Conference bookie::movies

    This movie was reviewed on Friday in the New York Times.  The reviewer
    gave it an excellent write up.  He said everyone in the cast, which
    includes Denzel Washington, Keanu Reeves, Robert Sean Leonard, Kate
    Beckinsale, Michael Keaton and Phillda Law (who is Emma Thompson's
    mother and Kenneth Branagh's mother-in-law), are very good and handle
    their roles with ease.
    
    Kenneth Branagh plays Benedick to Emma Thompson's Beatrice.  Their
    sharp-tongued barbs back and forth at one another are supposed to be
    very funny and at times even touching.
    
    The dialog is said to be very romantic and funny and the scenery is
    supposed to be breathtaking (I believe it was filmed on location
    somewhere in Italy).
    
    I believe that Mr. Branagh is going to continue to show American
    audiences that Shakespeare can indeed be great fun.
    
    -E
                        

Shot in Tuscany in August 1992.  The villa where the
film was made is available for rent, or is a pension,
or something.  I'll try to remember to post the details.

dcl

ps - Next up for Ken, Dr. Frankenstein with de Niro as
the monster.

I saw "Much Ado..." at the Nick on Saturday.  There was
a good house for a Saturday matinee when the sun was
shining in Boston.

There is a tendency to gush all over this film.  The 
critics are doing a great job of that, so I'll leave them
to it.  Suffice it to say, it is a brilliant job.  
Branagh has brought the same sort of clarity of text 
and storyline to this film as he has done in his recent
stage performances.  It is a simple story about love,
jealousy, mistaken identity, and general foolery.  But
the language and characterizations take it miles about
anything else I've seen on film this year.  Oh well,
I'm gushing afterall.

The usual cast of Renaissance Films PLC characters:
Branagh, David Parfitt, and Stephen Evans produced;
Tim Harvey designed (this man is an unsung genius);
Phyllis Dalton did the costumes; Iona Price organized;
and Pat Doyle did the music; Shaun Webb did the
graphics. 

In addition to the prinicipals mentioned in previous 
notes, there are familiar faces from Renaissance TC 
in the cast:  Brian Blessed as Antonio, Imelda Staunton
as Margaret, Edward Jewesbury as the sexton, Jimmy 
Yuill as the Friar, Gerard Horan (what's that cop
drama of his on UK TV?  "London's Burning", or 
something); Richard Clifford as Conrade; and Richard
Briers as Leonato.

Michael Keaton and Ben Elton are a riot as Dogberry and
Verges, the required comic relief.
 
The music comes up for special praise, and I'll be 
hunting up the Epic CD at Tower Records.  Doyle also 
did a very good job singing his own music as the 
minstral/soldier Balthasar.  I was surprised to see
that all the music on the screen was recorded in 
realtime.

Take particular note of the closing shot in the film.
It runs about 4 minutes and whoever the Steadicam 
operator was deserves a medal.  The shot follows the
dancers through the house and around the garden 
and through the gates and then up into the air 
until it finishes up 100 feet or so over the villa.
I don't see how he (or she) got so smoothly onto a 
crane platform!  They must have done two dozen takes
to get this on film.  In Tuscany in August, where
it was probably 100F.

dcl  

    As expected, Beatrice and Benedick are perfect roles for Thompson and
    Branagh.  After an off-puttingly "hardy" opening, their comic scenes
    are hilarious, and even cover a broad range of hilarity.  But
    especially remarkable was the ease and power with which they handled
    the shift to more serious and more threatening scenes -- real
    shiver-enducers. 
    
    Denzel Washington was a revelation.  The part of the Prince had always
    seemed weak and underdeveloped to me, but Washington turns it into a
    plum role.  He's thoroughly princely -- aristocratic, warm, humorous,
    wearing power like comfortable old clothes.  The hint of courtship
    between him and Beatrice was brilliant; so was his handling of the
    bereaved father and uncle -- he felt pity for them but at a suitable
    distance.  And hey, how about that father and uncle!
    
