Shakespeare as a Movie
 

Coming back from some auditions this weekend, my friend and I were going over all the various plays from Shakespeare's canon that have been produced as movies, and wondered what the next one would be.

I'm only counting those movies that are near enough in use of language and theme, rather than "O" which was based on Othello, but modern language. Here are the wide release versions I've seen. I'm not counting TV or BBC productions.

Merchant Of Venice - Now out/Pacino
Othello - Fishburne
12th Night (Bonham-Carter)
Much Ado About Nothing (Branagh)
Hamlet (Branagh)
Henry V (Branagh)
Titus Andronicus ("Titus" - Anthony Hopkins)
Romeo and Juliet (De Caprio)
Richard III (McKellen)
Love's Labours Lost (Branagh)
Midsummer Night's Dream - (Michelle Pfeiffer)

I can't think of any others.

My guesses for the next one would be:

Julius Caesar - long overdue for a remake
King Lear
Taming of the Shrew - Problematical owing to theme
The Tempest

Anyone a Shakespeare fan? What do you think?

Bit of a fan, not too widely read but yeah, I'm a fan. Personally, I want a proper Lear made, because it's got such perfect visual imagery - the eye plucking, the storm, the cliffs of Dover, the reverse Pieta image (sorry, English class coming back to me - we had this thing where we made up the most obscure variant readings of the play that we could, and one hinged on Lear cradling the dead Cordelia as a feminist symbol :D), the absolutely perfect tragic ending, and of course there's a big battle sequence. All the film versions I've seen have failed to "get it" - which I think happens to alot of films of Shakespearean plays - but Lear would just be so damn easy!

Shaxberd
 

I might like to explore this topic here, starting a little gingerly. I like to think I know something about it; I'm interested in it, anyway. I've seen most of the movies listed above, plus some other ones.

It's true, there's a lot in Lear that translates well into visuals. There's also the depth of the characters, which makes the situations seem almost modern.

There was a cinematic version of Taming of the Shrew which featured Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. It's great (actually own a copy of it) and what a couple to cast in it. :D I guess I would be interested in a remake but you're right, the theme might not be acceptable in this day and age.

Being a fan of Shakespeare in cinema, and a classics major, I'd like to see Julius Caesar, myself.

I've read A Comedy of Errors most recently, that would be cool to put into film.

[quote=Belle]There was a cinematic version of Taming of the Shrew which featured Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton. It's great (actually own a copy of it) and what a couple to cast in it. :D I guess I would be interested in a remake but you're right, the theme might not be acceptable in this day and age. QUOTE]

It's just dificult to do. It always evokes sniggers from the audience (when we did it two years ago) and I thought we found the proper balance in the text and delivery. I'm just tired of Shrew, really.

Forgot about COE. That might be fun. It's got all the mistaken identity material. It lends itself better to almost any concept.

I know they don't count but there is a hilarious BBC TV version of Comedy of Errors - I remember being in stiches almost all the way through when I saw it years ago.

I am not so sure about a remake of Julius Caesar. What could be better than a young Marlon Brando as Mark Antony :swoon:

I love the old film version. I have to say that I also prefer Olivier's Hamlet to Branagh's monster version... Gibson's version isn't actually half bad. I am only now waking up to just why I found that version so very Catholic - although it is very close to the text (cuts of course, but not otherwise changed, AFAIK)


I LOVED Baz Lurman's Romeo & Juliet (that is the Di Caprio/Danes version). I think this shows how much room there is for a rich visual interpretation when you adapt a Shakespeare play

What Lurman does in that one is pure genius.



I have to say that I'd love to see some more of Shakespeare's comedies on film - some have real potential if done well... I am thinking of Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing which produces such a clever mix of pure fun, simple joy and that little bit of gravitas that you need for contrast to make the other parts funnier.

I adore that film...

Elwen

I've only seen Branagh's Othello, but I absolutely hated it, and Branagh's Iago in particular. It was such a heartless production - they were just filming the play; it didn't really mean anything. And Branagh's breathy, portentous delivery always grates with me, but it was made even worse by his bland performance (Iago's an evil genius damnit!)... but anyway, what I really wanted to ask, before I got into this little rant, was whether any of the other Branagh Shakespeare's are any good, because I wouldn't really want to sit through 5 hours of Hamlet (or whatever) if it was of the same standard as Othello.

And LOL @ Chaleins of Norbury, when you typed Comedy of Errors as COE I thought you meant Council of Elrond :D

I haven't seen his Othello or Hamlet (I have no interest in watching Hamlet and Ophelia have sex), but Branagh's "Henry V" and "Much Ado About Nothing" are fantastic.

