Orlando Lens
By Nicholas Ware
Twitter | E-mail
If you were able to win passes to our co-sponsored screening of Much Ado About Nothing on Tuesday night, you've likely already formed your own opinion about the film. You also likely witness a number of patrons departing the theater, never to be seen again, within the first 15 minutes of the film. For those of you who were not there and perhaps are not sure exactly what you are getting yourself into with Joss Whedon's Shakespeare adaptation, know two things: all of the dialogue is the original language of the play, and the film is in black and white. That means, to many, the entire affair will be impenetrable. If the idea of a black and white film full of the Bard's words makes you gag, read no further, for this movie is not for you and no assessment of its quality or lack thereof will steer your towards it. However, for the rest of you, in the spirit of Willy Shakes himself, a short play to express my feelings on and around this charming-but-flawed adaptation.
[Enter the critic Blauhart and his friend, the hunchback and court fool Squeaky Mattress.]
Blauhart Why, by the tips of my beard-hair, this Whedon's cinematic overture was a rather odd lot. I leave his flickering shadows sated yet unsatisfied, like the child with a belly full of cotton candy. What say you, Squeaky?
Squeaky Mattress My Lord, your words ring true. For Much Ado seems not so much as unnecessary a parlor game among dukes released for to rouse the rabble, but the rabble remain still. I dare say there was time enough for the liking, especially in this physical comedy of Sirrah Alexis Denisof, though his accent and pattern of speech did leave much to be desired.
Blauhart True, wise fool, but what of the charming presence of Nathan Fillion? Why, a Dogberry restrained yet uproarious! What a delight! And the ample charms of Amy Acker are enough to purse lips into smile curled, are they not?
Squeaky Mattress Indeed they are, my Lord, but hark! A bear approaches! We must flee!
[Exit, pursued by a bear.]
Now, what you just read above is the most self-indulgent piece of reading that I've ever done. It was created not for you, dear reader, but for my self-entertainment, for my own edification, to feed some need in me. It is, sadly, the same with Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing. This film is literally a product of Joss calling up some of his friends--every actor in the film had been in a Whedon show or film previously--and deciding to produce in a quick fashion and on a shoe-string budget a DIY Shakespeare film that he shot in one location: his own home. It's a glorified home video of "let's put on a play." Granted, it is done with a number of talented people, including Whedon, so it has merits beyond "Hey, remember when we spent that week doing a Shakespeare movie" nostalgia. And those merits, taken on their own, make the film well worth seeing for any hardcore Whedon or Shakespeare fan. Outside of those populations, however, Whedon has made several choices which prevent any true joy or innovation springing from the film.
Let us first dwell on the negative, so that this review ends in hope rather than despair; comedy rather than tragedy. There is one casting choice that is either brilliant or deadly, mattering on how one see the character's role in the play. Hero, the ingenue role, has been given to Jillian Morgese, an actress whose only other noted role is as an extra in The Avengers, and there seems to have been good reason for her not to yet be discovered. In Much Ado, she nothing-acts a nothing-role. Hero is a cipher, a prize to be won, and a swerve in the play's final act. Morgese attempts nothing to break the character from that position. However, she is not the only subtraction-by-subtraction the film performs. In choosing to shoot in black and white, Whedon leeches much of the energy out of the film. His B&W photography is not the sumptuous grey-scale of a movie like The Man Who Wasn't There or the evocative technological reference of The Artist. It instead seems to be just a choice, and not a well-considered one. There is one shot only, the one represented on the film's poster, with Fran Kranz's Claudio in the pool, where the black and white pops. More often it creates a surprisingly gloomy haze, even in jubilant or playful scenes. Whedon's black and white is dull when it needs to be inspired. The final mistake Whedon makes lies in one of two choices: the decision to swear fealty to W.S.'s original text or the decision to not more deftly justify that text within the modern setting. A few commonly-cribbed analogies are made--swords are guns--but we never know what kind of Lords these men are, while kind of Prince Don Pedro is. Are they gangsters? Businessmen? Politicians? There are ripe metaphors available in the modern world, none of which are affixed in Whedon's film. By choosing none, Whedon again does the film a disservice.
The chief pleasures of the film end up in several of the performances. Alexis Denisof throws himself into some welcome physical comedy, the first instance of which effectively kick-starts the film after an exceedingly dull first 15 minutes. Nathan Fillion shines in his few scenes as the malapropism machine Dogberry, and the scenes with his constables are the highlight of marrying modern comic sensibilities with Elizabethan language. Amy Acker has to do a lot of the film's heavy lifting in a role, as Beatrice, that is difficult due to its wit and rather alarming tonal shifts. Her natural charisma does her a lot of favors, but it's obvious that actor's craft is at work as well. Additionally, fans of the 1993 Kenneth Branaugh film know that the inimitable Keanu Reeves set an impressively low bar as Don John in that film. Sean Maher doesn't make a tremendous impression in the 2013 film, but clears that bar with miles to spare.
I can recommend Much Ado About Nothing wholeheartedly to Whedon and Shakespeare fans. They will embrace its merits and ignore or justify its flaws and find the experience overall quite merry. Even the average film-goer will laugh at much of the comedy, both verbal and physical, even as they slog through some of the more laborious choices the film makes. However, far too many movie fans may find that Much Ado About Nothing is nothing they need to much ado.
Much Ado About Nothing opens Friday at the Enzian. Rated PG-13 for some sexuality and brief drug use. Run time 1 hour 47 minutes.
