![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatFinally saw Joss Whedon's Much Ado About Nothing - which was all the rage online this summer, or at least amongst the Shakespeare/Whedon fans.
First, off, this was clearly a vanity project (and in more ways than one). But to be fair, it was also a vanity project for Kenneth Brannagh, who had a bigger budget and more support, plus had to include box office stars to obtain the support. Some of which did not quite know what to do with Shakespeare. I'm wondering if Brannah shouldn't have starred in it and directed it? Because Keanu Reeves and Michael Keaton butchered Shakespeare.
Not sure what it is about Much Ado About Nothing and rich Hollywood directors...why that play in particular? May be because it is easier than some of the other ones...
I watched the Making Of - hoping to get an answer to that question - I didn't. Did get an answer to why they filmed it in black and white - to date it and as a homage to the noir films of the Jazz age. It also hid the big orange lawn-mower. Note to filmmakers who do commentaries and "Making Of" - the viewer doesn't want to know how great you all are or how much fun you had or how often you partied or what bosom buddies you've become, we don't know you and do not care...that's boring. We want to know why you chose to do certain things, like why push-ups in that scene? Why that era?
Overall? The movie is actually pretty good. The acting is better than expected. I'd have to say that in some respects, I think it worked better than Kenneth Brannagh's version (although haven't seen that one in 18 years). Nathan Fillion surprised me - his Dogberry was not only funny, but I could understand what he was saying. And Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof - not only have chemistry, but both appear to be comfortable with Shakespeare, so too was Reed Diamond and Clark Gregson, who apparently can act. Who knew?
My issues with it were largely due to the material or play, which has never been a favorite and I find rather silly and boring, when its not focused on Beatrice and Benedict. And these issues existed with Brannagh's version.
The setting? It's Joss Whedon's home, which actually works since it does look like a modern day Italian villa...with a palacial estate - I can imagine a governor living there.
* Too many frigging steps, what is with the steps?
* Why do you have huge french windows looking out on a brick wall and steps? Are you nuts?
* What's with the kitchen - very boxy, it seems separated from the living area, why not open it up more?
* And why do they have that cavity or space which Amy Acker's Beatrice hides in...why not put a cabinet there? Seems wasteful.
* Do they own all that land? Where is this located - overlooking a park?
* Why are the books so high up? Whedon and his wife are short. Do they use a step-ladder to get to them?
* Damn that living room set looks uncomfortable.
* Does Whedon have two daughters? With twin beds? And Benedict and Claudio are expected to sleep in those beds, really? Can they even fit in them? LOL! Do like the butterflies however.
Thought Whedon had a son - was his bedroom off limits?
* Ugly master bedroom set, just saying.
Will state that Whedon did a better job of directing this film than the Avengers or Marvel Agents of Shield - this reminded me more of Buffy and possibly Firefly, in style. Lots of hand-held camera shots - which worked in the space, and some decent through the window shots.
It's not great, and it's definitely not Fellini (but few are), but it was in some respects better than Brannagh's sun-dappled version. Although I'm not sure Whedon knew how to do black and white effectively, few people do. It looked washed out, and not enough play with shadows. Too dark in places, too light in others. Also, it drug in places and my attention definitely wandered, but that could be due more due to the play, I think, than the direction. The acting kept me entertained, unlike Brannagh's version there wasn't a weak player in the bunch (it pays to do this sort of thing independent of Hollywood and with unknowns) - and Whedon does do a good job of standing back and letting the actors do their job - which is most likely why they love him so much, because he tends to do that.
Overall rating? B (entertaining romp, glad I didn't pay $15 dollars for it.)
First, off, this was clearly a vanity project (and in more ways than one). But to be fair, it was also a vanity project for Kenneth Brannagh, who had a bigger budget and more support, plus had to include box office stars to obtain the support. Some of which did not quite know what to do with Shakespeare. I'm wondering if Brannah shouldn't have starred in it and directed it? Because Keanu Reeves and Michael Keaton butchered Shakespeare.