RosieLass - THAT little scene in Hamlet was talked about a lot, but it reqally should not be a reason to not try the film... it is so minor, it was quite ridiculous how everyone made such fuss about it when Hamlet came out.

I quite liked Branagh's Hamlet - it IS long because nothing was cut - which means that some themes you never see on stage were emphasised much better. The acting is on the whole not bad at all, and it is visually quite satisfying, although I took some time to get use to the odd multiracial Victorian(??) setting that they chose for it.

Still - worth watching, I'd say. Made me think about a few aspects of Hamlet all over again.


PG, I really think that if you likle Shakespeare you should really watch Branagh's Henry V and Much Ado about Nothing. I at least adore both of these...

Much Ado about Nothing is a play that is funny, thoughtful and especially... light. It gives you that feeling of a lightnes of heart - difficult to explain what I mean by this... the whole film dances most of the time (not to say that the Characdters do, they don't).

It once managed to get me out of a very bad bout of homesickness - THAT joyful a film it is... But don't think that it is just trivial, I don't think it is. Branagh and Thompson were wonderful together while they were working and living together. Both are arguably too old for their characters but their relationship sparkles, and all those wonderfully sharp observations come out so poignantly as the two main characters spar with their words.

The weak point in the film is its 'baddie' - played by Keanu Reeves - he is so miscast in the film it isn't funny. But the role is short.

What I also like is the visual side of the film - it is all done in a villa in Tuscany, and the landscape and the building are used so well... the camera swirls about - especially look for a long sequence without a cut right as the end credits start - it is quite impressive.. :D

- so for me this film is a very intelligent and satisfying equivalent to comfort food.

I also think that it does Shakespeare justice quite well - after all, we are dealing with a comedy here (but the serious side is not neglected).




Henry V - this is quite theatrical in parts, especially when Branagh just pays homage to Shakespeare's theatrical asides, and the prologue and epilogue - but then the film comes out of the confined space and becomes epic for a while. Branagh is such an unlikely casting choice for Henry V, but IMHO it works well - he shows the unconventional and boyish side of this character who lives up to the challenges of having to be a king and a general.

The battle of Agincourt (sp)? is stunning - very simple, but especially before RotK it was for me one of the most impressive battle scenes - perhaps not in its epic scale, but in its emotional impact. Shakespeare's words are of course wonderful, and used to perfect impact. And there is that wonderful rousing musical theme they use after the battle - the aftermath is also impressive.... with HV celebrating the victory and regretting the losses.... (and another amazing camera sequence there, which has H walking over the devastated battlefield... impressive).

Emma Thompson is again an odd casting choice for the French princess, but the chemistry between Branagh and thompson makes up for some of the problems with it - the sequence which can seem like an afterthought works well in this version.



IMHO these two are Branagh's best Shakespeare adaptations.

There are problems with Branagh - especially in his not so good Shakespeare films, but IMHO he is a good director, and when he gets things right, boy does he get them right.



BTW: it is worthwhile comparing Olivier's Henry V with this (made to raise morale after WW II) - Branagh's version plays Shakespeare more deeply, IMHO, with an interpretation more adapted to more modern (European at least) views of war. But if you like pathos go for the Olivier version - it is often considered as marginally better than Branagh (marginally!) but as a continental European I find it more difficult to deal with its emphases.

Yes, Branagh's stuff is hot and cold. His best are certainly Much Ado and Henry V.

In Henry V, its interesting to note the "movement" of certain lines from scene to scene to smooth the flow of the action. Other lines were edited into some others. Effective.

Hamlet is long, and oddly enough I barely remember the flap about the (minor) sex scene. I thought the overall Hamlet rejection of Ophelia in the halls of mirrors was the best I've ever seen it done, and gives much better motivation for her breakdown and madness later.

However, since literally every line is included, it fleshes out the nuances of the play very well. Most people only see a much-shortened version of it, and therefore a lot of its subtlety is lost. I especially liked the Polonius portrayal. He's much more nasty than he's often played on stage. I actually could hardly wait for him to be stabbed.

His others are more forgettable. Othello was OK, but I agree, his Iago was weak.

Luhrmann does some very interesting things with R & J...however, I still have trouble reconciling the "10-thousand rounds of ammunition expended and no one gets more than grazed" mentality. Sword duels can be that way, but people with equivalent skills in firearms just make it deadly.

Ooops, a real no-no on this board. I forgot where I was for a moment!