    On the other hand, Keanu Reeves had a great sulk but should have
    avoided a speaking role.  Michael Keaton did a fine job with his
    interpretation, but the interpretation (Dogberry as sadistic psychotic)
    felt wrong to me -- maybe it was just the shock after two decades of
    imagining him as a harmless bumbler.  The ingenues were even more
    annoyingly shallow than necessary. 
    
    Worst of all was the music, a veritable tidal wave of tripe which
    drowned every scene it entered.  The songs and arrangements were pure
    1940s Disney; I kept picturing bunnies and happy bluebirds joining in
    on the chorus.  Elizabethan song was as good as vocal music gets --
    it's absurd to pass up an opportunity to use it.
    
    More intangibly, Branagh hadn't _rethought_ the play as a film; the
    visual density was that of theater.  Really fine theater.
    
    So, a very good movie, not a great one.
    
    Ray

    I also saw this at the Nick this weekend. Maybe we should have gone as
    a  MOVIE.NOTE party for a group discount. :^)

    I think Branagh makes Shakespeare vibrant and accessible and modern. 
    The actors in Renaissance Films plc (:^)) have the ability to  totally
    internalize the dialog and then speak such that the lines do  not sound
    like lines, but rather the only proper words that the character would
    say. They do not recite, but speak from the heart of the characters. 

    Branagh and Thompson are especially spectacular, and their bantering
    had the audience laughing out loud many, many times. (BTW- Is the deck
    chair  an anachronism? :^))

    As for the non-Renaissance Films players...

    Michael Keaton/Ben Elton. I think their interpretation
    was...interesting. :^)  I found the presence of Beetlejuice in a
    Shakespearean comedy not the choice I would have made, and it jarred my
    absorption in the movie. They were hilarious, but distracting. 

    Keanu Reeves on the other hand... :^( Why he was chosen for the part 
    astounds me. Yes, he looks good, but he is dwarfed in comparison with
    the rest of the talent on the screen. He did a fine job in "My Own
    Private Idaho", so it's not his general acting ability, but Shakespeare
    is not a good fit. (Neither is Bram Stoker, for that matter.) 

    Yes, the final shot vies with the final sequence in Depardieu's 
    "Cyrano De Bergerac". Amazing cinematography.

    9/10.

    Cheers, 
    George

(And I liked the music- I felt it was appropriate to be light and frothy and 
Disney-like.)

    The most knowledgable member of our party said that the deck chair was
    an anachronism, but not the one which bothered her most.  The most
    theatrical member of our party then pointed out that anachronism was as
    Shakespearean as bare bodkins by reminiscing about a production of
    "Pericles" where an intensely embarrassed guy dressed as an ancient
    Greek had to say several lines about tennis.
    
    For me the final shot was ruined by the 3000-tons-of-corn-syrup music
    and my growing suspicion that the last bunch of none-too-enthusiastic
    dancers we saw had been told "Oh, just dance, you know, make merry."
    Sort of like those legendary mob scenes where everyone says, "Mumble
    mumble mumble. HEY! mumble mumble."
    
    Ray

I didn't pay too much attention to supposed anachronisms.
I think Branagh made a conscious effort to avoid being
pinned down to a period, period as such being irrele-
vant to the theme.  He (and designers Dalton and Harvey)
wound up with something identifiable only as pre-20th 
century, or maybe pre-Industrial Revolution.  As you
say, Shakespeare never worried too much about 
anachronisms in the text.  No reason why directors
should.

Chris 

    
    Well, I liked this a good deal.  I'd pay full price to see it again.
    In fact, I might even drive to Cambridge to see it again.  I confess
    that I am predisposed toward liking Branagh's work and that he would
    have had to make an absolute hash of it to get me to hate it.
    
