Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow

Well, here we are, at the end of September, and thus at the end of Shakespearetember.  This project hasn't exactly gone as planned, what with getting the hang of my new 8-5 job and budgeting my time and everything. Hopefully in the future I can take some more time during the week to write out more comprehensive reviews rather than trying to bash out reviews over the weekend when I have fifty other things to get done at home now that I can no longer do them during the week.  What pains me is that I haven't been able to write more in this of all months, since I have been doing Shakespeare movies... and of all of the subjects that I have written about on this site the Bard deserves more than what I have been giving him.  Well, if I do another Shakespeare month next year I will definitely try to do him more justice.  Anywho, let's get to our last Shakespeare review for the month (and, alack, it will be another short one for the aforementioned reasons) and partake in

Film, 1935

Directors:  Max Reinhardt and William Dieterle

Story

Theseus, the Duke of Athens is marrying Hippolyta, the Queen of the Amazons (which sounds like a bitchin' name for a rock band, by the way) amidst much Athenian joy and revelry (and presumably much throwing up).  But what's important is that a couple of young lovers, a couple of young not-quite-lovers and a troupe of amateur actors have gone into the woods about a mile outside of town.  This is important because while there they will be mixed up in a marital war between Oberon and Titania, the King and Queen of the Fairies. Also, they will be massively fucked with by the most annoying fairy of them all, Prick–er, I mean Puck.

Review

As I have said, this will be short.  I loved this movie.  The acting was good; all of the principle roles are done well and conveyed the humor in Shakespeare's play.  James Cagney in particular stands out as Bottom, both before and after assification.  Yes, Mickey Rooney is annoying as shit, but you know what, he is supposed to be.  It's Puck.  The little bastard pranks other people for his own amusement.  If they made this movie today they would probably get some irritating modern celebrity douchebag to play the part.  One can also see why the nineteen year-old Olivia de Havilland went on to fame and fortune later on (this was her first movie).

What I like the most about A Midsummer Night's Dream though is the production.  First, they use the incidental music composed by Mendelssohn, which is awesome – I can't imagine any Hollywood production doing this nowadays.  Second, the sets and imagery are fantastic, and I mean that in both the colloquial and the original sense of the word.  The screenshots I provide in this review do not do this film justice.  You have to see this film to truly behold its dreamlike wonder.  The black-and-white only adds to the charm.

To sum up, see this.  It's fun, it's funny, it's easy to comprehend (something not all Shakespeare movies can do) and it is truly wondrous.

Screenshots

All I have to say about that getup is... wow.

Are we sure this isn't one of Cagney's gangster movies?

I don't know, looks like a perfectly normal forest to me....

Oh. 

Oberon, the King of Bling.

"Screw you guys, I'm goin' home."

"...and that's why the Chicago Cubs will never win
another World Series.  What?  Was that statement
too shocking for you?"

Titania wakes up next to an ass.  I bet most of you ladies
can relate, am I right? 

I leave you with the most disturbing screenshot of all.

The Winter Of My Dis-comment?

Last time on Shakespearetember I commented how Kenneth Branagh is the “foremost cinematic Shakespeare interpreter since Laurence Olivier.” Well, this week we have…

Film, 1955 

Director: Figure it out. 

Story 

The eeeeeeevil Richard, Duke of Gloucester, plots and schemes to take the throne of England. This involves killing his brother, his nephews and a lot of other ignorant dolts-er, I mean poor defenseless victims. Yep, that’s basically it. Oh, and some minor theme about complacency and collaboration being the means through which the people allow dictatorships to exist at all, but that’s not important.

What is important is that the crown of England is very *big*.
How do they wear that?

Review 

The sets are cool, the cinematography is cool, Olivier is an acting god, etc. etc. etc. Richard III just might the greatest Shakespeare movie ever, and so on and so on and so on.

What I really want to talk about today is DVD commentaries.

Yes, DVD commentaries. In a post about Olivier’s Richard III, in the middle of a month on this site dedicated to William Shakespeare.


What are DVD commentaries for anyway? Or should I say, movie commentaries, because Criterion (who made the DVD that I have of Olivier’s Richard III and whose commentary track for which I will talk about in a bit, incidentally enough) actually started the trend with their old Laserdisc releases in the 80s and 90s. Do they exist to let the director or actors inform the viewer how the film was made and what went on while they made it? Any behind-the-scenes documentary can do that – and it seems that these “making-of” programs are being shot at the same time as the movies all the time nowadays… it is like the filmmakers are anticipating the DVD releases while making their films.