:biggrin:

My turn to pipe in on this thread! :D I haven't seen any of the Branagh films...I suppose I didn't want to watch such a long film. For some reason my memory is telling me that I did see some of one of them though, I think it may have been Henry V, but it was in the middle and I didn't stick around. I find it very difficult to follow the true shakesperean lingo unless I have taken it in a class previously. I was fortunate to have watched Olivier's Hamlet in a Shakespeare Theatre class and it was much more enjoyable to watch and rewatch it since. That's probably why I love that version of Hamlet the best. Although, Gibsons Hamlet was awfully good too. Maybe because I feel that it was similar to Olivier's. I will say that the black and white of Olivier's added to the eerieness of the whole movie with the ghost and intrigue and all.
I saw Much Ado About Nothing with Branagh and (one of my all-time favorite actors) Emma Thompson and really thought it was fun. I also viewed a version of Macbeth in B&W but don't recall who was in it. I know that I really enjoyed it though.
I saw a B&W R&J as well, but never really felt the desire to see the DiCaprio one.

Gwil -

... Chaleins,

the great thing about Lurman's R&J is that (if you care to look) the visuals may well speak just as much as the lines. I think he was trying hard to come up with something to do Shakespeare justice not superficially, but in its depth.

I find it difficult to explain this... but films are often visually quite... well.. straightforward. I call it 'faking reality' - even if that reality is a bit warped or tweaked in many films to achieve a certain look.

The best advances in visuals have actually been made in music videos and especially in advertising. Images are powerful, and if used right (in advertising) they speak to you subconsciously as well as openly.

I have never seen a film that used so much of that technique to tell its story, and especially to create emotions in the audience without obviously creating them...

One that I find is a good example is the scene where Mercutio gets killed. Look at the sky in that scene - it is brooding and menacing and it is so difficult to say why you simply feel that this is going to go badly... the sky is (I think) black and white, and after thinking about it, it reminded me of WWII footage - It is as if you have to expect a bombing raid any second... and to me at least (after thinking about it) this gives the scene a menace that is there, without being obvious....


There is a lot of that sort of thing in the film.

It is also full of symbols (and I am sure I haven't caught half of them)... for example check out the hawaiian shirts which tend to be full of flowers and symbols that fit the mood...

and so on... (reminds me that I have to watch that film again)

:)

The result is that although the setting is so odd for the play, somehow on an emotional level the images match the text very well....

and there are some fun adaptations, of course. I still love the idea of a Fed-EX type mailservice called 'Post Haste' :D

Yeah, we watched Romeo+Juliet in English, and just the prologue with the newsreader was absolutely perfect, it was amazing how well the exact dialogue translated to a news report. And (and if you've read the Tristan and Isolde thread you'll know where I'm going with this ;)) the stylisation of the film really helps the film's climax IMO. Juliet waking up just as Romeo dies is sooo hackneyed, but because of all that stylisation (even in that one scene, with the neon crosses) it works, or at least doesn't seem as bad as it could.

Actually, another Shakespeare filmthat I remember seeing (although it was several years ago so I can't really remember it too well) was Polanski's Macbeth. I'm pretty sure it was the most nudity my 14 year old eyes had ever seen :D

I loved the images and idea of Romeo+Juliet but sadly I couldn't get past the acting-not horrible, but not good. Mercutio was the most interesting character, and the priest. Claire Danes was alright but she has also done better work.

We watched it at a Classics function (part of a comparison with Pyramus and Thisbe) and one of my profs said when we got out of the movie, "I have just been reminded as to why De Caprio's on my do-not-watch list!" :D

Much Ado is a great movie (I was singing "sigh no more, ladies" last night even) and you're right Elwen, it is very light-hearted and makes your daily little troubles lift some.

I saw a version of The Taming of the Shrew which I wish I did own: it was a semi-documentary (a la Looking for Richard) of a production done for Shakespeare in the Park (New York) with Raoul Julia as Petruchio and Meryl Streep as Katharina. It is called Kiss Me, Petruchio, if I remember right. It had a lot of interviews, including some done with Meryl as she was backstage changing costumes for the next scene. Also the audience. Elizabeth played Katharina straight, and so did Meryl, and they interviewed a lady in the audience after the play ended who said she hadn't really approved of the play, owing to its old-fashioned portrayal of women, or whatever, but nevertheless she was moved by the performance, in particular the final scene; she was in tears, poor lady.
As for The Comedy of Errors, that might be fun. I wonder how they would handle the twins (assuming this is a movie version we're talking about). Would they do it like they did it originally (with one actor, and then a "double" -- dressed the same -- in the final scene), or would they actually get two sets of twins, or would they utilize trick photography? I think they'd do tricks in order to make it look realistic. Silly them.

I agree completely. Of course, I generally don't like anything nowadays, especially productions of plays written by Shakespeare. But Othello is probably the play I know most about, or have the strongest feeling for, and so I'm especially sensitive to its productions. If you didn't like that one you might also not like the ridiculous BBC version (with Anthony Hopkins). The 1922 (silent) version is also pretty bad. On the other hand the Russians did a version in 1955 (dubbed into English) which isn't too bad. It at least qualifies as something that might be "interesting." And the Orson Welles version from ca. 1952 is pretty good in parts, especially the cinematic parts. Excellent touch by Welles on the editing.

Gosh, I'm agreeing with people left and right. And on a thread devoted to Shakespeare? How can that happen. Anyway, I agree most films, especially most commercial films, are a lot closer to depicting what they think 'reality' is (in a superficial sense) than they are to being 'poetry' or dreams (which is what they should be). And I agree commercials are usually so much more sophisticated, not just visually, but all the way around; too bad they're so short and are devoted to selling goods and services.

If you want something more cinematic and at the same time tells a story, try something by Eisenstein, such as Battleship Potemkin. Eisenstein was the first to consciously realize how films were fundamentally different from stage plays, and to develop that quality. He used filmed images as hieroglyphics a lot. Of course he was a communist and his movies are stridently pro-revolutionary -- he used to have arguments with Stalin -- but he survived all that and made some good movies.

... Eisenstein or (somewhat later) Cocteau - although I think Cocteau was too full of himself and his favourite actor most of the time to actually produce real quality....


I am not sure what would be silly about casting the best actors available (one each) for the double roles in Comedy of Errors and to work round the last scene with trickery. The technique of having the same actor in the same frame twice has been around for so lomg it nearly doesn't count as trickery any more...

This is what the BBC did in their veriosn, I think, and it worked pretty well, IMHO. Anyway - they had me in stitches, even in the version that had the time honoured German Schlegel-Tiek translation dubbed over it....

Elwen

True, filmmakers have that license to manipulate emotion with imagery, which he does very effectively.

I think you're spot on with the observations of the symbolism. I just think that unlike people here, most of it was simply lost on the viewing audience in favor of the "coolness". But if it gets people to see the plays as more than one dimensional things-you-were-forced-to-read-in-college, all the better.

-Chaleins

If you want to see an absolutely great Othello, watch Laurence oliviere's othello. Frank Finlay's Iago is pure evil incarnate. He's also sassy, and funny in spots...

Vandevere

I personally have enjoyed each of the Brannagh versions I've seen, though I admittedly I have not seen his version of Othello (since I also heard it wasn't so great).

I heartily agree, Elwen....Much Ado About Nothing is comfort food indeed! It never fails to bring a smile to my face. Brannagh and Thompson are just so cute and goofy together in that movie. Kate Beckinsale even looks pretty to me since she is not stick thin in that movie. I really enjoy Michael Keaton as Dogberry...he's just so weird. :D Even Keanu can't dampen the mood for me, in fact I find his character's cheesiness to be highly amusing. ;)

I also ADORE Baz Lurhman's R & J, for its own sake as well as the fact that it has a ton of sentimental value for me. I can't even begin to describe the impression this movie left on me when I was younger. It was the style and the way he interpreted the story onto a "modern fantasy" setting that really drew me in. (I swear it was NOT Leo, who I was never really that attracted to anyways.) Mercutio and Tybalt are my favorites. :D

Recently, I watched Olivier's Richard III in my Shakespeare class, and while it was good, I couldn't help comparing it to the AWESOME Richard III production that my university put on last semester. The whole play was extremely well done but it was the visual aspect that especially made an impression on me. I was intrigued by the way they signalled when each of Richard's victims were about to be killed--by dramatically sprinkling some sort of shavings down on them from above like evil fairy dust.

Overall the acting was great for university students, and the guy playing the dear Duke of Gloucester by far stole the show (of course he did!). Not to mention he wore blood red gloves---the only part of his costume that had a noticible color. Symbolizing his bloody rise to the throne, those simple accessories seemed to embody his whole character:

"And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stol'n out of holy writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."

The sets in general were minimal yet somehow elaborate at the same time. Continuing with the red motif, they had draped red cloth everywhere, and had a crown-shaped stage/scaffold thing that could be raised to various heights during the production. Also, at times the set utilized lighting to create dramatic shadows against an ominous reddish glow. But the best had to be the giant sword hanging in the middle of the stage. Literally, it was huge! :biggrin: When they shone the red lights on the sword, it looked like it was dripping with blood. Very chilling (and delicious) effect. :yum: I just love the color red when used well...its so sensual..... :swoon:

But oh yes....back to the film setting. :o I would love to see a Shakespeare film done in a similar manner to the above play.....that would be so aesthetically pleasing to me. But I'm really not that picky. I would go to a movie theatre to see just about any Shakespeare-based film.