    I like Doyle's work, too, although I must admit I thought the music was
    a little over the top in places.  It's fine as music, and I, too, will
    be seeking out the CD, but it didn't mesh with the visuals quite as
    nicely in some places.  One place where it was just about perfect was
    the just-after-opening sequence when the Prince and his retinue arrive. 
    Probably the most stirring music-for-guys-on-horseback since Michel
    Legrand's work on Lester's version of The Three Musketeers.
    
    Denzel Washington is terrific.  Keanu Reeves not on screen long enough
    to be really annoying.  Michael Keaton hilarious, even if he *did*
    re-use his Beetlejuice voice.  Robert Sean Leonard a little too weepy
    maybe -- one felt the urge to tell him to grow up.  Another good
    illustration that Shakespeare was meant to be seen, not read.
    
    DFW

I just saw "Much Ado..." and I loved it!  I wish it had been available when
I took Shakespeare courses in high school and college... :-)

I loved "Henry V," too. I hope Kenneth Branagh makes more Shakespeare movies!  

						-- Nina

P.S. For NH residents/neighbors, it's playing at the Wilton Town Hall Theatre
through Sept. 9.  It must be popular - last night was the most crowded I'd
ever seen the "big" theatre (though it wasn't completely full), and the 
movie'd already been playing there a week...

It was cute and entertaining and I enjoyed it, but it suffered a bit from
the inclusion of big-name Americans with little understanding of Shakespeare.
You just can't beat a real Shakespeare repertory company.

I really prefer the version that was on TV twenty-mumble years ago featuring
Sam Waterson.

That said, I thought Ken and Emma were great and I hope he continues bringing
Shakespeare to the movie masses.

Bob

    I hope it comes out on video by winter; all that sunshine and golden
    glow will be mighty inviting then.
    
    I'd say this is a good film, but not a great one.  Part of it is
    Shakespeare's fault, I think; the whole business with the ingenues is
    rather contrived.  Part of it is Branagh's fault; the "frolicking"
    scenes beginning and end were pretty stagy.  I couldn't get into the 
    comic relief, probably because I couldn't understand all that mumbling.
      
    Ken and Emma were the high point as Benedick and Beatrice, as expected,
    and the confrontation at the wedding has real power. 
    
    Between this and _Hamlet_, it's become obvious to me that doing
    Shakespeare is more than a matter of just saying the words.  There's
    something in the _way_ they're said that's extremely important.  Of the
    (non-Shakespearean) Americans, Denzel Washington seemed to handle it
    best.  As for Keanu Reeves, I get the feeling there's something in the
    voice itself, rather than the phrasing, that's lacking; it would have
    been interesting to see him as Claudio.              

    Just joining this conference....  Ex-yank living in Australia for 22
    years.  
    
    I must admit that over the last few years I have gone completely OFF
    most American mainstream films.  The sensationalism is them is
    ridiculous!  Like "The Firm", first two-thirds to three quarters
    somewhat believable and then full blown ridiculousness sets in.... 
    Australia has an excellent film industry, really true to life, hard
    hitting at times, films.  Of course "The Piano" is a real treat, but
    we've had alot of others that will never go anywhere unfortunately....
    
    One low budget American film I really enjoyed was "Gas Food and
    Lodging", very simple, but REAL!
    
    I've been getting in to foreign films lately too, got "Delicatessen"
    out on video on the weekend.  What a scream!  It was really bizarre at
    first but had me laughing out loud, on my own, alot.
    
    On Sunday I saw "Much Ado About Nothing", and unfortunately that is
    exactly what I thought of it!  I went with a girl friend with whom I
    normally agree on films, but she enjoyed it and I abhorred it!  The
    characters she liked, I hated!  In is in the Shakespearian talk which
    is alot of words in a round about way that says something simple, so
    it took half a hour, more through actions, to figure out what was going
    on.  Unfortunately we had some serious noisy packet operators, so I was
    trying to listen with one ear plugged!  
    
