![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drwexThis is the Joss Whedon piece, done with his familiar cast of friends and filmed at his home. His daughter's bedroom features prominently, for example, and you'll recognize most of the cast from previous Joss efforts, including Buffy, Dollhouse, and Avengers. Three out of five stars if you are a Joss fan and getting to watch Clark Gregg and Reed Diamond verbally spar in the Bard's language is as fun for you as it is for me. Otherwise, two stars.
When adapting any Shakespeare there are two major choices: where to set it and how to adapt the dialog. Theater majors write whole dissertations on the choices made in adapting Shakespeare and I'm not one of those so I'll just tell you what I thought of Whedon's choices: confusing.
Here's the thing - the setting is updated. People wear modern clothes (the actors' own, I believe, since there wasn't much in the way of a wardrobe budget) and there are modern devices like cell phones that show video, cameras, etc. But Whedon uses (mostly) the original dialog. This gives the film the air of one giant affectation, as when someone thinks they'll come across as more intelligent by using polysyllabic words. It takes some doing to get used to these modern-dressed people using "My lord" and "your grace" and similar.
OK, so it's an affectation. It's a comedy and affectation can be funny; Shakespeare mocks affectation in many of his plays. But it's just all the more weird and jarring when one of the actors slips in a modern word or phrase. I don't have the text nearly memorized but several bits really stood out for me and threw me out of the groove.
Speaking of comedy, it seems sadly true that none of the actors here are good at physical comedy. As a result it almost entirely fails to be amusing, except for one Amy Acker pratfall that is actually laugh-out-loud funny. I get that Joss is nodding to commedia from which Shakespeare stole liberally and which informed productions of plays in his time, but comedy is hard, including physical comedy, and this looked painful and embarrassing, not humorous.
Then there's the issue of the dialog choices. It's been noted elsewhere that Much Ado has a sexist streak a mile wide but so be it. That's there and changing it would change the core of the play. However, Joss also leaves in place some other problematic lines, including one racist comment about "an Etheope" which the actor delivers while standing in front of a black woman! Come on, guys, you can do better than that.
Joss also cuts a fair bit out of the play's ending dialog (at least, as I recall it) which leaves the final scenes feeling rushed and short-changed.
I can't leave this without giving extra kudos to Amy Acker. In her past Joss roles she's played characters known for attributes other than physical. Dr. Claire Saunders (Dollhouse) is a medical professional with emotional troubles. Fred Burkle (Angel) is a walking brain with neuroses. In Much Ado she smokes. She's got exactly the combination of verbal zing, physical allure, and steely determination that I think Beatrice is intended to have. She and Alexis Denisof have great screen chemistry throughout the film.
When adapting any Shakespeare there are two major choices: where to set it and how to adapt the dialog. Theater majors write whole dissertations on the choices made in adapting Shakespeare and I'm not one of those so I'll just tell you what I thought of Whedon's choices: confusing.
Here's the thing - the setting is updated. People wear modern clothes (the actors' own, I believe, since there wasn't much in the way of a wardrobe budget) and there are modern devices like cell phones that show video, cameras, etc. But Whedon uses (mostly) the original dialog. This gives the film the air of one giant affectation, as when someone thinks they'll come across as more intelligent by using polysyllabic words. It takes some doing to get used to these modern-dressed people using "My lord" and "your grace" and similar.
OK, so it's an affectation. It's a comedy and affectation can be funny; Shakespeare mocks affectation in many of his plays. But it's just all the more weird and jarring when one of the actors slips in a modern word or phrase. I don't have the text nearly memorized but several bits really stood out for me and threw me out of the groove.
Speaking of comedy, it seems sadly true that none of the actors here are good at physical comedy. As a result it almost entirely fails to be amusing, except for one Amy Acker pratfall that is actually laugh-out-loud funny. I get that Joss is nodding to commedia from which Shakespeare stole liberally and which informed productions of plays in his time, but comedy is hard, including physical comedy, and this looked painful and embarrassing, not humorous.
Then there's the issue of the dialog choices. It's been noted elsewhere that Much Ado has a sexist streak a mile wide but so be it. That's there and changing it would change the core of the play. However, Joss also leaves in place some other problematic lines, including one racist comment about "an Etheope" which the actor delivers while standing in front of a black woman! Come on, guys, you can do better than that.
Joss also cuts a fair bit out of the play's ending dialog (at least, as I recall it) which leaves the final scenes feeling rushed and short-changed.
I can't leave this without giving extra kudos to Amy Acker. In her past Joss roles she's played characters known for attributes other than physical. Dr. Claire Saunders (Dollhouse) is a medical professional with emotional troubles. Fred Burkle (Angel) is a walking brain with neuroses. In Much Ado she smokes. She's got exactly the combination of verbal zing, physical allure, and steely determination that I think Beatrice is intended to have. She and Alexis Denisof have great screen chemistry throughout the film.
