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. 


***

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .