond to the OP's point that Britain makes (or used to make) good Shakespeare films, and America makes (or used to make) good westerns? And really, his only point of note was that if you want to make a good Shakespeare film, you have to understand Shakespeare,a and you have to cast actors who understand Shakespeare. Not having seen the film, I don't know if Whedon understands the play well enough, but I know that sending out a casting call to your close personal (and blindingly caucasian) friends, without regard to whether they've ever even READ a Shakespeare play is probably not the best way to go about it. That was the OP's point, and the OP was right. Not that Americans can never do Shakespeare, but that HOLLYWOOD can't do it right, and Joss Whedon is not only Hollywood--he's third generation Hollywood.

Answer to my question: You thought of it as a British film because Richard Harris is in it playing an Englishman out west, then I pointed out what a weak response that was to the OP's point, and now you're backpedaling.

No, having an opinion different from mine isn't trolling, but condemning a TV series and film you hadn't seen is.

I think you mean "Hadn't seen every single minute of every episode and the entire movie 20 times over", your minimum standard for having an opinion, and you'd still call it trolling if I didn't like it. As most people who saw it did not, which is why it got canceled, and why the movie flopped, and why Joss Whedon isn't talking about it anymore.

I know this is difficult for you to admit, but nothing you just posted has anything to do with the critical response to the film.

Because critical response to the film is irrelevant. As evidenced by the fact that it got good reviews (from critics who live inside Whedon's ass), but no sequel, no significant awards nominations, and basically vanished without a ripple, without influencing anything that came afterward. It was an afterthought to a bad idea. And Whedon knows it, even if you don't. Which is why he stopped trying to bring it back.

Have you forgotten that you bet Serenity would get less than 50% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes?

Ah, your so very pyrrhic victory. Still savoring, I see? I wouldn't begrudge you, but I'll take my real victory any day.

Well, you could start with not making predictions about movies you haven't seen. I know you hate to admit you made a mistake regarding Serenity, but we both know you did.

Nope. And every time I catch a bit of it on cable, I think how utterly right I was. But I still can't watch that thing all the way through. For any but the truly brainwashed it is truly unwatchable.

It's more of an observation than an accusation.

To make an observation, you need to be able to see past your own delusions. I remain unobserved by you.

Less than is applicable.

That was a very weak riposte, Dan--even for you. C'mon, you've had all these years to practice, and if anything you've regressed.

Since all you've done is embarrass yourself further

YOU JUST SAID I'M INCAPABLE OF EMBARRASSMENT!!! Make up what passes for your mind, willya?

I'm not sure why you think I'm the one humiliated.

Maybe because you're still trying to win an argument you lost eight years ago....?

I mean, I'm not the one who brought it up, man. I'm not even saying Much Ado is a bad movie--I don't know. But there are things you can say about it without seeing it--like how bizarrely white the cast is, when it's set in contemporary L.A., one of the most racially mixed cities on the planet--and I'm genuinely interested in discussing it, without necessarily saying it's the worst Shakespeare movie ever (obviously only a complete tool would say it was one of the greatest ever, when it just opened last Friday--btw, have YOU seen it?). And you immediately flash back to Serenity. And you seem to have blanked out on the fact that when I left that board, never to return, I was laughing really really hard.

But you go ahead and pretend you've proven something. I'm sure the delusion makes real life tolerable to you.

No, but clueless patsies do, somehow. Thanks for that, Dan. Btw, you seem to have completely lost interest in discussing this Shakespeare movie. Well, you're not alone in that.

reply

[–] NVDan 12 years ago

You were responding to the OP by agreeing with somebody attacking the OP.

No, I wasn't.

And I know it's impossible for you to admit this, but we both know I wasn't the least bit confused.

Funny, but the fact that you're flailing about with that nonsense about me agreeing with someone means I was responding to the OP sure makes it sound like you were confused, now realize it, and are trying futilely to save face.

Good, because trolling is never my aim. Truth is. And I hit the bullseye once again.

Truth is never your target. Your lack of honesty prevents it.

But you just said I WAS embarrassed (like 90 times), so apparently you lack the intelligence to know when you're contradicting yourself.

Actually, I'm pointing out you should be embarrassed. My guess is you actually are but are just pretending you aren't but I'm open to the possibility that you just aren't aware of the fact that you've embarrassed yourself.

Then why bring it up, since it doesn't remotely respond to the OP's point that Britain makes (or used to make) good Shakespeare films, and America makes (or used to make) good westerns?

Because the person I was responding to was mentioning American made movies with British actors and I was bringing up another one. Funny that you're still having trouble grasping that simple fact.

Answer: You thought of it as a British film because Richard Harris is in it playing an Englishman out west, and now you're backpedaling.

Nope. But you just go ahead and keep saying that. It just proves my point about how confused you are.

