Much Ado About Nothing?
I went to see Joss Whedon's "Much Ado About Nothing" last night, and found it delightful. We were treated to an extra something when two cast members walked in after the credits rolled for a surprise Q&A session. I posted pictures on Facebook last night, and I've finally managed to post one at the end of this post, though I had to shrink it quite a bit. The two cast members were Alexis Denisof (Benedick) and Tom Lenk (Verges). (Oh, and Alexis Denisof really is as pretty in person as he is on screen, but much prettier with scruff than without, IMHO.)
I hadn't done much homework on this movie, since I figured Whedon+Shakespeare was a good enough reason to want to go. Turns out, this was a product of Whedon and friends doing readings of Shakespeare's works at his place Just For Fun, and they decided to take that to the next level and make a film. Filmed in his home. In something like 8 days (what I thought I heard them say - though I'm told by someone else that he read 12 days). The clothing the cast is wearing is as likely to be something from their own closets at home than not.
I'm rather used to seeing "Shakespeare done in modern settings" done a lot here in the Bay area. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen Shakespeare NOT done in a modern setting here in the Bay area. But anyway, one of the things which made this especially delightful was that they used the Shakespearean text (somewhat edited for length, but without detrimental effect), but no one tried to effect an English accent, and they did an excellent job of actually, you know, using "spoken language" phrasing, instead of getting lost in what was written. (That's where I think a lot of stuff gets lost for people who haven't read Shakespeare before going to see Shakespeare -- that actors don't always do a good job of translating the Bard's written text into spoken language.)
One of the questions asked during the Q&A was about the decision to do it in black and white. I had already figured out the artistic benefit -- that Shakespearean text with modern image might have been too jarring with today's high def color film -- but it turns out there were additional financial and logistical considerations. Shooting on site in his home meant less room for film crews, and black and white allows for less lighting equipment. Also, no need to worry about the nuisance of palette and color matching for costumes and set because there's no color clashing when you're in black and white (well, mostly gray).
The point that really struck home was that this wasn't something out of the big studios, this was actually more of an indie / art house type of film, and it was well done, and a lot of fun. If it succeeds, there is the distinct possibility of seeing more, and I would like to see more. The formation of a Joss Whedon Shakespeare Company would be quite all right with me. So -- go see it. Tell your friends to go see it -- Hell, TAKE your friends to go see it!
Have fun with it. Joss sure did.
I hadn't done much homework on this movie, since I figured Whedon+Shakespeare was a good enough reason to want to go. Turns out, this was a product of Whedon and friends doing readings of Shakespeare's works at his place Just For Fun, and they decided to take that to the next level and make a film. Filmed in his home. In something like 8 days (what I thought I heard them say - though I'm told by someone else that he read 12 days). The clothing the cast is wearing is as likely to be something from their own closets at home than not.
I'm rather used to seeing "Shakespeare done in modern settings" done a lot here in the Bay area. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen Shakespeare NOT done in a modern setting here in the Bay area. But anyway, one of the things which made this especially delightful was that they used the Shakespearean text (somewhat edited for length, but without detrimental effect), but no one tried to effect an English accent, and they did an excellent job of actually, you know, using "spoken language" phrasing, instead of getting lost in what was written. (That's where I think a lot of stuff gets lost for people who haven't read Shakespeare before going to see Shakespeare -- that actors don't always do a good job of translating the Bard's written text into spoken language.)
One of the questions asked during the Q&A was about the decision to do it in black and white. I had already figured out the artistic benefit -- that Shakespearean text with modern image might have been too jarring with today's high def color film -- but it turns out there were additional financial and logistical considerations. Shooting on site in his home meant less room for film crews, and black and white allows for less lighting equipment. Also, no need to worry about the nuisance of palette and color matching for costumes and set because there's no color clashing when you're in black and white (well, mostly gray).
The point that really struck home was that this wasn't something out of the big studios, this was actually more of an indie / art house type of film, and it was well done, and a lot of fun. If it succeeds, there is the distinct possibility of seeing more, and I would like to see more. The formation of a Joss Whedon Shakespeare Company would be quite all right with me. So -- go see it. Tell your friends to go see it -- Hell, TAKE your friends to go see it!
Have fun with it. Joss sure did.