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 just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

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 system when Burton did it (even…

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.