Much Ado About Twelfth Night

*****                                                                            ***

With romantic comedies filling the theatres every year, it is rare for these films to be Shakespeare adaptations. Within a few years two adaptations came out of two of Shakespeare’s comedies, Much Ado About Nothing and Twelfth Night. The first was directed by Shakespeare regular Kenneth Branagh and the other by not-so-famous Trevor Nunn. Both films are extremely similar to one another in terms of filmmaking. The cast, the landscapes and sets, and the music are all similarities and not very many differences (except in the plot details). Between these two film it is Much Ado About Nothing that truly stands on its own as a film and the other falters and tries too hard to be like a Branagh film rather than being a Nunn film.

Something that all of Kenneth Branagh films have is an A-list cast. Twelfth Night is filled with these actors, many of whom Branagh has worked with, one of whom was in Much Ado About Nothing (Imelda Staunton). Helena Bonham Carter appears in this film, an actress who even had an affair with Kenneth Branagh when they worked on Frankenstein. Toby Stephens appears as well, son of Maggie Smith who Branagh has worked with frequently, not in his films but on the stage. Nicholas Farrell, Antonio, also appears in Branagh’s Hamlet (granted, the film came only a few months after Twelfth Night). Other A-list actors who were cast in the film are Nigel Hawthorne, Ben Kingsley (a really nice performance by an actor who I had yet seen do Shakespeare), and Richard E. Grant. With a cast like this, it is not too far-fetched to believe this could be a Kenneth Branagh cast. This may be a stretched point, after all, to make a great Shakespeare film you need great actors, but the fact that most of these people have an association with Branagh concretes my point.

The cast for Branagh’s film is Emma Thompson, Imelda Staunton, Denzel Washington, Michael Keaton, and Robert Sean Leonard. A similarity is this cast of great big name actors; the difference is that most of the actors are American. Other Branagh films are filled with British actors, such as his Henry V or As You Like It. This small difference between a largely British cast and largely American cast is only for these two films, but Branagh’s other films are largely British-filled actors more than American.

The other similarity of the films is how the director filmed the pastoral elements. The pastoral setting is a conceit in almost all of Shakespeare’s comedies. Both Branagh and Nunn used this in their film and both of the films use the landscapes of the area and the natural elements of the set feature as another character. In Much Ado, a major scene where Benedict is “overhearing” the men discussing Beatrice’s love for him, he hides in the courtyard behind a wall of hedges. In the scene where Malvolio reads the letter that Maria has written to trick him in Twelfth Night, Antonio and Sir Toby all hide behind a wall of hedges in a courtyard of sorts, moving around, trying to hide away from Malvolio while the plot unfolds.

Then there is the setting of the two plays. Much Ado appears in a country villa surrounded by a beautiful Spanish countryside. On the other hand, the castle of Duke Orsino is on a beautiful island in the Mediterranean with some Prussian style architecture. These are differences, but how they film it are the same. It is always filmed from a distance if we ever see the whole set. Whenever the full set is being filmed, it is being shot at a distance away. Also, save for the opening sequence for Twelfth Night, never does the director place any scene outside other than in the actual setting. All exterior scenes are always in the villa or in the castle grounds (save for the beginning of Twelfth Night with the establishment of the ship wreck). The cinematography of each film uses the lighting and the distance and the use of the establishing shot all in very similar ways.

The other similarity between these two films is the music. Both films use a song that is sung in the actual play text and use it as a main musical theme. This is the major similarity between these two films more than the other two. Almost any Shakespearean adaptation would have a major cast of British and American actors. Almost every Shakespeare comedy film that I have seen uses the camerawork for the pastoral elements in similar ways, but the music sounds too much like what Patrick Doyle would have done for his score if he did this film with Branagh, only Patrick Doyle could have done a better job than what Shaun Davey did with this one. Patrick Doyle uses the song “Hey Nonny Nonny” for the main theme in the film, which connects all of the film’s themes together in the Overture of the film. He does this with Henry V and As You Like It and Hamlet. Every Shakespeare film, not just his comedies, Doyle makes a musical theme from a song in the play text. Shaun Davey’s music for Twelfth Night uses the song “The Wind and the Rain” as his main theme. It is a good song and the lyrics are set very well to his composition, but it feels too hard to be like Doyle’s music, almost like he is copying him.

Any differences that these two films have do not void the fact that there are too many similarities between them, very much like it is a copy of the formula that makes Branagh so successful. Nunn tries really hard to do a film that redoes the work Branagh did on Much Ado About Nothing. Instead of trying to make his film be a Nunn film, he tries to make a film like Branagh with a similar cast, similar cinematography, and similar music.

A Tempest of Problems

 

Like Michael Radford's The Merchant of Venice, Julie Taymor’s The Tempest is one of the first direct film adaptations of the play, and it is sad that it is by Miss Taymor who has made this film version. The actors are great and the set pieces are terrific, but the direction of the film such as the special effects, the camera work, the music, and the use of Ariel are all too cumbersome to enjoy.

Helen Mirren is brilliant as Prospera. The differences are odd, and not really in keeping with the actual play text, but are quite good. Felicity Jones is also great as Miranda, as is Ferdinand (played by Reeve Carney). The director casts many great actors for her cast, Alan Cumming, Chris Cooper, Ben Wishaw, Alfred Molina, and many others, and most are underused. Though they all do a great job, some of them only appear for a few minutes with very little dialogue.

The set pieces, on location landscapes or in studio sets, are all beautiful. The home of Prospera looks elegant and rich, a home that looks like it was designed By Kenneth Branagh regular Tim Harvey. Also, the many desert fields that Ferdinand and his father walk look surreal and fantastical. This department did quite well in finding great locations for the island and building sets that match that same beauty.

Where the problems come is when Caliban and Ariel are introduced. From this point on, the special effects look like they were generated in a person’s garage, Luhrmann like cinematography that gives epileptic seizures, and music that destroys any mood that might come from the scene.

The special effects look terrible. Ariel is played by Ben Wishaw, who is naked throughout the entire performance, does a decent enough job, but the blue hint that the VFX people gave him and the weird haze that travels around him when he flies around quickly looks too fake, too ridiculous, and too cheap. There are other special effects used that look just as bad, such as fire hounds that Ariel calls to chase after Stephano and Trinculo.

The cinematography is just as bad as the special effects. Especially in the Stephano and Trinculo and Caliban scenes, the camera work moves at a fast pace, with lots of flashing lights and extravagant colors that hurt the eyes and clash with each other. It tries to be humorous and lighthearted, giving it some whimsical feeling, but it gives this reviewer a headache and makes me wonder what the point is.

The last major problem comes from the music. Eliot Goldenthal uses music in a wide variety of ways, and unlike Patrick Doyle’s music for Brangah’s films, there is little cohesion, if any, from scene to scene. There are no discernible themes to connect the character to; there is no organization, simply play music at moments with a feeling that the director wants you to feel (cues such as a waltz or jazz or heavily electronic synthesizers come in and out with little point). It is a complete mash of cues and tracks that only slightly work in one scene rather than as a whole.

Great acting and some well-built sets cannot save this mess of a film. Nothing fits together and it all plays for the moment of the scene rather than for the film as a whole. The cinematography is weak and cumbersome, the music is a mash of terribly written cues for random emotions for the viewer to feel, and cheap effects that make little to no sense.

**

The Merchant of Venice: Pacino's Iron-hard Performance

Michael Radford’s The Merchant of Venice is lukewarm for me. There are some good things in this film: the actors are the main reason I enjoyed it. But then, I really hated this film in terms of direction and misé-en-scene. When these three things come together, then there comes a movie in which I cannot recommend, but still have some enjoyment in.

Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons command the screen in this adaptation. Although Pacino uses his hands too much, at time laughably excessive, he still makes it quite clear what he says and he gives a brilliant portrayal of Shylock. We see everything that one looks for in Shylock: aggression, pity, etc. The contradictions are all seen are done beautifully by Pacino. And Irons does a great job as Antonio. As always, whenever I see him on screen, I don’t want to look at anyone else, even Pacino. His body language, his voice, his very presence and aura just command attention and this film is no different.

The other actors are good, Joseph Fiennes for one. He, like his brother, is a great Shakespearean actor who knows how to give the lines and knows how to tell the viewer his goals and his thoughts distinctly. He also starred in one of my previous reviews, Shakespeare in Love. Then there is Lynn Collins (can be seen in John Carter), who also is quite amazing as Portia.

Other than these actors, there really isn’t much great about this film adaptation. The sets are well built, but there is constant nudity. There is no point to most of the objects and people that are seen on screen. Scenes that take place in the market are ones filled with prostitutes and sexual acts. Also, the director doesn’t seem to fully connect the entire story together. It is realistic of the times, but it just seems pointless to the story that they are telling. In many times of the film, it feels like Michael Radford wants to focus on other things and themes rather than on the story by use of symbolism or emphasis on lines.

The great acting is the only thing that saves this film. Almost everything else in this film falls short, in terms of storytelling, the editing of the play text, and the mise-en-scene and the direction of these all work against the film and the story.

**

A Midspring Night's Movie*

There is so much to say about this adaptation of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. I could fill papers upon papers on the play and the film version. I could give a review on each actor, all of them giving a memorable performance (each named character that is), or of what was cut from the play text and what was added, or how the production design and how it was used in the scenes so well. I could give a detailed description of the fantastic way they use the Pyramus and Thisbe play at the end of the film. I could describe in detail how much more emphasis was given to Bottom and how the lovers and Puck were under used. I could give all of this and more, but I am not going to go too much into detail, otherwise this review would be too long. Instead, here are the Sparknotes versions of the reasons to see and avoid the film, and I hope the reasons to see the film outweigh the reasons to not see it.

Why you should see it:

1. The actors are so amazing. It is not just the sexy Michelle Pfeiffer, the stellar Kevin Kline who fills most of the film with his amazing stage presents, the underused Rupert Everett as the stunning King Oberon, or the spectacular Stanley Tucci as Robin Goodfellow. It is not just these lead credited actors who do an amazing job. The smaller performances of David Strathairn (The Bourne Ultimatum) and Sophie Marceau (Braveheart) as Theseus and Hippolyta are quite capturing of the arguable lovers. They are quite good. Batman himself, Christian Bale, and the underappreciated actor, Dominic West (John Carter) also appears in this film. I love them both. And not only these people, but also Pushing Daisies leading lady (whom I am in love with), Anna Friel, and Harrison Ford’s wife Calista Flockhart, are also have great chemistry. These four actors who play the four lovers are brilliant whenever they are together. One other actor was brilliant and is not often given his due is the, also underappreciated actor, Sam Rockwell, who plays the actor who plays Thisbe in the end. (And then there is the very brief appearance by King Theoden from The Lord of the Rings (Bernard Hill).)

2. The second reason why one should watch this film is because of the ending. The play that the poor players perform in the end in front of the three married couples is fantastically portrayed. Yes, like the rest of the film, the director/writer Michael Hoffman did add some lines here and there, but it was to better the comedic timing of Kevin Kline and the rest of the actors. This alone is worth watching the film. It isn’t on youtube, I looked, so watch the movie to see it.

3. The sets for this film are so much fun. It is like a gigantic theatre set, but on a bigger scale. Some of these sets, the ones in the woods especially, look almost like they can be performed in a large venue such as Gammage. It is fun to see the bedchamber of Titania or to see the mud pit scene with all four lovers fighting over each other. It is just pure entertainment.

Why you shouldn’t see it:

1. A lot of the play text is cut, and a small subplot is added (Bottom has a wife that he is hiding from). Several lines here and there added to give a little more depth, but is not pure Shakespeare (but then again what is?) Also, a lot is changed and moved around. What would have been a long continuous scene in the play text is cut halfway, moves to a new scene, and then brought back to a new position in the film. If you are looking for an exact read through of the play text, with only deletions from the text and everything else there, you will be disappointed.

2. Many of the plots, such as Oberon and the four lovers, take a side-show story line rather than a major one. It is Kevin Kline’s story and his small affair with the steamy Pfeiffer (God, she looks good!) takes center stage. Personally, I think it is a wonderful idea, even though the other stories were not really trimmed that much. It is just saddening to see Tucci and Everett being underused so much. A longer cut would have been fun to see, instead of a measly two hours. Two hours is good for the theatre, but for home, I would love to see more.

This review is one of my longest, so I will stop here, but I think that what Michael Hoffman did right dwarfs what he did wrong. He hits adapted the play extremely well, made it fun, made it his own, and made it appealing to a larger general audience than just to independent movie goers. With some careful casting decisions, some excellent editing choices, fun production ideas, and the ending of the film I think really make this adaptation really good.

*****

*A Note on the Title: It was late at night when I watched this starting my spring break.

I'm In Love with Shakespeare

Shakespeare in Love is not supposed to be a historically accurate film. It is a comedy, a film to enjoy, an art house film for entertainment. Not only are people who are fond of Shakespeare supposed to have fun watching it, it is also supposed to be fun for the average movie goer.