Ralph Richardson does not approve.

The worst thing is, as I have said, that all modern movies will basically have a commentary track on their DVD or Blu-Ray… even if they don’t deserve one. I remember going into a video rental place (remember those?) a few years ago and watching a bit of what they had playing on the store TVs while I browsed. They were playing the completely unmemorable, throwaway Christmas comedy movie Fred Claus… with the director’s commentary on. So I got to learn all about how the movie was made, and about all of the important directorial decisions that had to be made to ensure the success of the mighty cinematic effort that was… Fred Claus. I stopped browsing after a while and focused on the screens – I became more and more engrossed with the banality of it the more it went on. The breaking point for me was the moment where the director said during a quiet scene, “when I was reading the original script, this is the scene that made me decide to make this movie.” You didn’t decide to make *anything*, moron. You took this movie because you’re a low-level hack director, and the choice from your studio overlords was either this, or Saw XXXVII: Naked Co-Ed Tubeslide Deathtrap Terror, and you took this. Do not try to puff yourself up as a real director. If you are lucky you will eventually amass enough talent and/or sleep enough with the right people to move up the Hollywood ladder enough to make a film that audiences will remember for more than ten minutes after they leave the theatre, but right now you make movies like Fred Claus… WHICH DOES NOT NEED A DIRECTOR’S COMMENTARY!!

Anyways, the point of this diatribe is that most movie commentary tracks are useless and usually highly egocentric for the people making them. The only commentaries I have genuinely loved have been the those for Ghostbusters (the original DVD release had MST3K-style silhouettes ad the bottom of the screen pointing out specific things that the makers were talking about), Evil Dead II (Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell and Robert Tapert riff their own movie and it is hilarious) and… Richard III.

Speaking of Evil Dead II:  Richard about to swallow a soul.

Criterion’s commentary track for their DVD of Richard III is not like most other commentaries, even ones by Criterion. Since the movie is an adaptation of Shakespeare, the commentators are stage director Russell Lees and Dr. John Wilders, who not only taught Shakespeare at a University level but was a member of the board for the Royal Shakespeare Company. As a consequence this has to be the most informative DVD commentary I have ever experienced. Not only in the making of the film (which isn’t gone into that much, actually) or the editorial decisions by Olivier in regards to the play (Olivier massively edited Richard III, moving around whole scenes and lines of dialogue and even cutting out a few characters all in order to make for a better cinematic experience)

Translation: this whole movie, historically, is bullshit.

but in Shakespeare and Shakespearean acting in general. For example, the question I asked in my review for Antony and Cleopatra about how the original play could handle the large load of rapid scene changes was answered on the commentary for this by Mr. Lees (the original Shakespearean stage was very sparse and didn’t have any real scenery to begin with). My greatest lesson though was in verse acting and how it can actually help actors remember their dialogue and how Shakespeare employs it in his plays. In short (because I’m getting too long) this commentary is what a commentary should be, a true learning experience and not just mindless chatter or directorial bloviating and self-aggrandizing. Watch Richard III and then watch it with this commentary track and you will learn something.

 Like how to woo ill-humored women.

Well, that was a lengthy, almost off-topic rant.  Sorry about that, but I just wanted to share a new experience that I had.  You see, this was the third time I watched Olivier's Richard III and I decided to watch it with the commentary this time and I enjoyed it and learned from it so much that I decided to write about that instead of doing a straight-up review.  I will talk about an actual Shakespeare movie next time though, I promise.




Next Week: Fairies!

Bow Chicka Wow Wow

This week on Shakespeartember, we look at an effort from the foremost cinematic Shakespeare interpreter since Laurence Olivier.  And since I reviewed a historic tragedy last time, let's switch gears a bit today and do a comedy.  Without further ado...

Film, 1993

Director: Kenneth Branagh

Story

Much apparently is made about nothing.  Whilst everyone in Messina, Italy conspires to bring the eternally warring Beatrice and Benedick together, the evil Iago-lite, um, I mean Don John conspires to split asunder newly engaged Hero and Claudio.  Why?  Because he's named after a portable toilet, I guess.  Because this is a Shakespeare comedy, everything turns out all right in the end and no one dies a tragic, bloody death.