    I was told Kenneth Branagh didn't want to be seen as a "stuffy, boring"
    englishman doing Shakespeare, well he sure isn't, he's gone over the
    top the other way with this one!  It all just seemed so ridiculous I
    really got frustrated and wanted to leave, but I lived in hope.... 
    Lots of people were roaring with laughter, my friend wasn't but said
    she really enjoyed it.
    
    So there you go!  I guess you go and make up your own mind....  
    
    After "Peter's Friend", by Branagh, this was a REAL letdown.
    
    
    Sooz 

    
Article 916 of rec.arts.movies.reviews:
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.movies
Path: jac.zko.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!olivea!news.bu.edu!att-in!nntpa!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Mark R. Leeper)
Subject: REVIEW: MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Followup-To: rec.arts.movies
Summary: r.a.m.r. #02492
Originator: ecl@mtgpfs2
Keywords: author=Leeper
Sender: [email protected] (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mtgpfs2-bgate.mt.att.com
Reply-To: [email protected]
Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 94 23:19:38 EST
Approved: [email protected]
Lines: 79
Xref: jac.zko.dec.com rec.arts.movies.reviews:916 rec.arts.movies:68068

			   MUCH	ADO ABOUT NOTHING
		      A	film review by Mark R. Leeper
		       Copyright 1994 Mark R. Leeper

	  Capsule review:  Imagine a film with the point of view
     of	THELMA & LOUISE	but set	in medieval Italy.  No,	it is not
     even that good.  There is some nice Italian scenery, but the
     film reeks	of feminist rhetoric with a blood-thirsty man-
     hater as its hero.	 Rating: -2 (-4	to +4).

     With the coming of April, I felt it would be nice to see a
warm-weather sort of movie and the video release of MUCH ADO ABOUT
NOTHING seemed about right.  The title makes it sound as if it is a
carefree sort of film.  WRONG!  What we have is a particularly vicious
exercise in political correctness and anachronism.  What this film
gives us is almost two hours of tiresome lecture on how wise and good
women are and how stupid, gullible, and vicious men are.  The story is
set in some historical never-never land.  The film never even bothers
to tell us exactly when.  Even CONAN THE BARBARIAN, itself set in a
historical never-never land, at least gives you some context as to when
to place it.  But the two films have similar approaches, at least in
their polyglot cultures.  MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING seems to be set mostly
in Italy, maybe late 13th Century, but we have Spanish names
indiscriminately mixed into this witch's brew.  In any case, it does
not matter.  The characters and their attitudes are all 1990s, or at
least how somebody sees the 1990s.

     I knew I was in trouble from the very beginning when the film
opened with a song about how faithless and useless men are.  That would
be bad enough, but director Kenneth Branagh puts the words on the
screen and all but puts a bouncing ball with them.  So the whole
audience is reading as well as hearing his sexist diatribe against
men.  The song is sung by Beatrice, the hero of the piece.  (But not
the Hero of the piece.  A rather insipid female character is given the
name Hero.  I am surprised Beatrice is given a name like "Beatrice"
rather than "Sisterhood" or just "Woman." Perhaps the name conjured up
some picture of women beating men.)  Beatrice hates all men, for good
reason no doubt.  At the beginning of the film she is haranguing
against Benedick, who has been off to some war, risking his life for
people like Beatrice.  But her hatred is still strong.  (It's as if she
is saying, "Women, take note.  Do not let absence soften your heart.
Always remember who the Enemy is.  Your country will lie to you about
who your enemies are.  Just remember the real foe is Man.")