There are some fun little cameos and references of other plays by Shakespeare. Mentions of Two Gentlemen of Verona appear in the opening, references to As You Like It’s Rosalind appear, Hamlet, Titus Andronicus, Twelfth Night, and others all are referred to in one form or another.

Also, though it is not historically accurate, they do get some details right. They set a date for the film and the historical backdrop is for the most part intact as well as some small details about Shakespeare. The screenwriters mention the plague closing the play houses, Christopher Marlowe appears as one of the main stream writers of the time, they do mention Shakespeare’s family such as his wife and children, and they also portray Queen Elizabeth more or less properly of how she relates to the stage (even though they don’t portray her passion for Shakespeare himself.

And not only these points for Shakespeare fans, but there is some great acting and great writing for the average movie goer to enjoy. Although the film may not be deserving of the Best Picture award that it received in the Oscars, there are some great bits. Joseph Fiennes seems almost made for the part of Shakespeare (even though his brother is the better actor, Ralph Fiennes who himself is another famous Shakeseare actor), Colin Firth is brilliant as our villain, Tom Wilkinson and Geoffrey Rush fill the screen with wonderful comedic lines and performances, Ben Affleck somehow gives his best performance for any movie, and Judi Dench is amazing as Queen Elizabeth I. (I don’t mention Paltrow because she is not that great, she never is.) And not only are all of these actors great, but smaller parts are filled with other brilliant actors. Rupert Everett as Marlowe, Imelda Staunton as the Nurse for Lady Viola, Jim Carter as the man who plays the Nurse on stage, and Mark Williams as one of the actors. It is just pure enjoyment to see all of these actors doing so well with some great material and showing their terrific comedic timing.

In one of my last reviews, I commented on the directing of a film, and I think I should mention it here again. I think John Madden did an excellent job at fitting everything together. Not just working with the script and the actors, but with the brilliant set designs, the music, and the editing all fit neat and tidy without any problems. Unlike Anonymous, this film doesn't take itself too seriously, never saying that this is how the play of Romeo and Juliet was written.

With brilliant writing, brilliant acting, and brilliant directing, there is so much to love, even if there are some problems with the historical accuracy. It works well as a romantic comedy, obviously it did because of all of the awards it won.

****

The Suture and Platea of Hamlet’s Youtube

            Kenneth Branagh’s performance of Hamlet, or more specifically his Act 3 Scene 1 soliloquy,

“To be or not to be”, has frequently found its way to Youtube. The video that “kynnusk” uploaded is

but one video of Branagh’s performance of this soliloquy. This Shakespeare video is excellent for

people to see how the rest of this film version is like. Also, this page has many comments and views

which add more into the platea.

            The actual performance is very mellow, but reflects the madness much better through the camerawork. He doesn’t yell or shout the lines. Branagh knows he doesn’t have to portray him in that fashion. He is composed and the depression he shows is through his eyes and even in the somberness of his voice. Instead of moving around a lot or playing the mad man, he uses the mirrors on the wall to play the reflective nature of Hamlet. The king’s hall is a hall of mirrors and he says his lines to one of the mirrors that turns out to be see through on the other side where Claudius and Polonius are spying. He pulls out a knife and he moves closer and closer to the mirror and as he does this, the camera moves away from the back of Hamlet. It zooms into a close-up shot of Hamlet only in the mirror, without seeing his actual body. This now reveals the inner reflection of Hamlet’s depression and madness and is no longer a reflection, but his actual self.

Like many of the scenes in the film version, there is next to no cutting of shots. The only time the camera is interrupted is near the middle where we see Claudius stopping Polonius when Hamlet takes out the knife. Other than that one reaction shot, it is a continuous tracking shot throughout the entire soliloquy. First, this helps give a sense of theatricality of saying the lines without stopping for a break. Kenneth Branagh feels like he is on stage saying the lines because he doesn’t have to stop every few seconds to do another take or another angle. Second, this camerawork makes the audience feel like they are in the film, they are brought into the film, such as the suture theory suggests. We are interrupted less when the constant cutting does not occur. It becomes a constant without any distractions.

But then there is the platea of the Youtube page that adds more interactions for the viewers than the actual film does because there are many things to be found on the platea. There are thumbnails and hyperlinks off to the right that can send the viewer to other clips from other versions of Hamlet or from this version. If a viewer wished to see this scene being performed by other actors, they can see one being performed by Mel Gibson in Franco Zefferelli’s film. There is one from the BBC 2009 version with David Tennant. There is a poor quality recording of Laurence Olivier’s radio reading of Hamlet, there is a clip from The Last Action Hero with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character in the film playing an action version of Hamlet, a scene from Monty Python and the Flying Circus where they make fun of Hamlet, a Spanish version of The Simpsons where Homer is saying lines from Macbeth, and many other videos and clips. The purpose of these hyperlinks is to expand the horizons of the viewers and to have them continuing the experiencing of watching videos.

Another part of the platea is the comment section. Patricia Lange wrote for her first misconception that Youtube is a video sharing site. She defends this argument that it is not a video sharing site because it isn’t just a site that people watch videos, but more of a network of people where they can send the videos to other sites. People send emails with Youtube clips embedded in them, people share these videos on Facebook and on blogs and other sites. But there is quite a large amount of commentary on certain videos. On this video, there are eighteen pages of comments and growing each day, with people discussing the quality of Branagh’s deliverance of the soliloquy and their opinions of the movie as a whole. Some people complain about how slow and boring it is (jjrsj8110 writes that Branagh “says everything in the same tone and voice”), others can’t get over the fact that it is Gilderoy Lockhart from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets instead of Hamlet (xoxrachiee), quite a few viewers think Branagh is a genius (Grahammpatton), and some complain about the age and race of Branagh not fitting the character (TwoTekah). While all of these complaints and praises appear in the comment section, the point of these comments are not to hate or love the video, it is to give feedback and to make the viewer’s voice be heard. The point is to expand the performance from the clip and to include the viewers who become part of the platea. We become performers when we leave a comment behind.

There are even more items that we can find on this screen, on the platea of the page. It is possible to see how many people have viewed the video. In this case there were up to 129,440 viewers. Also, it is possible to see who voted on this clip: “Liked” or “Disliked”. If a viewer doesn’t want to comment on the video, they can still be a part of the performance by clicking one more button. Again, in the case of this video, there were 429 people who have liked this clip and only 8 people who have clicked “Dislike”. If the viewer chooses to take away all of this interactivity while they watch the video, there is a button to make the video fit the screen that the viewer is watching. It takes away all of the distractions and clear away the platea and watch it like they would on a television. All of the other interactivity comes after the video is watched and makes them apart of the platea.