Review

Kenneth Branagh is an innovate, inventive director and actor of Shakespeare.  Shortly after establishing the opening shot of Messina, thus giving the audience some scenery porn

Branagh proceeds to give us some actual porn

as Emma Thompson and Kate Beckinsale start fondling each other in the shower.  Lesbian debauchery follows, and Branagh ups the stakes by supplying both a scene of Robert Sean Leonard being violated from behind

and Keanu Reeves' Don John receiving a homoerotic massage.

But Branagh doesn't stop there.  He then shows his artistic bravery and insight by showing a full-blown orgy, giving us a vision of Shakespeare that will prove both provocative and timeless.

Nah, just kidding.  Branagh doesn't really give us a porno version of Much Ado About Nothing, although that would be... interesting (especially considering that the word "nothing" was slang in Shakespeare's day for women's genitals).

The only reason I did this review this way was because I really have nothing to say about the film and needed to fill up space.  Nothing is great and you should see it.  I saw this movie about fifteen years ago in Eighth Grade English class and loved it then, and I love it now.  It overflows with life and color and joy and mirth.  It has good acting, good photography and it's just a really good way to spend two hours of your time.

See it.

The only thing I can really think of that keeps it from being perfect is the inclusion of Keanu Reeves ("And verily, I doth say unto thee: whoa") as the villain, although thankfully he doesn't get much screen time.

Oh, and I could have done without the creepy masks being suddenly shoved into my face during the party scene.

Aaaaagghhhh!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGH!!!!!!

I'm Back, Bitches

After three months of straight applying and interviewing with no time for anything else – including this blog – I am out of my crappy retail job. I could go on about how shitty my last job was and how much I wanted to murder the management (and some of the customers), etc. but that’s not what this blog is for. Let me just say this and then we will never speak of the subject again: I worked for a chain bookstore and I fully predict that *all* of the physical retail bookstores will go the way of Borders by 2015. They cannot for the life of them figure out how to compete with Amazon and just plod along, hoping to do the same thing that is not working anymore over and over again until they magically succeed (isn’t that the definition of stupidity?) and then punish their minimum-wage employees when their half-brained schemes to make money do nothing.

Anywho, enough about that.  I’m SO glad to be out my old shithole of a retail job (new office job – 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, yay!) that I’m booting up this blog again like I promised last post (when I knew that I was getting my next job). And in celebration I’m ALSO deciding to give this month a theme, AND I’m going to try to post once a week, just like the good old days! And in TRIPLE celebration I’m going to post a review for a movie from Charlton Heston, the Patron Saint of this site!

Verily, thy ask, what doth be mine own blog’s theme o’ th’ month? Why, ‘tis the beloved bard who bringeth drama most rich and language most bonny and fair, loved by all except the teenaged students of our fair tongue in the schools public. Yep, I’m talking about Shakespeare, and no, I’m not going to conduct the entire review like that. This month is Shakespeare September, and we’ll be looking at some movie adaptations of some of the Bard’s plays. And to kick off Shakespearetember we’ll look, as promised, at a movie from everyone’s favorite gun-totin’ monkey punchin’ man’s man as he dons a toga, yells at a lot of people and gropes a lot of boob in 

Film, 1972 

Director: Charlton Heston(!) 

Story 

Mark Antony (guess who?) waffles back and forth between his duty to Rome and his lust, er, love for Egyptian Queen Cleopatra (Hildegard Neil). He yells at a lot of people, acts like a douche and fucks up his life over the course of two-and-a-half hours, then kills himself. Cleopatra acts whiny, crazy and vain for two-and-a-half hours, then kills herself. Don’t look at me like that. I’m not spoiling anything; go pick up a history textbook. And on an anticipatory note: I’m not going to worry about spoiling any other Shakespeare plays this month either, because they have been around for four hundred-plus years and you should know all this already.

Review 

I wasn’t lying when I said that this adaptation of a Shakespeare play was from Charlton Heston, was I? Not only did he star in it, he directed it – and adapted it as well. You know what that means, kiddies.

Charlton Heston Ego Alert!