     What follows is intended to be a comic mix-up of treachery.  There
is a good schemer and a bad schemer.  The good schemer is case in
anachronistic black.  (Denzel Washington is good, but he is not
convincing as a medieval Spaniard.  I suppose, though, that one must be
politically correct in one's casting.)  The evil schemer is played by
Keanu Reeves, whose acting is the dramatic equivalent of the sound
"thud."  His scheme is to prevent a marriage from taking place and for
this he is branded the villain of the piece.  Little mention is made of
Beatrice's own scheme.  As the film wears on, Beatrice has softened on
Benedick but now hates Claudio.  She gives Benedick the task that if he
loves her (oh, he now loves her for some reason) he should kill
Claudio.  That is on the pretext that Claudio has caused Hero's death,
but Beatrice knows it is not true.  She merely wants to see Benedick
kill Claudio.  The film never says that Beatrice, trying to arrange
murder on what she knows is a false pretense, is doing a bad thing.
The victim, after all, is only a man.  If women murder innocent men,
well, all men are guilty of something or other--maybe for being
"potential rapists."  "Men are deceivers ever," as Beatrice says.  It
is open season on killing them, ladies.  That seems to be the theme of
this rather odious piece of cinema.  And what about the law?  Well,
here the law is represented by Dogberry (Michael Keaton) and he comes
off as being even less than human.  This film is one diatribe against
men after another.

     The photography of Italy is very nice when it does not have some
jerk of a man dancing in a fountain.  (I have never seen a man dance in
a fountain--but the director wants to make men seem a trifle flighty
along with all their other failings.)  The screenplay is by William
Shakespeare, more than likely the pen name for some woman who has been
spending her time in feminist bookstores.  Rating: -2 on the -4 to +4
scale.

					Mark R. Leeper
					att!mtgzfs3!leeper
					[email protected]

    RE: .14  by HYLNDR::TRUMPLER 
    
    >a review from Usenet 
    
    Yes, well, what did YOU think of it?
    

    Re .15:
    I liked both (the movie and the review).  I suppose for posterity's
    sake I should mention that the review date be carefully inspected.
    
    Mark

    Rented this over the weekend...Loved It!!!!
    
    Oh the bantering between Benedic and Beatrice was delicious.  Reeves
    was terrible but I like most of the other reviews here, thought Denzel
    did an excellent job as the prince.   I'm also glad that I wasn't the
    only one who thought someone yelled Beetleguise Beetleguise Beetleguise
    :^)
    
    It was a very enjoyable movie.
    Jt

I remember a TV version by Joe Papp's crew about twenty-five years ago,
with Sam Waterson as Benedick.  I wonder if there's any chance it's
on video anywhere.  

My elderly father-in-law refers to this as "A Big To Do About Not Much Of 
Anything".

Bob

    
    I'm not a regular reader or writer in this conference, but I saw this
    film last night and felt compelled to say something about it.
    
    I'm not a Shakespearian buff, but I like a good rendition of one of his
    plays (I've seen one or two stage productions and numerous films).
    
    However, this film is utterly wonderful. I didn't know anything about
    the plot (Hang your head in shame, Englishman), but it was related so
    well that that mattered not one iota. Despite the 'old English',
    Shakespeare is still very modern, in many ways.
    
    Everyone was excellent in their part (even Keanu, dude...:^)) and I echo 
    all the positive comments in previous notes (especially that about 
    Washington as the prince - he really is a great actor).
      
    If my wife and I could act, we would've been ideal for Beatrice and
    Benedic! In fact, on a good day we could do it without acting. :^) My
    point, if I have one, is that Mr and Mrs Branagh bought a touch to the
    film, which I think even the best of actors couldn't reproduce. In this
    film they really strike sparks of each other! 
    
    Finally, a comment about Keaton. We sat through the whole film trying
    to work out who the actor playing that part was :^) At the end, we said
    'Of course!!'. At first he and Elton (played as Dustin Hofman in
    Papillion?) jarred, but as the film progressed they became an amusing
    aside, and Shakespear often includes such characters in his plays. I
    suspect that they (Keaton and Elton) would have gone down very well at
    the Globe :^)
    
    See this film whether you like Shakespeare or not. After it you may
    find a taste for more. 
    
    Mark