This specific Youtube page shows many of the great aspects of the film, such as it’s the suture theory that Kenneth Branagh embraces, and has a lot of interactivity on the platea. Through both of these aspects of the page, the viewer’s help show the greatness of the film as well as the performance that viewers can be a part of when they interact on the page.

Works Cited

“Kynnusk.” “Hamlet, To be or not to be - Kenneth Branagh.” Youtube.com. Youtube. 07 Oct. 2007. Web. 24 Feb. 2012.

Hitler's Shakespeare

Richard Loncraine’s Richard III is, again, not a great adaptation, but an interesting one that gets some things right. The concept is interesting, the majority of actors is great, and the major sets are wonderfully made, but the concept gets out of the hands of the director and nothing fits together.

The idea behind this adaptation is that England has become a fascist state and Richard III has become a Hitler type character. It is an interesting idea, something unique and different from most adaptation, and in fact I enjoy such ingenuity. However, the problem is that it is problematic and sometimes it takes over the screen rather than the actors and that is all you think about and no longer are thinking about what is actually happening.

The actors, for the most part are great. There is Robert Downey Jr. who seems just comfortable in Shakespeare. Kristin Scott Thomas is also wonderful in many of her scenes. Then there is Jim Carter, Maggie Smith, Jim Broadbent, and Nigel Hawthorne are all good, but it is Ian McKellan who surpasses them all. But even his majesty, his presence, and his diabolical appeal couldn’t not save the movie from Annete Benning. She runs around on set, doesn’t understand the lines (and it shows) and causes everyone she shares a scene with to falter with her. All eyes become fixed on her and the viewer cannot enjoy the rest of the actors.

And the sets are also wonderful. They are built spectacularly and with such grandness. This may be the only factor of the film that does not falter in any way. The viewer is instantly transported into the film through these sets, but is instantly drawn out by Annete Benning and by the concept.

The film has a few good aspects such as the acting, but it is the bad parts that take over and keep the viewer from liking what is good and become consumed by what is bad. Just like Romeo + Juliet or Men of Respect the director and writer tried to make a starkly different worldm around the Shakespeare but didn't work.

**

"Tayton": A Great Pairing

Franco Zefferelli’s The Taming of The Shrew is a good adaptation of the play, just like his adaptation of Romeo and Juliet was a good adaptation of the play. Not a great one, but a good one. What is best about this adaptation are the lead actors. Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor might be the perfect Katherine and Petruchio matching for these two actors.

Richard Burton is big and loud and laughable. He is like a drunken teddy bear. Half of his performance is just laughing. Almost any other actor would have made this sound and look terrible, but Burton’s charisma and physical appearance was perfect for Petruchio, causing his laughing and guffawing not to be too much. He is more than just a teddy bear, but like a demented Santa Clause that you don’t want to sit down on. He owns the screen, even with Taylor opposite of him.

This might sound like Taylor isn’t as good as Burton, but that would not be the case. She is just as good as Burton. Through the eyes she can portray the shrew. It isn’t just her actions and her voice, the viewer can see the madness and the shrewishness through the eyes more than just the tantrums she gives. The wildness and the madness are subdued by laughing, by Burton. It almost looks like it is the laughing is how Burton controls the madness on the screen through that, pushing aside her yelling with it.

Although there are some other great parts in the film, Baptista is just fine and the sets are well designed, there is not much else that I can classify as great filmmaking. But it was a stroke of genius of the casting director to pair these two great actors (a twice married couple) to play these two great characters. His style is interesting and through the casting he has reached a wider audience to the general poplulation.

****

Another Branagh Film

As You Like It is Kenneth Branagh’s return to Shakespeare with a vengeance. The actors, the setting, the music, and the direction all work together to give a magical experience that I don’t think really has been seen in Shakespeare before.

Much like all of Kenneth Branagh’s films, he casts a whole array of actors to fill the characters. Bryce Dallas Howard, Alfred Molina, Romola Garai, Janet McTeer, and Kevin Kline; each actor does an amazing job at portraying their respective character. Howard fills the screen with a depth of reality and emotion. When she is happy, we are happy, and when she is sad we are sad. Molina gives another light hearted aspect to this comedy with some clever little slap-stick jokes. And then there is Kline, who gives the film a sense of Kenneth Branagh acting without the Kenneth Branagh. He does some quite amazing work in this, just like he does in almost any movie of his.

The setting is in Japan. Some of the plot elements in the play don’t really adjust all that well (seeing as how Orlando’s brother is attacked by a lion), but it is still quite beautiful. Just like Hamlet, Branagh films a wondrous, picturesque landscape. The use of natural lighting in this film gives the film a sense of majestic otherness. There is not much else to say about how well Tim Harvey builds these sets other than how exquisitely built they are.

All of this works well with the music. Patrick Doyle, another Branagh alum, uses a quiet violin that connects the film together with a lovely little theme. The music is more underscored than anything else, other than the moments when the setting is changed to a new landscape. The music is not Doyle’s greatest music, not like for Branagh’s Hamlet or for his Henry V where it is a grand operatic, epic score, but it still is quite good and the main theme is well composed.

Lastly, the direction of everything is great. (I feel like I should say this at least once in one of my reviews.) Most people don’t really think of a director’s job other than just making a good movie. It is the director who has to make sure everything works and fits well together. A director has to get a crew together and has to manage everything. He is more of a manager and a choreographer of sorts. If everything runs like a well-oiled machine and each department does a good job and the film works well and works with the demographic of the film, then the director did a good job. Branagh did a good job. Branagh fit things perfectly together and it all works really well.

Another great film by Branagh, it is a long time since his last great Shakespeare adaptation since Hamlet. This is not for the average film goer, just to those who love a well-crafted, independent film, not just Shakespeare films. It is great acting, the usual great landscapes, and wonderful music all mixed together by Branagh’s fantastic directing style. A wonderfully new adaptation that is unique and funny. This may be just another review of the actors and the music and the setting, but I think these all should work in a film, especially in a Shakespeare film.

*****

Men I Disrespect

The gangster film of Macbeth furthers my belief that there are no good adaptations of Macbeth. The acting, the tone and the genre of the film, and the excessive nudity all make this film a disorganized mess of a classic play.

