Much Ado About Nothing - Joss Whedon

[skizzerflake]

I saw this in the theater last year, but it's out in the Red Box now...highly recommended. Joss Whedon apparently really wanted to do Shakespeare in film and enlisted actors to read the parts and film it in his house. The results are excellent and completely enjoyable. I usually don't like time-shifted Shakespeare, but the spare production, zero budget, black and white contrasty film and actors who are obviously having fun really make it work. Even if you don't like Shakespeare, you will probably get some extra points from your English Lit teacher. I thought it might be a fluke that I enjoyed it so much the first time, but I liked it even more as a re-run.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk5kkLNPg8g

[Shaun]

I once tried to watch the version by Kenneth Branagh and stopped after 15min, because the dialogue was so fast and full of clever references that I couldn't get along. And I was watching a dubbed version (English isn't my first language). Can't imagine how hard it would be to follow the original. But I will definitely try it again someday, because it seemed like a lot of fun. So I'm curious about the Joss Whedon-version, as well.

P.S. Since this is my first post I'm sending you all a friendly "Hi!" from here. :)

[honeykid]

I've not seen it, but I'd like to just because it's Joss and his friends and I want to see how they deal with it. I'm not actually much of a fan of Much Ado... or any other Shakespeare comedies I've seen.

*Edit* Hello Shaun! :) Feel free to go to the introduction thread and give a hello there.

http://www.movieforums.com/community/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=17

[mark f]

Brenda and Sarah liked it, but Brenda loves the Branagh version.

[skizzerflake]

I once tried to watch the version by Kenneth Branagh and stopped after 15min, because the dialogue was so fast and full of clever references that I couldn't get along. And I was watching a dubbed version (English isn't my first language). Can't imagine how hard it would be to follow the original. But I will definitely try it again someday, because it seemed like a lot of fun. So I'm curious about the Joss Whedon-version, as well.

P.S. Since this is my first post I'm sending you all a friendly "Hi!" from here. :)

Shakespeare, in this century, isn't easy, even if English is your first AND second language and it takes a considerable amount of knowledge to really appreciate the full meaning of a lot of the lines. What could make this version somewhat easier is that it is shorter than the full play. What's left of the original is the pith of the story and the actors are good enough that you can get most of it, even if mainly by body language.

[Thursday Next]

I thought this film was interesting, well worth watching, but not a complete success.

There are certain plot elements that don't make sense updated, such as some of the relationships between the characters and what they were doing there in the house in the first place. Why has some random duke shown up with his brother under house arrest anyway? I didn't completely believe in the world of the film as I did with Baz Lurhmann's version of Romeo and Juliet, for example. I think putting a Shakespeare play in a modern setting requires a little more planning than just sticking the actors in modern dress as they say the lines.

Part of the problem is the play itself -- Claudio humiliates Hero and leaves her for dead, then agrees to marry her cousin without even having seen her, and we're supposed to believe in a happy ending when the cousin is revealed to be Hero? There's a distinct lack of emotional plausibility in this farcical plotline, whatever time it's set in.

On the other hand, the Beatrice and Benedick portions of the play are brimming with emotional plausibility and good lines, and this is the strand of the play which has benefited from some updating in the staging. Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof are perfectly cast (although Denisof's appearing and disappearing beard is a bit odd), and Acker especially plays Beatrice's diatribe against the fickleness of men to the full, as well as the comic aspects of their bickering romantic relationship.

Sean Maher is delightfully villainous as the villain of the piece, and I only wish his motivations and character were allowed to be a little more developed. Nathan Fillion as the policeman is similarly good in a limited screen time.

It all looks good in crisp black and white, and the house party setting makes you think they're all having a great time, drinking wine and reciting Shakespeare.

[skizzerflake]

I thought this film was interesting, well worth watching, but not a complete success.

There are certain plot elements that don't make sense updated, such as some of the relationships between the characters and what they were doing there in the house in the first place. Why has some random duke shown up with his brother under house arrest anyway? I didn't completely believe in the world of the film as I did with Baz Lurhmann's version of Romeo and Juliet, for example. I think putting a Shakespeare play in a modern setting requires a little more planning than just sticking the actors in modern dress as they say the lines.

Part of the problem is the play itself -- Claudio humiliates Hero and leaves her for dead, then agrees to marry her cousin without even having seen her, and we're supposed to believe in a happy ending when the cousin is revealed to be Hero? There's a distinct lack of emotional plausibility in this farcical plotline, whatever time it's set in.

On the other hand, the Beatrice and Benedick portions of the play are brimming with emotional plausibility and good lines, and this is the strand of the play which has benefited from some updating in the staging. Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof are perfectly cast (although Denisof's appearing and disappearing beard is a bit odd), and Acker especially plays Beatrice's diatribe against the fickleness of men to the full, as well as the comic aspects of their bickering romantic relationship.

Sean Maher is delightfully villainous as the villain of the piece, and I only wish his motivations and character were allowed to be a little more developed. Nathan Fillion as the policeman is similarly good in a limited screen time.

It all looks good in crisp black and white, and the house party setting makes you think they're all having a great time, drinking wine and reciting Shakespeare.

I've never thought that Shakespeare's comedies make much sense logically, like when people put on different clothes and their friends don't know who they are, so it takes a fair amount of suspension of disbelief and the faith that in the end, all will be forgiven and things will be OK. This version played that out well. Faked death, armed stand-downs inside the house and GOK what will happen to the perpetrators, but as long as we all get a good laugh, it's worth it. A lot of people get lost in the language and length of his plays, so sometimes an easy orientation is a good thing. I thought this did a good job of lowering the threat level of the play. If you watch the "making of" video on the disk, it was made to seem like Whedon and the actors did spend some time sitting around, drinking and deciding to make a Shakespeare movie.

[edarsenal]

definitely sounds worth checking out. thanks for posting about it

[The Marb]

I enjoyed this. There's always the same problems you get with adapting a play that's hundreds of years old but it does a good job overall.

Nicely cast too.

[edarsenal]

found this at the library in the two day rental section. Really enjoyed this and that's saying alot since Much Ado is on my lower end of shakespeare. I'm more Hamlet, Macbeth, Richard III end of the spectrum but they really got to the bones of the story and the actors spoke the lines with a modern inflection that worked very very well.
my roomate/best friend ana considers this as her favorite rendition of the play