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.

*