John Tuturro is terrible in the film. I never once believe that this man is a threatening mobster. Maybe it’s because I have seen him only in comedic roles, but I just can’t take him seriously. [The actress who plays Lady Macbeth] is decent, but she plays insane before Lady Macbeth even goes insane (but in a different version of insanity). Stanley Tucci and Peter Boyle are usually good, but Tucci is underused, and Boyle doesn’t seem the threatening type. He seems more of the Marlon Brando type of mobster, one who has other people do things, not doing them himself. With miscasting, the characters are unbelievable.

Then there is the tone of the film that tries to force certain plot points in the play into the gangster genre. The witches are played by a weird old lady, her son or something, and then an ugly, thin man who doesn’t really talk. They are fortune tellers who Macbeth just happens to stumble cross. The predictions that they make in the end to let Macbeth know when he will die try so hard to be exactly how they appear in the play. Rather than just letting it naturally be just a gangster film, it tries hard to push the idea that this is Macbeth. 10 Things I hate About You or She’s the Man are movies that let Shakespeare's plot bend and meld slightly into our world but mostly had very little in common with the actual play. This film pushed Macbeth really hard, trying to hit every main plot point in an exact modern term without even using the language of the play.

The other major problem is the fact that there is so much nudity. Tuturro is always naked in his scenes with his wife and we always see him naked. There is a random sex scene that they have in one of their interactions. There is no service to the story and just makes the audience want to laugh. It takes away from the seriousness of the film and causes a lot of akwardness.

With a series of miscasting, forced plot elements and nudity, Men of Respect is a disorganized film that tries too hard to be something. It forces at the audience, which ruins the experience and the film and the play with it. It may appeal to those who like the gangster genre (which I am not), it may not. I honestly don't know. But to me it seemed too hard to be a cool gnagster flick but failed utterly.

*

Some Comedic Hamlet Sketches

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwbB6B0cQs4

This first clip is a clip with Hugh Laurie and Rowan Atkinson editing Hamlet. I hope this helps how funny Hugh Laurie can be. (Except this is what I think that he had in mind for Romeo and Juliet rather than Hamlet.) I enjoy the humor of this and it also give us a better understanding that what we have is not necessarily Shakespeare's version, and that it was a collabortion and that there were changes back then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWndLb3z5nY

This other clip is from The Muppet Show. Christopher Reeve playing Hamlet. This also is amazing. I love it! Can't go wrong with the Muppets. This was just a fun video that can introduce kids to the importance of Shakespeare.

A Plague on Your Movie: Romeo + Juliet

Baz Lurhman’s Romeo + Juliet may be one of the worst films I have ever seen. The first ten minutes play more like a trailer to a film rather than an opening credit scene. It moves at a rapid rate that it is impossible to understand what exactly is happening. The majority of actors aren’t trained in Shakespeare which makes most of the meaning go away. And then the music really gets in the way of the story and becomes something that it should never do: becomes its own, separate entity rather than work cohesively with the film.

If one looks at brief glimpses of how Romeo + Juliet was filmed, then it might seem like a beautifully unique film. When seen in its entirety, it becomes one long mess of terrible camera work and terribly built sets. Trying to do something poetic with his film, Baz throws at the screen hundreds of images, all in a confusing, rapid, and schizophrenic fashion that any meaning is lost. And in a series of scenes with Juliet and her mother and her nurse which are supposed to be more subdued and mellow scenes in the play, they speed up the camera work as if it was some silent film where everyone moves at a faster rate. There is no point to do what they did, and it baffles me whenever I try to think about it. And then, with the repetitive imagery, Baz constantly places shots of fireworks in his film. Is it symbolic with some sexual act? Is it supposed to mean the loud chaos that occurs around him? I have no idea, and by half way through the film, it becomes laughable.

Then the actors, my God, the terrible actors. The nurse and the friar may be the only good actors in the entire film. Leonardo di Caprio is so terrible as Romeo, trying to look hot for the fan girls, but ultimately looking like a whiny boy with a gun. The actor who plays Mercutio is just as bad, who looks like a drag queen and acts like it. I never feel threatened by him and I don’t care about him when he dies. And Claire Danes can’t cry. It sounds like she is choking on a really bad dinner that her mother forced down her throat. She, just like diCrapio (that was not a type-o), tries to look sexy and hot on camera, but instead makes us men revolt at the sight of her.

One last thing that I didn't enjoy about this film was the music. It didn’t work. It became so forced and overpowering that it became its own thing; a soundtrack that doesn’t work with the film, but instead works against it and becomes its own, separte entity is not a good soundtrack. Every second of the music is out of place, even more out of place than the camera work and the actors.

This film may appeal to teenagers who enjoy this type of seizure inducing camerawork, obviously the same people who like listening to overpowering music and attending raves that blind the average American. I simply don't see anyone who doesn't like loud music, schizophrenic images, and blinding lights (and Leonardo diCaprio) liking this film.

Everything about this film is done terribly. From the pacing and camerawork to the actors and music, nothing in this film works, unless you consider working against each other working well. I will be trying really hard to forget this experience and go back to Kenneth Branagh or Zefferelli for my Shakespeare fix.

*

The Musical Epic on a Grand Setting; A Comparison of Henry V

Shakespeare can be interpreted in several different ways; every person who reads it can interpret it differently. Certain decisions on where an adaptation is set or which lines are to be said furthers a director’s vision of a film. The major way for a director to set his own vision is to place it in the right genre. This is where Kenneth Branagh’s version differs from Laurence Olivier’s film: the scope, the genre, of Branagh’s film is more of an epic than Olivier’s film due to the use of its music by Patrick Doyle and the sets by Tim Harvey, not because of the battles.

The music in the two adaptations, the non-diegetic or asynchronous sound for the score, is completely different in the two adaptations. Olivier kept the adaptation in the Elizabethan era and so the music is more along the line of that time. In the first scene, he even keeps the portrayals on an Elizabethan stage and so the music is synchronous music, or diegetic music, because there is an actual group of musicians playing the music (OxfordGreats 2:46). When Branagh set out to create his epic adaptation, he uses Patrick Doyle’s music to reflect the grand scale of the film, the patriotism that King Harry symbolizes, and the bloody battles that are fought. He places the film in its historical time, including no synchronous music in his adaptation, only asynchronous music, or the orchestral score, that one would think an epic would have rather than Elizabethan-type music.

There is one specific scene that the music is used to further each of the films’ respective goals: the battle of Harfleur. During the battle of Harlfeur in Branagh’s film, the music swells and crescendos into a powerful score. (Branagh 43:33-45:20) The battle is very subdued in the Olivier film, calling for calmer music and more mellow rather than a large, brassy feel. “Once more onto the breech, dear friends, once more,/Or Close the wall with our English dead.” (Norton 3.1.1-2) This speech in Olivier’s film is said outside of the battle and there is very little music to hear. It is completely vacant of all music to compliment Olivier’s speech (OxfordGreats 44:17). What little music is played is more mellow than grand. However, Doyle’s music gives more of a sense of power and prestige than that of Olivier. It is quicker and louder because Branagh keeps the men right outside of the gates, making the music louder and more menacing and more urgent than that of Olivier’s film.

A major way that Olivier’s music for his film is different from that of Branagh’s film is the absence of a main theme. Patrick Doyle’s music uses the line from the end of the battle where King Harry shouts out “Let there be sung Non Nobis and Te Deum.” (Norton 4.8.117) From this line, Doyle composes his theme, “Non Nobis Domine” which all other musical themes of the film derive from. (Branagh 1:55:01) It plays during the battle of Agincourt and parts play in the siege of Harfleur. It follows the action wherever it goes, which is one aspect needed for an epic, one that Olivier does not have; a theme that connects the entire film together, musically (i.e. the music from Gladiator, Braveheart, The Lord of the Rings). Olivier uses fairly generic music that only is used to manipulate the emotions of the audience at the time, rather than as a two hour operatic score like Doyle’s. Other themes that Doyle composes can be heard in the scenes with Catherine, such as the first scene that we see her (Branagh 51:40). These add more depth to the score, for both emotion and for a grander scale, again something that Olivier’s film is without.

The other main aspect of an epic is grand set pieces and large locations landscapes. Tim Harvey designed some amazing sets, one in particular is the set of King Harry’s hall from the first few scenes (Branagh 5:36). Olivier blocked these scenes in the Globe, so the set could not take shape in a grand hall as Branagh did (OxfordGreats 4:15). The set for the great hall in Branagh’s Henry V is actually quite small, but using minimalistic lighting, he makes it huge. The chiaroscuro lighting mixes the shadows and the bright sun coming in through the windows and doors and tiny candles scattered across the hall and the use of cinematography and camera placement expand the set twice in size.

And where it is most obvious that Olivier’s sets for Harfleur and Agincourt are exactly that, a set, Branagh’s sets are filmed on location, using a forest during the events around the battle of Agincourt. For instance, Branagh has Derek Jacobi, who played Chorus, delivering his lines on the beach in Southampton, creating a majestic shot of the sea and the cliffs of southern England (Branagh 22:32-23:44). Because Olivier all but discarded the plot element with the three traitors, he instantly had King Harry get on the ships and used a model to represent the fleet (OxfordGreats 37:28). Branagh’s is more elegant and more realistic than Olivier’s film through the use of live landscapes.

Not by the fact that the fight scenes and action are more dominant, but through the music of Patrick Doyle and the sets of Tim Harvey, Kenneth Branagh’s version of Henry V is more of an epic than that of Laurence Olivier’s adaptation. Branagh uses non-digenetic sounds and score to better effect and appeal than Olivier. His set pieces and the lighting of those sets and his location sets are better designed and more realistic and grander than that of Olivier’s film. Branagh’s is more gritty and is most definitely more of an action film, but in terms of an epic in the likes of Gladiator, this film is more along those lines to in part to the work of these two men.

Work Cited

Kenneth Branagh, dir. Henry V. Perf. Kenneth Branagh, Robbie Coltrane, Judi Dench, Ian Holm, Derek Jacobi and Emma Thompson. MGM Home Entertainment, 1989. Film.

OxfordGreats. “Henry V (1944) – Laurence Olivier.” Youtube.com. Youtube. 31 Dec. 2011. Web. 29 Jan. 2012.

Shakespeare, William. “Henry V.” The Norton Shakespeare. Eds. Greenblatt, Stephen, Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, and Katharine Eisaman Maus. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008.   1481-1548. Print.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Funny

Tim Roth and Gary Oldman are an amazing comedic duo. The writing for the play and the film feels like it was written for these two actors. Tom Stoppard, the writer of Shakespeare in Love, directed and wrote this film based on the play that he wrote, perfectly mixed Shakespeare's lines with his own. Their timing is perfect, the situations that they are placed in (the scenes from Hamlet that their scenes are mixed with) seems almost too perfect.

Other than how perfect everything is, there is not much to say. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is about the two smaller roles in Hamlet and their story surrounding the events before and during the play. The only other character that appears dominantly is The Player, the actor that performs a play for Elsinore Castle for Hamlet to provoke a reaction from Claudius. Richard Dreyfuss plays The Player. A wonderful performance as well, Dreyfuss chews the scenery like it is an all-you-can-eat buffet.

Some of the things Gary Oldman does is funnier than most comedies made today. A description of these certain scenes and things that he does doesn’t seem quite so funny, but as it plays out, it is. One scene, Tim Roth is trying to listen in on Hamlet and Ophelia while behind him, Oldman is making paper airplanes and tossing them. The airplanes then fly right behind Hamlet and Ophelia while they are doing their dramatic scene. Another, Roth is trying to listen to Hamlet again while Oldman sees a line of pots tied to a laundry pole and tries to make them work as one of the gravity metal balls that one would see at a science exhibit. And together, both Roth and Oldman do a great scene of Questions as a tennis match.

I can’t say much more about the film other than this, but it is a really great movie. It is a little long, some scenes could have been cut down a little, but other than that, not many other problems. This film is meant for every type of person who likes comedies as will Shakespeare fans. It is plain enjoyments where anyone can enjoy it.

*****

2 Actors I Love About You

10 Things I Hate About You is Shakespeare appopriated into today. Heath Ledger, the Petruchio of the film, plays scary, witty, and romantic perfectly. And Julia Stiles, the infamous shrew Heath Ledger's Patrick Verona falls in love with, plays cutthroat, funny, and sexy perfectly. Together, these two are a great match and it is fun to watch these two go at it.

When we first see Katarina, we look at her and think, “Emo loner.” Not the kind of person that one would want to spend time with. A sociopath to the nth degree. A perfect substitution for a shrew from Elizabethan England. A woman who doesn’t want anything to do with any man and never wants to date is perfect perfect modern substitution. And Julia Stiles plays it perfectly: a cutthroat woman with all of hell’s fury behind her. Every scene before she becomes “tamed” is fun to watch; you enjoy watching her but you don’t want to spend time with her, except for maybe the party scene where she has too much to drink and jumps on a table and starts to dance seductively.