This movie was Heston’s directorial debut, too (and he only directed two minor movies after this one). Surprisingly it actually holds together as a film and doesn’t fly apart at the seams (although it does drag a little at times). There are a few weird moments though, such as when Antony and Octavian make their truce near the beginning of the story. Heston sets it in a mini Gladiator ampitheatre, and the characters have their dialogue while a pair of duelists put on a private performance. Heston shows the two gladiators trying to kill each other while flashing almost subliminal images of Octavian against a black background. It’s very weird and very clumsy. It’s almost like Heston is saying, “This is what directors do, right? Look, people, I’m directing! I’m being artsy!” Then there’s the image of the fat, sweaty hortator in the galley beating the drums and looking completely dead and soulless that will creep you the fuck out. The writer/actor/director (“Look at me! I’m Laurence Olivier!”) also makes some odd choices when adapting and trimming the play (which you have to do, otherwise you are looking at a four hour plus movie). The oddest choice for me was retaining the character of Iras (a servant of Cleopatra) but only letting her keep about two lines from the play. This also has unfortunate implications as the role is played by the only black performer who’s not an extra in the movie. I guess Heston just wanted her around to show her naked butt (because you know how Chuck loves the sistahs).

Whoa, whoa, we're not filming that kind of movie, Chuck!

Speaking of which, Heston takes the opportunity as Boss Of The Show to indulge in copping as many feels as he can, and not just with the actress playing the other half of the title. Seriously, check this out:

It's good to be the king.

Also, I (and a lot of other people) have noticed that about 75% of the sea battle footage is taken from Cleopatra and Ben-Hur. You can see the ships change from shot to shot. Speaking of Ben-Hur: while watching these scenes I almost expected to see Heston playing Mark Antony up on the top deck then see him rowing down below. Hell, why stop there? We can have a ship crewed with nothing but Charlton Hestons. Actually I would pay money to see that.

The acting in this movie is a mixed bag. Hildegard Neil is adequate if not great as Cleopatra. She gets the petulance and back-stabbery down but ultimately fails to make Cleopatra a sympathetic character (although whether she is supposed to be one in the first place or not is debatable). Oh, speaking of petulance, looking at IMDb, I see that Ms. Neil is married to Brian Blessed, which makes this scene utterly hilarious:

"I LIKE NOT THIS NEWS!  BRING ME SOME OTHER NEWS!"

Heston is typical Heston: doing a good job at ACTING! But reminding you that it is Charlton Heston acting all of the time instead of simply being the character. Actually, Heston seems to want to make Antony an even more unsympathetic character than he is in the play. For example, in the play, Antony has an emissary from Octavian whipped, which is both a breach of diplomatic protocol and an assholish thing to do, even if you are mad at the dude. In the movie, Heston’s Antony beats the guy up a little beforehand – and afterwards too.  Oh, and then he smacks Cleopatra for good measure.

What a dickweed.

The best performances in this movie are from the supporting players. My favorite acting job in this film is from Roger Delgado as the soothsayer. Quietly intense, wise, soft-spoken and spooky, Delgado gives the best performance in the show. But what else do you expect from the Master?

"You will obey me."

Speaking of Doctor Who, Julian Glover is also in this (he’s actually the first character you see on screen) and he is also very good. The other players are great as well, including John Castle as Octavian and Freddie Jones as Pompey.


The thing I liked the most about this movie was the epic-ness of it, the scenery with all of the locations and the sets. The original play Antony and Cleopatra is supposed to be grandiose; there lots of scene changes and some of the scenes only have about three lines of dialogue in them. One has to wonder how they were performed back in the day with the pace of the thing. It’s very appropriate for this play that Heston went the epic route and chose to shoot Antony and Cleopatra as an epic film (even if he does splice in the aforementioned battle footage).

In the end though Antony and Cleopatra is just a middling effort: while the scenery and some of the acting is great, the leads are just not that engaging or believable – I had a hard time believing that this was one of the greatest pairs of lovers in history and not just a pair of squabbling, backstabbing politicians who were just in it together for the sex and power. If Heston had ceded the directing duties to someone better and more experienced this could have been a truly great film. While I do recommend seeing it once for the aforementioned qualities, I think that only the dedicated Shakespeare or Charlton Heston lover needs to have it in their video library.

A Note On The DVD: The DVD of Antony and Cleopatra has the worst audio of any legitimate commercial DVD I have ever heard. There is a very loud hiss present in the movie from beginning to end, and some of the dialogue is very hard to make out – you may want to turn on the subtitles for this one. Also, on a side note I found it odd that there are no production company logos or credits at the beginning of the movie – it’s just straight into the title. This isn’t a bad thing but it makes the whole thing look like one of those old public domain VHS tapes that I would get as a kid, which actually kind of amuses me.


Next Week:  Shakespearetember continues.