For that minimal yet elaborate look on film you have to go to Peter Brook - but I don't think he has made a Shakespeare film. His Mahabharata is a marvel of a film (one of my favourite films, actually). PB was leading (at least in the UK) to develop a new theatrical style which used few (but carefully) chosen items to set the mood - and good acting, of course!


For Richard III: have you seen Ian Mckellen's version? A must see, IMHO. You won't get a theatrical style there (it is set in a world that has a fscist feel to it - with Battersea Powerstation in London playing a magnificent role as a backdrop).

The acting is (as you'd expect, of course) superb. :jawdrop: - and I think the style does suit the play, evemn if it is perhaps a somewhat obvious and clunky idea (as was so en vogue in theatres in the 1980's)

Elwen


---------------------------------

Edit after a visit to imdb

Apparently Peter Brook has made a version of King lear and one of Hamlet. it might be worth watching out for these (even if Hamlet is for TV).

---------------------------------

El, Peter Brook made a King Lear in the 70s. I only ever saw the opening, but what I saw was pretty good. Lots of nice symbolism and visual (it was shot in black and white) as well as aural imagery (lots of foreboding silence).

EDIT: Ahem, sorry, I didn't see your edit :)

Having seen both the movie and stage production of Richard III (with Ian McKellen) the movie worked better for his interpretation. Both are excellent performances, naturally. The best thing about the play was the backstage talk afterwards with Sir Ian.

Sounds like you had a lot of fun with the stage production, too. Its certainly can have powerful symbolism. I'm also a veteran of a stage production 2 years ago. It's a star vehicle, all right.

-Chaleins

What sticks in my mind
 

I've seen loads of Shakespeare and some of it has stuck in my mind. :D

I'm very partial to Ian McKellen's Richard III, which I think is well made and well acted, but Olivier's hamming in the title role in his version (complete with wig with red-tipped hair) is so wonderful, Gielgud so camp, and Richardson so oily, that I've got to admit to liking this one best of all the Shakespeare adaptations I've seen. First saw the movie when I was about 8, and haven't been able to forget it since. But lest people think this is a joke: in many ways the film is superior to the McK version. (See and judge for yerself!)

As for Branagh versus Olivier in the Hamlet, well, I liked the Branagh, but I preferred the Olivier. Great actor, great movie. Recommend highly to everyone.

I've seen a number of good Macbeths, but oh! the Kurosawa. Even if it didn't have Olivier in it ( ;) ), its a brilliant film and highly to be recommended.


PS: Marlon Brando as Mark Antony. Wow! and Wow! again. Regret to say that he's all I remember of that JC. :(

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention Kurosawa's King Lear (called Ran). I haven't seen all of that either, but what I've seen is pretty good.

Has anyone seen Derek Jarman's 1979 version of The Tempest? I just watched in it my class today...and um...wow.:eek:

What an...erm....interesting interpretation.....:eek:

Shakespeare as a movie… :barf:
Just my opinion… :D

There was a series on PBS mannnnny years ago (maybe 30?) which presented Shakespeare plays on a weekly basis. The only two I remember distinctly were Much Ado with Sam Waterston and The Tempest with Michael Hordern. I also remember a movie of A Midsummer Night's Dream with Diana Rigg, but I'm not sure if it was part of the PBS series.

The Branaugh version of Much Ado is one of my favorite movies. I loved how well paced and amusing it was. Branaugh and Emma Thompson were so good together, it made me sad when they divorced. Yes, Keanu Reeves was miscast, and so was Denzel Washington, IMO (as much as I love DW). Funny thing was that Michael Keaton was better than either of them! Michael Keaton?

Michael Keaton is hilarious in this isn't he? :D

Funny, I thought that Washington is good in Much Ado about Nothing. I donb't know - he doesn't seem veery self-cosncious about his American accent, which means he sounds quite natural speaking his lines, and he is so noble and ... :D :swoon:



Could the series you saw on PBS be the series of (I think!) all Shakespeare plays that the BBC did at some point? I certainly sawa few of those on Austrian TV (dubbed, but still...) - they had lots of famous British actors in...

I seem to remember comedy of errors and 12th night in a wonderful English woodland setting, IIRC. And a few of the tragedies... :)

Michael Hordern as Prospero? :D how fitting for the BBC Gandalf :)