Anyone seen Joss Whedon's Much Ado? (Open spoilers.)

Cafe Society
1

Joss Whedon filmed a version of Much Ado About Nothing using many actors that were well known to him (Alex Denisof, Nathan Fillion, Clark Gregg) at his own home, in black and white, between (I think) shooting The Avengers. This weekend, it went into wide release (at art-house type theaters–at least the former art house near me hasn’t gone TOTALLY mainstream) and I went to see it with a friend and fellow Shakespeare nut.

I liked it a lot. Now, before I saw the Branagh version I was never crazy about the play, but I ended up falling in love with the Branagh film–its score, its magnificent scenery, its fairy-tale atmosphere. However, as much as I do like it, I admit it can be overdone at times. (And Michael Keaton’s Dogberry seemed like he was trying to be a cross between his own Beetlejuice and one of the actors from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, with that invisible-horse business.)

This is much lower-key and more naturalistic. It’s set in the modern era, and fits pretty seamlessly into it. There are several touches I like a lot:

-There’s a silent sequence before the action of the play which shows Benedick slipping out on Beatrice during their last morning after while she pretends to be asleep–he can’t allow himself to trust a woman enough to get into real love with her while she’s not going to lower her pride enough to ask him to stay. Likewise, there’s some flashback cuts to Beatrice and Benedick’s involvement during her speech, “He lent [his heart to] me a while, and I gave him use for it, a double heart for his single one…he won it of me with false dice.”

-Conrad’s gender is flipped to female (although she keeps the name) and she’s shtupping Don John.

-Borachio, Don John’s other henchman who comes up with the plot to falsely slander Hero, is shown through certain bits of business to have been a rejected suitor of hers. Which gives a whole new dimension to him wanting to strike at her with all the others–he wants to get back at her for turning him down. There’s also a nice touch when he’s horrified to learn of her supposed death–he wanted to hurt her but he never wanted it to go THAT far.

-During the scene where Claudio is leading the funeral procession to Hero’s supposed grave, we see Hero watching his grief. (There was a somewhat similar scene in the Branagh version, but here it’s a little more intimate.) That gives a little more credence to why Hero would take him back at the end even after what he did–she sees his genuine repentance.

All in all, it’s quite good!

(I might also add–I don’t mind setting changes/updates of Shakespeare plays as long as they’re not done for a gimmick or the director saying “look how clever I am!” Good Shakespeare updates can help us see the themes of the play in a new light or bring them out more clearly. For example, I’ve seen several productions of Twelfth Night that set it in the Edwardian era or early 1920s. Which kind of makes sense when you think of the play–it’s filled with the idle rich, scheming servants, and romantic intrigue. Hell, all it needs is Jeeves and Wooster!)

2

I loved it when I got into the last screening at TIFF last September! Was really bummed that I didn’t get a chance to see it with the Toronto Browncoats again this summer; I’ve been so busy lately that I haven’t even had a chance to see if it’s playing near me.

3

I enjoyed it. I’ve seen Branagh’s version three or four times, and there are still parts of it that I have trouble understanding, but this version made sense almost all the way through–the only incomprehensible part was when Hero was talking and crying at the same time and I couldn’t figure out a thing she was saying.

It seemed to translate to the modern world extremely well; the only jarring inconsistency was how upset everybody still got when they thought Hero wasn’t a virgin any longer.

A friend of mine who’s much more of a Shakespeare fan liked it, but not as much as Branagh’s; she said that not having Denzel Washington in leather pants riding a horse in slow motion was kind of a deal breaker.

4

I really liked it too. I’ve never seen any other productions of it, so I wasn’t quite sure what to expect, but I enjoyed it. Hearing Shakespeare always takes me a little bit of time to adjust to the non-modern dialogue, but I was able to jump into it quickly enough. The actors were mostly good, with Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof being quite good as the leads. And Nathan Fillion was great in his part.