Then there is Heath Ledger. When we first meet him, he is scary. He is one of those people that you don’t want to be around him or even talk to him because you have no idea what he would do to you. Everything you say needs to be carefully thought out. And seeing the transformation that he has in the film from a stone wall to a heartless romantic is great. Not at all like how Petruchio was in the play. He didn’t have much of a transformation at all. It was all about Katherine changing her ways, not both of them changing.

This film is funny and these two lead actors are great, but how well does it stack up to the play text of Taming of the Shrew? Not very well. Because it is so modern, it is not possible for everything to translate. Those who call Shakespeare universal might mean that the themes are universal, but that can be said about anyone. The plots for his plays cannot transcend every generation, our generation for one, or at least, not all of his plays can be.

One other point is that it does work very well with the audience that it intends to reach. It is not meant for Shakespeare aficionados to enjoy, but for the average American teenage movie goer to have a laugh or go on a date with.

All in all, this works very well for what it is supposed to do: it has great acting and reaches his audience perfectly. The problem is that it takes way too many liberties with the playtext and even though the acting is great, there are a few problems with a few other elements of the filmmaking.
****

Hamlet Like You've Never Seen Before

Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet is long. The length alone is off putting. Who would sit down to watch a four hour long film, especially a four hour long Shakespearean film? Shakespeare and cinephiles, that’s who. If you are not a lover of film or a lover of Shakespeare, you will not like this film. Every line of dialogue that can possibly be found is in this version of the film, however, it may be one of the most beautiful, aesthetically pleasing film in the history of cinema.

Like the epics of David Lean, Kenneth Branagh takes the world of Hamlet and expounds it into a much larger scope, filling these larger than life characters in huge set pieces and landscapes. He focuses more on the growing threat of Fortinbras than almost every other performance of Hamlet, giving it more of an international incident rather than a small family matter. He films this movie with a more brightness and color and beauty than so many other performances. Where Zefferelli’s Hamlet keeps the classic dark, moody feeling of the play, Branagh sets his film in Denmark in the winter, with snow and more daylight and more color in the castle. There is even a hall of mirrors in the castle, bringing more light and radiance. The significance is that the pretty, bright, vibrant world there is darkness that lies just beneath the surface.

Where this version also shines is with cast. Though major actors are side stepped by lesser known actors (actors such as Robin Williams, Timothy Spall, Charleston Heston, Judi Dench, Richard Attenborough, Rufus Sewell, and Gerard Depardieu all being left in the darkness) the major actors that Branagh still uses are the always superb Derek Jacobi and Julie Christie and the not-yet-famous Kate Winslet. Not being much of a fan of her work (though I cannot deny her talent), I believe she did a much better performance than Helena Bonham Carter in Zefferelli’s version (a-gasp) in the role of Ophelia. She smiles in the film, she has an innocent presence about herself in this version, something that is not often shown, and she plays insane quite brilliantly, more subdued than over the top. I don’t need to say much about Jacobi or Christie, they are just gods among actors so there is little I can say, but what they can do is perfectly pick apart each line and deliver each one of them to help compliment what the other actors are doing. They keep the pacing down and they never raise their voice causing their characters to be more soft spoken.

Every Ken Branagh film that I watch, the sets always surpasses every expectation that I have. Tim Harvey, the production designer, creates breath-taking sets and finds amazing locations to film. The castle that doubles for Elsinore is a wonder and works well on the epic scope of the film. As previously stated, the hall for the film is bright as can be with a hall of mirrors and golden, bright colored furnishings and designs fill the hall. Tim Harvey truly emphasizes Branagh’s idea of darkness underlying an otherwise happy-looking world.

One other key factor that I love about this film (and it is true to all of Kenneth Branagh’s films) is the music. Patrick Doyle’s brilliant music always hits the perfect mark. Never has he been too overwhelming and never has his music been anything but aesthetically pleasing. I could listen to his music all day every day and never be tired of its brilliance and beauty. And like with everything in the film, it is large and epic in scope, with a huge orchestra playing then themes throughout the entire film.

There are only two major problems that must be stated: Kenneth Branagh is a genius Shakespearean actor/director, however, when he directs himself, he just let’s go and never stops. He becomes so enamored with the speeches that he soon loses all meaning because of the rapidness of his speech. Kenneth jumps right into it and thinks he is running track, the complete opposite of what Derek Jacobi does. The other problem is the actor who plays The Ghost, Brian Blessed. And not simply the actor, but everything that Branagh does around the Ghost. Brian Blessed becomes just like Branagh: he thinks too hard about the way to say it rather than how to say the words. Yes, there is a difference. His voice hisses and gasps, almost like Treebeard, a very raspy voice, speaking while he is breathing in a raspy voice. When Hamlet first sees the Ghost and runs after him in the forest, the camera cuts to the ground which is cracking and opening with mist and smoke pouring out in almost a random, badly cut fashion. It is weird and a harsh contrast to the rest of the film. He films it in a lot jumpier, quicker, and darker way than the rest of it and not much is understood.

Other than these few problems, almost everything else is perfect and dead on the mark. Branagh knew how to depict the great play and bring to light more of the subplots of the tragedy and film it in more of a unique way, a way that not a lot of other filmmakers or academics had thought of before.

*****

Sir Laurence Olivier's Great Film

I have hardly ever seen a film made before the 1960’s, and never have I seen a Laurence Olivier film. His renowned Henry V is my first and it is the second time I have seen the play being performed (Kenneth Branagh’s film is the only performance I have seen of this play). And I see why it was so great for its time and I see why it is still great for today.

It is one of the first film that I have seen from the 40’s and earlier that was filmed and edited in a more flowing, natural way than was commonly seen in films of its time. The cameras move a lot more often instead of being stationary as most films are filmed. It is difficult to put into words how the films of this time and the films of our time are different in terms of the use of cinematography. The movement of the camras looks a lot more fluid and proper than steady and solid and stationary. But when you watch an Alfred Hitchcock film of the 30’s or 40’s and even the 50’s and then you watch a thriller from today, there are more differences than just being filmed in black and white and the sound and picture quality. The way the films are shot is more different and the camera work is more agile and fluid today than it was before. The editing also helpped a lot and the cutting moves a lot quicker than it did back then. But in this film, the transition from this more stationary and slow edit of a film to the more active and quicker cut editing can be seen.

