Skip to main content

Thou naughty varlet!

Much Ado About Nothing
(2012)

I’m beginning to think Joss Whedon’s lustre is wearing off, just as he’s attained the popularity he has always yearned. I though Avengers was great enough, like everyone else, but where once I revelled in his snappy self-aware dialogue I’m now more likely to wince at the stark truth that every one of his characters sounds the same. Much Ado fortunately doesn’t have that problem, since it’s adapted from the Bard, but I suspect the ever-falsely-modest one was tempted to “punch-up“ some of Shakey’s lesser dialogue.


I say suspect, as I could only tolerate a minute of Joss’ smug commentary before switching it off. I think it was around the time of Dollhouse that I started to get wise to his limitations; he’d already come up short with the last couple of seasons of Buffy, but the final year of Angel (which he unceremoniously took the reins of) might be my favourite of anything he’s done. And I was there urging him on to success during the wilderness period where he couldn’t seem to catch a break, either in movies or TV. About the same time J J Abrams was going from strength to ubiquitous strength. But Much Ado might be the point where I can no see beyond his personality/voice to appreciate the good things he’s doing.


I was on guard from the opening credits, where it becomes clear Whedon intends to add maestro to his all-round entertainer status. Next he’ll be doing a one-man Hamlet to a legion of adoring Whedonites. Or Browntrousers, as a certain tranche are called. While I’m sure many will buy into the self-aggrandising spiel that Much Ado, filmed at Whedon’s house as a “break” from the big budget stress of Avengers with just some of his pals, was a warm-hearted recharging of batteries, I can’t help see it as an entirely cynical “Look at me!” enterprise. Joss can do a micro-budget arty home movie and tackle Shakespeare better than anyone all in one weekend! (I know, it took him 12 days, but doesn’t it just scream talent?) He even makes multi-media magic in his sleep, this man!


Credit to Whedon, though, for translating the play in an accessible and comprehensible form. I might be churlish and note that Sir Ken managed to do the same thing 20 years ago (is it that long?) His version feels a bit more random that Whedon’s, thanks in main to his eclectic casting, but he also scores more decisively by filming in Italy. There’s a warmth and vibrancy to both his setting and the delivery. In contrast, the black and white photography employed by Whedon makes the piece feel unnecessarily subdued. This, and the contemporary setting, serves to emphasise what doesn’t work rather than what does.


So, while the dramatics and reflections on love, both genuine and idealistic, resound capably, the differences in the sexual mores and attitudes of Shakespeare’s time are more glaring. And the comedy generally doesn’t quite have the zest one might expect. Whedon also manages to bungle the “death” of Hero, staging the moment and its repercussions unconvincingly; generally the “play” of fakery and mistaken identity doesn’t work as well as it should due to Whedon’s chosen setting.


Because the cinematography seems like an affectation for budgetary reasons (everything looks a bit classier) rather than motivated artistically, and because it really is home made, there’s a sense of a polished student or amateur dramatics project rather than a really sharp interpretation of the play in its own right. The shortcomings of the make-do setting are often very evident, such that the ways Whedon thinks around his chez (camera placements, eavesdropping on others’ conversations) draw attention to themselves rather than flow seamlessly. And I’m saying no to the musical interludes.


But the director’s troupe of thespians is mostly great. Leading the way are Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker as Benedick and Beatrice, both of whom deftly portray their characters’ cynicism and thence burgeoning love for each other. And both of whom are fine physical comedians; Denisof attempting to impress Acker by performing push-ups, and Acker falling downstairs while attempting to sneak a listen, capture the sense of fun missing elsewhere. Whedon elaborates on the implication that these two had a history with the opening post-coital scene, adding some immediate and well-judged tension.


Reed Diamond, always impressive in a low key way, from Homicide: Life on the Street going forward, makes a relaxed and naturalistic Don Pedro, while Clark Gregg is sparkling as Leonato (replacing an unavailable Anthony Head). Whedon also uses some of his nerdsters well; Fran Kanz’s Claudio is besotted with Jilliam Morgese’s Hero and proves surprisingly effective when he believes she has cheated on him. Tom Lenk appears as Dogberry’s deputy Verges (Fillion and Lenk have a nice rapport going on). Much has been said of much-loved Nathan Fillion as Dogberry, but I have to admit I found him distracting for all the wrong reasons. I haven’t watched Castle since the second season, so when I first laid eyes on him I puzzled over why he was wearing a fat suit. And then I became preoccupied by how it was he got so big.


Much Ado is good fun, and no doubt it will take its place as an aid to school kids forced to study one of Shakespeare’s most accessible plays, but it does smell strongly of Whedon showing off as he adds another feather to his cap. Well-done Joss; you “get” Shakespeare. It’s his versatile performers who really impress, given a chance to show off their chops. They rise to the occasion. 


***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for