If you were able to win passes to our co-sponsored screening of Much Ado About Nothing on Tuesday night, you've likely already formed your own opinion about the film. You also likely witness a number of patrons departing the theater, never to be seen again, within the first 15 minutes of the film. For those of you who were not there and perhaps are not sure exactly what you are getting yourself into with Joss Whedon's Shakespeare adaptation, know two things: all of the dialogue is the original language of the play, and the film is in black and white. That means, to many, the entire affair will be impenetrable. If the idea of a black and white film full of the Bard's words makes you gag, read no further, for this movie is not for you and no assessment of its quality or lack thereof will steer your towards it. However, for the rest of you, in the spirit of Willy Shakes himself, a short play to express my feelings on and around this charming-but-flawed adaptation.
[Enter the critic Blauhart and his friend, the hunchback and court fool Squeaky Mattress.]
Blauhart Why, by the tips of my beard-hair, this Whedon's cinematic overture was a rather odd lot. I leave his flickering shadows sated yet unsatisfied, like the child with a belly full of cotton candy. What say you, Squeaky?
Squeaky Mattress My Lord, your words ring true. For Much Ado seems not so much as unnecessary a parlor game among dukes released for to rouse the rabble, but the rabble remain still. I dare say there was time enough for the liking, especially in this physical comedy of Sirrah Alexis Denisof, though his accent and pattern of speech did leave much to be desired.
Blauhart True, wise fool, but what of the charming presence of Nathan Fillion? Why, a Dogberry restrained yet uproarious! What a delight! And the ample charms of Amy Acker are enough to purse lips into smile curled, are they not?
Squeaky Mattress Indeed they are, my Lord, but hark! A bear approaches! We must flee!
[Exit, pursued by a bear.]
Now, what you just read above is the most self-indulgent piece of reading that I've ever done. It was created not for you, dear reader, but for my self-entertainment, for my own edification, to feed some need in me. It is, sadly, the same with Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing. This film is literally a product of Joss calling up some of his friends--every actor in the film had been in a Whedon show or film previously--and deciding to produce in a quick fashion and on a shoe-string budget a DIY Shakespeare film that he shot in one location: his own home. It's a glorified home video of "let's put on a play." Granted, it is done with a number of talented people, including Whedon, so it has merits beyond "Hey, remember when we spent that week doing a Shakespeare movie" nostalgia. And those merits, taken on their own, make the film well worth seeing for any hardcore Whedon or Shakespeare fan. Outside of those populations, however, Whedon has made several choices which prevent any true joy or innovation springing from the film.
Let us first dwell on the negative, so that this review ends in hope rather than despair; comedy rather than tragedy. There is one casting choice that is either brilliant or deadly, mattering on how one see the character's role in the play. Hero, the ingenue role, has been given to Jillian Morgese, an actress whose only other noted role is as an extra in The Avengers, and there seems to have been good reason for her not to yet be discovered. In Much Ado, she nothing-acts a nothing-role. Hero is a cipher, a prize to be won, and a swerve in the play's final act. Morgese attempts nothing to break the character from that position. However, she is not the only subtraction-by-subtraction the film performs. In choosing to shoot in black and white, Whedon leeches much of the energy out of the film. His B&W photography is not the sumptuous grey-scale of a movie like The Man Who Wasn't There or the evocative technological reference of The Artist. It instead seems to be just a choice, and not a well-considered one. There is one shot only, the one represented on the film's poster, with Fran Kranz's Claudio in the pool, where the black and white pops. More often it creates a surprisingly gloomy haze, even in jubilant or playful scenes. Whedon's black and white is dull when it needs to be inspired. The final mistake Whedon makes lies in one of two choices: the decision to swear fealty to W.S.'s original text or the decision to not more deftly justify that text within the modern setting. A few commonly-cribbed analogies are made--swords are guns--but we never know what kind of Lords these men are, while kind of Prince Don Pedro is. Are they gangsters? Businessmen? Politicians? There are ripe metaphors available in the modern world, none of which are affixed in Whedon's film. By choosing none, Whedon again does the film a disservice.
The chief pleasures of the film end up in several of the performances. Alexis Denisof throws himself into some welcome physical comedy, the first instance of which effectively kick-starts the film after an exceedingly dull first 15 minutes. Nathan Fillion shines in his few scenes as the malapropism machine Dogberry, and the scenes with his constables are the highlight of marrying modern comic sensibilities with Elizabethan language. Amy Acker has to do a lot of the film's heavy lifting in a role, as Beatrice, that is difficult due to its wit and rather alarming tonal shifts. Her natural charisma does her a lot of favors, but it's obvious that actor's craft is at work as well. Additionally, fans of the 1993 Kenneth Branaugh film know that the inimitable Keanu Reeves set an impressively low bar as Don John in that film. Sean Maher doesn't make a tremendous impression in the 2013 film, but clears that bar with miles to spare.
I can recommend Much Ado About Nothing wholeheartedly to Whedon and Shakespeare fans. They will embrace its merits and ignore or justify its flaws and find the experience overall quite merry. Even the average film-goer will laugh at much of the comedy, both verbal and physical, even as they slog through some of the more laborious choices the film makes. However, far too many movie fans may find that Much Ado About Nothing is nothing they need to much ado.
Much Ado About Nothing opens Friday at the Enzian. Rated PG-13 for some sexuality and brief drug use. Run time 1 hour 47 minutes.