Also, the acting is quite interesting in this film. Although most of these actors are not as good or as famous as some of the major actors of the time, they all still give great performances, most especially Olivier as King Harry. The way he gives his lines shows how well he can convey Shakespeare’s dialogue. Many actors cannot convey the meaning behind the words and simply state the words as if they are reading in a high school English class reading of the play. All of the actors take their time stating their lines, carefully picking each line apart so we as an audience know exactly what we need to know to comprehend the scene. Olivier is the master, I never felt too bogged down with what he said or confused about what he is saying, because not only does he give us time to hear what he says through careful pauses, but he also uses his body language well to express his meaning. One specific scene is the famous “Once more unto the breach” and even his other famous speech, the St. Crispin’s Day speech, he expresses himself perfectly and carries himself across the field just as a king would and not in an overly dramatic presence. He speaks quickly in the “Once more unto the breach” during the invasion of Harfleur, and a lot is happening around him, what with shouting and fighting and music, but he speaks with brilliant diction that the audience can understand his words. One other great scene is the only monologue that he Harry gives, the only one he says in private. Olivier keeps the speech in his head, making it feel more of him saying it to himself rather than to us as an audience. And, again, the pauses and the fluidity of the speech are just right for the monologue.

The Chorus is used to great effect (it is difficult not to use it brilliantly because there are so many ways to depict his introductory speeches which recap the events between each acts and the Prologue introducing the need for us to believe this play is real). The opening of the film is during Shakespeare’s time, and the first scene and the Prologue are said to an Elizabethan audience in the Globe. The rest of the film does not stay on the Elizabethan stage, but still utilizes the Elizabethan clothing and architecture rather than the way Kenneth Branagh does in its historically accurate setting. Though I prefer the way Kenneth Branagh has his film version work, I still see the merit and greatness of his adaptation. The models of London in the time were not just great, but astoundingly beautiful.

Overall, I have very little to criticize about this film. It reached its audience of the average Brit to be proud to British and as a global entertainment film while still being an art house film. My first Laurence Olivier film truly was a great introduction to what I have heard is one of the geniuses of cinema history. I look forward to watching more of his films in the future and I highly recommend this film version of Henry V.

*****

The Films of William Shakespeare

There are many films of William Shakespeare, whether they be direct adaptations like Romeo + Juliet or Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet, or modern day interpretations like She's the Man or O. Either way, there are several films out in the world that are adapted from Shakespeare. However, though Shakespeare plays are almost all good, there are some adaptations that are simply too terrible.

I plan to write reviews on many of these Shakespearean films, reviewing not just if the film is good or bad, but on how well the actors portrayed the complex dialogue, how well any time and setting differences from the play work in the film, how well the film has reached its intended audience (such as 10 Things I Hate About You would be directed to a teenage audience and Kenneth Branagh's Henry V is more of passing itself off as a war film), and a few other items.

Works Cited

Branagh, Kenneth, dir. As You Like It. Perf. Romola Garai, Bryce Dallas Howard, Kevin Kline, Adrian Lester, Janet McTeer, Alfred Molina, and David Oyelowo. HBO Films, 2006. Film.



Branagh, Kenneth, dir. Hamlet. Perf. Kenneth Branagh, Julie Christie, Billy Crystal, Gerard Depardieu, Charlton Heston, Derek Jacobi, Jack Lemmon, Rufus Sewell, Robin Williams, and Kate Winslet. Castle Rock Entertainment, 1996. Film.



Branagh, Kenneth, dir. Henry V. Perf. Kenneth Branagh, Robbie Coltrane, Judi Dench, Ian Holm, Derek Jacobi, and Emma Thompson. MGM Home Entertainment, 1989. Film.



Branagh, Kenneth, dir. Much Ado About Nothing. Perf. Kenneth Branagh, Michael Keaton, Robert Sean Leonard, Keanu Reeves, Emma Thompson, and Denzel Washington. MGM Home Entertainment. 1993. Film.



Hoffman, Michael, dir. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Perf. Rupert Everett, Calista Flockhart, Kevin Kline, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Stanley Tucci. Fox Searchlight Pictures. 1999. Film



Junger, Gil, dir. 10 Things I Hate About You. Perf. Julia Stiles, Heath Ledger, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Larisa Oleynik, David Krumholtz, Andrew Keegan, and Larry Miller. Touchstone Pictures. 1999. Film.



Kynnusk. “Hamlet, To be or not to be - Kenneth Branagh.” Youtube.com. Youtube. 07 Oct. 2007. Web. 24 Feb. 2012.



Loncraine, Richard, dir. Richard III. Perf. Ian McKellen, Annette Bening, Jim Broadbent, Robert Downey Jr., Nigel Hawthorne, Kristin Scott Thomas, Maggie Smith, John Wood, and Dominic West. United Artists, 1995. Web.



Luhrmann, Baz, dir. Romeo + Juliet. Perf. Leonardo DiCaprio, Claire Danes, Brian Dennehy, John Leguizamo, Pete Postlewaite, Paul Servino, and Diane Venora. 20^th Century Fox, 1996. Web.



Madden, John, dir. Shakespeare in Love. Perf. Gwyneth Paltrow, Joseph Fiennes, Geoffrey Rush, Colin Firth, Ben Affleck, and Judi Dench. Miramax, 1998. Film



Nicksasexiebeast. “Shakespeare sketch - A Small Rewrite.” Youtube.com. Youtube. 31 May 2006. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.



Nunn, Trevor, dir. Twelfth Night; or What You Will. Perf. Helena Bonham Carter, Richard E. Grant, Nigel Hawthorne, Ben Kingsley, Mel Smith, Imelda Staunton, Toby Stephens, and Imogen Stubbs. Fine Line Features, 1996. Film.



OxfordGreats. “Henry V (1944) – Laurence Olivier.” Youtube.com. Youtube. 31 Dec. 2011. Web. 2 Jan. 2012.



Radford, Michael, dir. The Merchant of Venice. Perf. Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons, Joseph Fiennes, and Lynn Collins. Sony Pictures Classics. 2004. Film.



Reilly, William, dir. Men of Respect. Perf. John Turturro, Katherine Borowitz, Rod Steiger, Stanley Tucci, Dennis Farina, and Peter Boyle. Columbia Pictures, 1990. Film.



Scooterpiety. “The Muppet Show - Hamlet/Brush Up Your Shakespeare.” 18 Sep. 2008. Web. 14 Feb. 2012.



Stoppard, Tom, dir. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. Perf. Tim Roth, Richard Dreyfuss, Gary Oldman, and Iain Glen. Cinemcom Pictures, 1990. Film.



Taymor, Julie, dir. The Tempest. Perf. Helen Mirren, Djimon Hounsou, Russell Brand, Alfred Molina, and Chris Cooper. Touchstone Pictures. 2010. Film.



Zefferelli, Franco, dir. The Taming of the Shrew. Perf. Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, Natasha Pyne, and Michael Hordern. Columbia Pictures, 1967. Film.