Much Ado About Nothing (2013)

Wow! Such a good movie.

ridiculous rating

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Very beautiful production of "Much Ado About Nothing," primarily driven by: (1) Adherence to Shakespeare's original language, really well done. (2) Powerful acting, especially by the three key leads: Amy Acker as Beatrice, Alexis Denisof as Benedick, and Clark Gregg as Leonato. The "love, commitment, and confrontation scenes" in the second half of the play are among the most moving I have seen in a Shakespeare production. (3) Simplicity of the setting: to my understanding, Joss Whedon convened the cast and filmed in his home as a straightforward path to producing this play. Think of it as a group of friends coming over to Whedon's home for a reading of Shakespeare's play, and you will not be disappointed. The original language and simplicity of the setting focuses the audience's attention on the thoughts, emotions, and language. (4) The modern setting is a way to production expediency, while the preservation of the original language prevents it from being anachronistic. Believe the positive reviews; my wife and I were moved by this performance!

Updated to modern times but with all of Shakespeare's archaic (if poetic) dialogue intact, Joss Whedon's 'Much Ado About Nothing' is one of the strangest big screen Shakespeare adaptations to date. The film innovatively adds cars and iPhones to the tale, however, with dialogue and characters that differ so little from the way Shakespeare wrote them, the novelty value dries up rather quickly and what else the film has to offer is debatable. The black and white photography is sumptuous, but it does not exactly add a lot to the tale and the performances are hardly spectacular. Whedon does include some unique comedy touches of his own though; not all of them work (a pratfall down the stairs) but Alexis Denisof as Benedick showing off by doing one-armed push-ups and muscles flexes works well as a humorous extension of the character's sheer arrogance. There are also some subtle funny moments to be had in characters sprouting Shakespearean dialogue while sitting next to dollhouses and calling each other by titles such as 'prince' to adhere to the Bard's original dialogue. For a daringly different take on Shakespeare, the film is worth a look. One's mileage may vary though depending on how familiar one is with the source material and how much humour one finds the notion of modern day folks talking as if they are stuck in the sixteenth century.

Normally, when I watch a film done in the Shakespearean prose, even a film that turns out to be a full-bloodied masterpiece like Orson Welles' Othello or Kenneth Branaugh's Hamlet, there is a sense that the language doesn't sound ALL immediate. It's all performed well and with enough energy and dramatic guff, but I don't get a modern sensibility from the actors.Joss Whedon, for the first time that I could see in a *good* way (step aside, Baz Lurhmann with your '+' film), got performances that spoke on film the Bard's words and yet ALSO provided, at least for me, a view into how to speak such words in a way that feels immediate, real, and not drawn out from the past but just as *there* in the sense of character interactions, timing and comic/dramatic sensibility as on Buffy or Angel or anything else Whedon does.It's really, I think, about how he directs the actors, and it's what counts here when it's a micro-budget film (Whedon shot it as his "20th anniversary present" to himself, no, really, following his wrap on shooting The Avengers in 2011), and all that's there is the actors in a house and it's black and white footage. And Whedon gets this story down so convincingly because his cast is always on top of what needs to be said, what's there in-between in physical actions (as Alexis Denisof tries to listen in any way he can to romance talk about another 'lady' and his interest, played by the sweetheart Amy Acker).And again, Nathan Fillion, how you fill in a supporting role! The Dogberry stuff is the "B"-plot-line, but it adds so much comedic punch to the narrative,which is all based on behavior and nuance by the way, and attitudes towards love, commitment, and how we treat one another as ruthless or kind or sometimes (trying) to do both in the same scene. Sound like classic Whedon, with the whole ensemble and sly romantic entanglements with the touch of social satire? You bet. It was my pick for Sleeper of the summer 2013.

The trailer of this film is magnificent: stylish black & white images of well-dressed people gathering in a beautiful mansion, accompanied by the cool sound of St-Germain, and words like 'obsession, hatred, sex, power, deceit and truth' projected on the screen in fast succession. But unfortunately the trailer is much better than the film. The idea of transposing the original play, written 415 years ago by William Shakespeare, to a present day context, including iPhones, surveillance cameras and posh cars, is very daring. The result is essentially a modern day romantic comedy about two couples falling in love, but with 16th century dialogue. At first, this feels strange. A lot of concentration is needed in order to understand the dialogue. During the first fifteen minutes, you have to get used to the concept. But after an hour or so, the effect wears off and you realize it is just a gimmick. I think the appreciation of this gimmick is a matter of personal taste and preference. My opinion is that the combination of 21st century characters speaking 16th century language doesn't work well. It feels unnatural and strained. Although I must say that the actors do a great job: their performance is as smooth as possible with these lines. Director Joss Whedon made this film as a hobby project. Instead of going on vacation, he shot the film in 12 days in his own house, with actors he knew well from previous projects. To save costs, he shot in black & white. It is a nice coincidence that this choice also helps to make the film look stylish and trendy.