Not sure what it is about Much Ado About Nothing and rich Hollywood directors...why that play in particular? May be because it is easier than some of the other ones...
I watched the Making Of - hoping to get an answer to that question - I didn't. Did get an answer to why they filmed it in black and white - to date it and as a homage to the noir films of the Jazz age. It also hid the big orange lawn-mower. Note to filmmakers who do commentaries and "Making Of" - the viewer doesn't want to know how great you all are or how much fun you had or how often you partied or what bosom buddies you've become, we don't know you and do not care...that's boring. We want to know why you chose to do certain things, like why push-ups in that scene? Why that era?
Overall? The movie is actually pretty good. The acting is better than expected. I'd have to say that in some respects, I think it worked better than Kenneth Brannagh's version (although haven't seen that one in 18 years). Nathan Fillion surprised me - his Dogberry was not only funny, but I could understand what he was saying. And Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof - not only have chemistry, but both appear to be comfortable with Shakespeare, so too was Reed Diamond and Clark Gregson, who apparently can act. Who knew?
My issues with it were largely due to the material or play, which has never been a favorite and I find rather silly and boring, when its not focused on Beatrice and Benedict. And these issues existed with Brannagh's version.
The setting? It's Joss Whedon's home, which actually works since it does look like a modern day Italian villa...with a palacial estate - I can imagine a governor living there.
* Too many frigging steps, what is with the steps?
* Why do you have huge french windows looking out on a brick wall and steps? Are you nuts?
* What's with the kitchen - very boxy, it seems separated from the living area, why not open it up more?
* And why do they have that cavity or space which Amy Acker's Beatrice hides in...why not put a cabinet there? Seems wasteful.
* Do they own all that land? Where is this located - overlooking a park?
* Why are the books so high up? Whedon and his wife are short. Do they use a step-ladder to get to them?
* Damn that living room set looks uncomfortable.
* Does Whedon have two daughters? With twin beds? And Benedict and Claudio are expected to sleep in those beds, really? Can they even fit in them? LOL! Do like the butterflies however.
Thought Whedon had a son - was his bedroom off limits?
* Ugly master bedroom set, just saying.
Will state that Whedon did a better job of directing this film than the Avengers or Marvel Agents of Shield - this reminded me more of Buffy and possibly Firefly, in style. Lots of hand-held camera shots - which worked in the space, and some decent through the window shots.
It's not great, and it's definitely not Fellini (but few are), but it was in some respects better than Brannagh's sun-dappled version. Although I'm not sure Whedon knew how to do black and white effectively, few people do. It looked washed out, and not enough play with shadows. Too dark in places, too light in others. Also, it drug in places and my attention definitely wandered, but that could be due more due to the play, I think, than the direction. The acting kept me entertained, unlike Brannagh's version there wasn't a weak player in the bunch (it pays to do this sort of thing independent of Hollywood and with unknowns) - and Whedon does do a good job of standing back and letting the actors do their job - which is most likely why they love him so much, because he tends to do that.
Overall rating? B (entertaining romp, glad I didn't pay $15 dollars for it.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2014-01-19 05:35 am (UTC)It looked washed out, and not enough play with shadows. Too dark in places, too light in others.
If your TV set is an LCD type, this could be the set. LCD TVs cannot reproduce a true black level (no light output), it's inherent in the technology. B&W film makes this defect more apparent than with color. Only CRT (picture tube type) and plasma sets can reproduce a true black.
Or, of course, the picture could have been filmed in color and then converted to B&W. This doesn't work well either.
Or-- they could have just screwed up. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2014-01-19 03:03 pm (UTC)And I've seen other B&W on the LCD, which I didn't really notice it that much...so I think its a little bit of both, they didn't have a good handle on B&W - it basically looked like Leave it Beaver's take on B&W.