Also, I actually saw Much Ado at South by Southwest, where they had a panel afterwards with Joss Whedon and almost all the actors there to talk about it and answer questions for over an hour. They all seemed so cool and excited to be there and talk about it. Probably one of my favorite things ever at SXSW.

5

I liked it. I don’t think it would be a good first introduction to the play, but it was an interesting adaption. Amy Acker was the best of the cast by far, though all of them did a fine job. It was fun seeing Joss’s house too. I especially liked Benedick’s “what the hell?” look as he and Claudio are shown to their room and it’s decorated for little girls, presumably Joss’s daughters. I also loved the lampshading of the otherwise horrifying “were she an Ethiope” line.

What was the emphasis on drinking though? In every scene people are drinking beer, wine, or liquor. Every flat surface is littered with bottles. It made sense during the party scene, but it was everywhere.

6

Joss wants to be the next Hugh Hefner.

7

I loved that they were unafraid to go for the broad comedy - Denisoff, in particular, nearly goes full Three Stooges in some scenes, to brilliantly funny effect.

My single favorite Whedony touch, though, was the Claudio/ Don Pedro fist pound.

8

Oh, yeah… Amy Acker’s pratfall down the stairs was awesome.

9

I liked it a lot, and you’ve named the reasons why. I thought the modern adaptation worked well without being awkward; I was able to get into the language very quickly. Seeing Joss’s house was fun, and it made a lovely set. I loved that everyone was drinking, in pretty much every scene. The physical comedy was great. I enjoyed seeing all the familiar faces. I’m no film critic, but to me the whole movie just looked beautiful.

10

My only wish?

Some of the scenery looked so beautiful (especially a couple of panorama shots) that I wished it had been in color. Oh, I understand the aesthetic choice to film it in black and white, but just the same…

11

Thanks to the OP for making clear a couple of things. I didn’t get the significance of the pre-opening sequence.

I loved the movie, but am glad I saw it as a play last summer so it was somewhat familiar.

12

So glad you started this thread.

I saw it and loved it. I’m a big fan of the Branagh version and was interested to see how Whedon would handle some of my favorite scenes. Like the one where Benedick overhears the others talking about how Beatrice loves him. I didn’t think anyone could top Branagh and the lawn chair, but this version had the whole theater laughing out loud. And yes, Amy’s fall down the stairs was priceless, as well as her eavesdropping while hiding under the counter.

I loved when Benedick and Claudio were put up in what was clearly a little girl’s bedroom (just as you would do with out of town guests), complete with lots of stuffed toys and twin ruffly beds. When Benedick sat down in the child’s chair next to the Barbie house the whole theater cracked up.

I also loved the indeterminate time setting. It had a very retro-Rat-Pack-late-50’s vibe (reinforced by the black and white), but of course, cell phones made it very modern. Some of the men wore very narrow ties and some had wide ties. The women’s clothes also crossed many fashion periods. It could have been set anywhere between 1955 and 1995 (except for the techie stuff, e.g., showing the iPhone video of John being arrested was perfect).

I loved the “Sigh No More, Ladies” tune at the beginning of the Branagh version. I guess those words have been set to many different melodies over the last few hundred years. So I was listening closely to see where it would turn up in this version. I LOVED that it morphed into a jazzy tune performed by the cool combo at the “revels.” Since I know all the words, having listened to the soundtrack of the 1993 version about a zillion times, I was delighted to hear that beautiful Asian girl sing it so beautifully, concluding with, “…be you blithe and bonny, converting all your sounds of woe into hey, nonny, nonny…” Hehe. :cool:

I wish Dogberry had enunciated just a little more, because I know I missed a lot of his malapropisms. Michael Keaton did a great job with that part in the Branagh version, and this guy was good, too. I don’t watch Castle, so I’ve never seen him before, but I gather some people were distracted by their familiarity with the actor in another role. Whatever.