I think you mean "Hadn't seen every single minute of every episode and the entire movie 20 times over", your minimum standard for having an opinion, and you'd still call it trolling if I didn't like it.

No, I mean what I said. You attacked the show without seeing it and you attacked the movie without seeing it.

Because critical response to the film is irrelevant.

I was referring to the bet you made about whether or not the movie would get a majority of positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. If you were as intelligent as you think you are you would grasp why that makes the response of critics relevant.

Ah, your so very pyrrhic victory. Still savoring, I see? I wouldn't begrudge you, but I'll take my real victory any day.

Your "real victory" being you have to attack the movie and show on other forums because you can no longer post on the Firefly and Serenity boards? Perhaps you'd care to explain how that's my victory since I wasn't the one who made the bet with you? Or is it just that you're trying to divert attention from the fact that you were incredibly wrong?

And every time I catch a bit of it on cable, I think how utterly right I was.

Your claim was Serenity would get less than 50% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. How does your inability to appreciate the movie make you less wrong?

YOU JUST SAID I'M INCAPABLE OF EMBARRASSMENT!!! Make up what passes for your mind.

The fact that you lack the self awareness to realize how much you've embarrassed yourself doesn't change the fact that what you've posted is embarrassing.

Btw, you seem to have completely lost interest in discussing this Shakespeare movie.

I'm not the one that keeps making straw man arguments. It's obvious you didn't come here to discuss the movie but to troll.
Do you care to humiliate yourself further and make a bet about how well Much Ado will do on Rotten Tomatoes?

___
Aliens? Us? Is this one of your Earth jokes?

reply

[–] clyons 12 years ago

Dan, look what I've done to you--you're reduced to clinging to technicalities, and contradicting yourself right and left. Also completely misrepresenting what a Straw Man Argument is.

Okay, you did that to yourself, but I helped.

I came here because this is Shakespeare. A subject I happen to care about. And all you care about is Whedon.

And that's sad. Because he doesn't give a crap about you.

reply

[–] NVDan 12 years ago

Dan, look what I've done to you--you're reduced to clinging to technicalities, and contradicting yourself right and left.

Funny how you don't seem to understand the difference between facts and technicalities. I'm also not sure why you think claiming I am contradicting myself makes it true. No one is fooled except perhaps yourself. Not surprising given your penchant for self delusion.

Also completely misrepresenting what a Straw Man Argument is.

Since a straw man argument is making an argument against something that hasn't been claimed and you've several times argued A Man Called Horse is not a British film, a claim no one is making, I'd say I got it right.

Okay, you did that to yourself, but I helped.

All you've helped with is proving me right. But, again, it's not surprising you would delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

I came here because this is Shakespeare. A subject I happen to care about.

Actually, you came here to troll, which seems to be your only reason for posting on IMDb.

And all you care about is Whedon.

Since I've actually been in several productions of Shakespeare (including playing Leonato in Much Ado) and was on the board of directors of the Nevada Shakespeare Company, I'd have to say you're wrong. Again. Like when you claimed I was responding to the OP, or when you claimed I was saying A Man Called Horse was a British film, or when you claimed your bet about how Serenity would fare on Rotten Tomatoes had nothing to do with critical responses of that film.
Not that you have the maturity to admit it.

___
Aliens? Us? Is this one of your Earth jokes?

reply

[–] emvan 11 years ago

I just read this exchange with some pleasure.

I don't know either of you from Adam, so it was fun to make up my mind as to who was being reasonable and who wasn't.

It might be helpful to you to know that to an intelligent, neutral observer like myself, you come across as an arrogant, clueless, dick. I don't think that makes you a troll. Just someone whose correctness and certitude of correctness are inversely correlated, to a rather startling degree.

Just my opinion, mind you.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.

reply

[–] fritz-59 11 years ago

"So think what you like about Mr. Whedon's rendition of Much Ado (which I think will be forgotten in a trice); the fact is that the OP made a solid point about how Americans are not properly trained in Shakespeare, and that

I should like to state that you are in error when you say "Mr. Whedon made no effort to make sure most of his players could handle the Shakespearean argot. He just invited them to a 'party', and made a home movie..." In point of fact, Mr. Whedon invited his favorite actors to his home for years, to do readings of Shakespeare for no other reason than that he loves the plays and their language. So he knew very well whether or not most of his actors could handle the Shakespearean dialogue when years later, he decided to use his break from movie-making to do what he loves best - make a movie.

I've just seen the film, and enjoyed it a hell of a lot more than the Branagh version, which is serviceable but not inspired. Whedon's actors all handle the language perfectly well - it's not stilted or labored or awkward. Yes, it is in American accents (oh, the horror!) but it works perfectly well. I intend to catch the film in the theater again if it gets a wider release, and will obtain a copy of the film for myself as soon as it is available. Because it's a film I'll want to watch repeatedly.

"Cum simioli e culo meo volent."

reply

[–] vickymackenzie 12 years ago

Please do not think that you speak for all Brits. I for one am really looking forward to this film.

reply

[–] KymLey 12 years ago

"Please do not think that you speak for all Brits. I for one am really looking forward to this film."

Me too.

reply

[–] shrugs 12 years ago

Me three.

What if a squirrel wants a sausage?

reply

[–] gregorioos 12 years ago

Me four.

reply

[–] hubble-hallow 12 years ago

Modern retellings = nearly always a load of sh!te.

reply

[–] sdsungod 12 years ago

The greatest Westerns were made by Italians. So there's that.

"Enough of that technical talk, Foo!"

reply

[–] A-Bnegative 12 years ago

My favorite Westerns were Italian-made.

reply

[–] capercaillie 12 years ago

cue "did-dee-did-dee-doo" from the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

reply

[–] capercaillie 12 years ago

I think Ran is a great version of Lear and Throne of Blood is an amazing MacBeth.

reply

[–] A-Bnegative 12 years ago

I'm more of an Ozu girl, myself. Just kidding...sort of. Kurosawa was brilliant.

reply

[–] A-Bnegative 12 years ago

The graveyard scene is just so, so good.

reply

[–] seosmh-1 12 years ago

Akira Kurosowa made the best Westerns. And a few fine Shakespeare adaptations, too.

reply

[–] baidoasomalia 12 years ago

OK! Have to weigh in here. Can't the OP imagine that sometimes contemporary adaptations of classical works compel the reader or viewer to seek out and enjoy the original? These stories have withstood the test of time and have held up to being adapted in many different ways. That's what makes them so great and enduring. Sometimes an introduction in a more familiar format is all someone needs in order to get excited about an original.
And besides, didn't Shakespeare do a lot of retelling of older works, stories, and themes and make them familiar and palatable to audiences of his time?
Don't be so precious about it, OP.

reply

[–] clyons 12 years ago

The reference to Kurosawa kind of ignores the fact that "Throne of Blood" and "Ran" are not Shakespeare productions--they are very free adaptations of the STORIES of two Shakespeare plays--stories Shakespeare himself did not come up with. They make no attempt to recreate the dialogue from the plays in Japanese. They are not remotely equivalent to doing a straight production of Much Ado in full Elizabethan dialect, set in somebody's house in L.A., cast with the director's personal fan club of very minor stars and general hangers-on.

And Toshiro Mifune was greater than every one of Joss Whedon's actor-buddies combined.

reply

[–] Blueghost 12 years ago

by rugby7 (Mon Mar 11 2013 07:41:36)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse
And we Brits will promise never to make a western...It's the accent and lack of theatrical timing. There are some very good American actors such as Kevin Kline, Laurence Fishburne and Malkovitch who have the theatrical training. But every time you guys shoot Shakespeare the directors choose untrained movie actors who are utterly wrong for the part and ignore actors with real heft.

Even the awful Midsummers Night Dream with Calista Flockhart worked because of Kline, Strathairn, Tucci and Bill Irwin. All these guys are trained at Shakespeare.

Anymore messing with the Bard and we'll remake Red River with Ricky Gervais or Shane with Eddie Izzard.

It's your choice America...

I'm an American, and I can shoot a good "Shakespeare" film.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] meliniumchibisaturn 11 years ago

(I am aware not all Brits are elitist jackasses, I just thought I'd mimic the OP's phrasing)

People like you are why so many people hate Shakespeare. You throw his works up on this high pedestal like no one can touch them. Shakespeare is for the common people. Hell, later generations of the upper class were so appalled by some of his language that they released censored versions of his plays.

While yes, there is such a thing as a classically trained Shakespearean actor, it is not always required to bring the text to life (I will cut anyone who has anything to say against Al Pacino's Shylock), and if you knew anything about the history of language, you'd know that English as spoken in Elizabethan times is much closer to our accent that it it to yours. Furthermore, Americans to not hold the monopoly on doing Shakespeare badly, any more than Brits to not hold a monopoly on doing Shakespeare well.

This movie was fantastic (not just fantastic for a movie that was filmed in 12 days on a whim, but fantastic on it's own merits), and this is from someone who uses the Kenneth Branagh version to show people Shakespeare as it should be seen.

If you Brits did Red River or Shane half as well as this movie was done, I would watch the hell out of that movie.

reply

[–] harveythepooka 11 years ago

I totally agree. I think the only thing a trained Shakespearean actor can do that a normal actor can't do is be able to read the play and never look at the notes of what the antiquated words mean. At it's heart all Much Ado About Nothing is is a play, not any different than Waiting for Godot or Death of a Salesman. There are lines, a bit of stage direction and the rest is up to the interpretation of the director and actors. Some things work better than others, just because it is different than you expect doesn't make it bad, it just makes it different. I honestly don't think that that is any reason why you have to be British to do Shakespeare. The idea is just silly.

reply