The discussion of the film on the IMDB is interesting. People either love it or think it is a travesty and an abomination. Go figure.

I so wish Jeggs-Beer his ownself could see this movie and critique it. I bet he’d love it!

13

I loved the Branagh’s production of this. Still hoping for a blu-ray release. But haven’t seen this one. I liked Whedon, so I’m eager to see this.

Any DVD/blu-ray/online stream releases yet? Planned?

14

I liked it. I like Branagh’s more overall, but I liked it.

Random thoughts while watching -

  • I didn’t know that Reed Diamond (Don Pedro) could act that well. He needs to get better scripts.

  • Claudio’s face when Don Pedro laid out the plan for wooing Hero in his name was priceless, and the best I’ve ever seen that scene played.

  • Interesting take on the villains. It worked really well.

  • Fillian as Dogberry was excellent, didn’t over do it, but didn’t underdo it either. The entire watch was great.

  • I didn’t like Denisof’s performance at all. I really love Benedick’s soliloquies and banter and I just didn’t like what he did with them.

  • Nice house. It was very comfortably set in a modern period.

15

I have lust in my heart for Sean Maher. How was he as Don John?

16

He was better than Keanu Reeves, but that’s really damning with faint praise! Don John is a difficult role to be good in. He’s so one-dimensionally evil, and he’s not even that good at it, like say Edmund or Iago.

17

Did you see Serenity? Remember how he was all evil and reptilian in the beginning, before he rescued his sister? Like that, only he really is evil.

And I’d like to point out that success is not being kind to Nathan Fillion’s waistline. Dude needs to hit the track.

18

Funny you should mention both those characters, since I see Don John as a prototype for both. The Iago part, of course, lies in manipulating the truth.

But with Don John being a bastard brother, there’s some of Edmund in there, too. Edmund does most of what he does because he’s sick of being second place to his legitimate brother Edgar, whose advantages he’s jealous of. (“Why ‘bastard’? Wherefore ‘base’?..Now, gods, stand up for bastards!”) You can read that in Don John, too…he’s already started (and lost) a battle with his brother before the play’s even begun. He expresses jealousy of both Don Pedro and Claudio for the advantages he doesn’t have, and it’s not so much of a leap to imagine that he’s thinking “why should he get everything and I get nothing just because I happened to be born on the wrong side of the blanket?”

Someone on the IMDB board came up with the idea that perhaps Don John was thinking that if HE’D been the legitimate brother, HE’D be the one to marry Hero to cement an alliance. Which makes it more plausible that he’d want to bring Hero down as well. In fact, I’m rather surprised that Joss didn’t imply that John was the rejected suitor instead of Borachio. I wonder if any other productions have taken that tack?

Something I’ve always wondered about audience reactions to Shakespeare characters…Consider this scenario. A villain with a grudge against another man skillfully manipulates the truth to make the man think his beloved is unfaithful. The man, believing the evidence of his eyes and ears, ends up being cruel to his beloved without realizing the (admittedly convincing) evidence is false.

So why do audiences weep for Othello but condemn Claudio as a jerk?

19

I know very little of Joss Whedon’s movies and TV shows. I gather that most of the actors in this movie were regulars of Whedon’s. Thus, unlike many of you, I had some problems distinguishing the various actors and actresses at first. Otherwise I liked the movie.

20

Just saw it this evening. I liked it very well (although for me Shakespeare’s comedies can be harder to appreciate than his dramas or histories). I haven’t actually seen the Branagh version, although I love his Henry V. I think maybe I’ll have to Netflix the Branagh version.

Making it so that it’s not just “she’s not a virgin!” but that she’s actually doing some other guy the night before the wedding is a pretty good adaptation for modern sensibilities. Even by 21st Century moral standards, that would probably be a deal-breaker for most guys. Granted, the dialogue is still “Oh noes, she’s not a virgin!”, but still, adding that element makes Claudio and company at least seem like they’re not complete lunatics.