Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tyler

Much Ado about Nothing (2012)

Recommended Posts

The Wrap:

It's much ado about something.
Joss Whedon has directed, adapted, cast and filmed an entire movie -- an adaptation of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing" -- in secret, TheWrap has learned.Whedon, who created "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel" and wrote and directed Marvel's upcoming "The Avengers," wrote and directed the movie, an individual close to the project told TheWrap Sunday night.

On Sunday night, a website appeared announcing that Whedon's "Much Ado About Nothing," which it says is "based on a play," has completed principal photography. Two people close to the project confirmed that Whedon had indeed filmed a secret movie, and only announced it on Sunday nigh



The movie's website features this picture and not much else.


image001.jpg

 


It's the side effects that save us.
--The National, "Graceless"
Twitter Blog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

Just last week, I mentioned to a friend (who happens to be cast in Seattle Pacific's upcoming stage show of this) that I was hoping we'd see a better film version of this play than the Branagh version sometime soon. Maybe this will be it.


P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow.

Just last week, I mentioned to a friend (who happens to be cast in Seattle Pacific's upcoming stage show of this) that I was hoping we'd see a better film version of this play than the Branagh version sometime soon. Maybe this will be it.

What's wrong with the Branagh version? I think it's great fun.


“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, it's fine. It has its moments. It's just, well, to borrow a phrase invented by one of my favorite critics, "mostly not great."

Henry V is the only Branagh film where I stop thinking about Branagh and get caught up in the Shakespeare.


P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, it's fine. It has its moments. It's just, well, to borrow a phrase invented by one of my favorite critics, "mostly not great."

Ha ha ha. Okay, no, it's not great, but it's great fun -- at least, I think so. It's an exuberant, giddy romp, and while that may not be the only way to interpret this particular play, I think it's an entirely suitable way.

What's wrong with the Branagh version?

11250.jpg

Oh, fine, be that way. I kind of like the hodge-podgy randomness of Keanu and Denzel as Don John and Don Pedro. It's a little bit community theater-ish. The character makes no sense anyway. If I could make a casting change, I'd be tempted to cast someone other than Robert Sean Leonard as Claudio. I'd like to see someone a little more willing to have fun with the role.


“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind race-blind casting, particularly in Shakespeare. The Dons are only half-brothers, anyhow. But if your screenplay depends in any measure on the beauty of the spoken word, don't cast Keanu Reeves.

I'm sure RSL had some character-based reason for spending the entire film looking like he needed a hit of Pepto-Bismol. Claudio definitely takes everything seriously; I wouldn't regard him as one of the more "fun" roles in Shakespeare, anyhow.

Edited by mrmando

Let's Carl the whole thing Orff!

Do you know the deep dark secret of the avatars?

It's big. It's fat. It's Greek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure RSL had some character-based reason for spending the entire film looking like he needed a hit of Pepto-Bismol. Claudio definitely takes everything seriously; I wouldn't regard him as one of the more "fun" roles in Shakespeare, anyhow.

It's precisely because Claudio takes everything seriously that I'd like to see him played with more of a wink (and yeah, less of a constipation problem).


“I write because I don’t know what I think until I read what I say.” — Flannery O'Connor

Writing at the new Decent Films | Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joss Whedon Releases More Details About Mysterious New Film 'Much Ado About Nothing'


But on Monday, a press release appeared on the website answering at least some of those questions. The film is, in fact, a modern version of Shakespeare's play that Whedon directed and was filmed in black and white in only 12 days entirely on location in Santa Monica.

“The text is to me a deconstruction of the idea of love, which is ironic, since the entire production is a love letter -- to the text, to the cast, even to the house it’s shot in," Whedon said of the project.

Acker and Alexis Denisof star as Beatrice and Benedick, while the supporting cast includes Fillion as Dogberry, Clark Gregg as Leonato, Fran Kranz as Claudio and Reed Diamond as Don Pedro. . . .

Hollywood Reporter, October 24


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By next year, I'll be ready for yet another production of Much Ado about Nothing, especially one produced by Joss Whedon & starring Alexis Denisof & Amy Acker as Benedick & Beatrice.

However, I'm also keeping my fingers crossed for a filmed version of this year's London stage production starring David Tennant & Catherine Tate, which was absolutely fabulous. The Globe's production is set to be filmed, I believe (Charles Edwards, Eve Best). BBC reviews of both productions.


There is this difference between the growth of some human beings and that of others: in the one case it is a continuous dying, in the other a continuous resurrection. (George MacDonald, The Princess and Curdie)

Isn't narrative structure enough of an ideology for art? (Greg Wright)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering in which scene we'll get to see Beatrice take a guy out with a flying kick to the solar plexus...

Edited by mrmando

Let's Carl the whole thing Orff!

Do you know the deep dark secret of the avatars?

It's big. It's fat. It's Greek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EW's interviews with Joss Whedon, Sean Maher, and Amy Acker about Much Ado.

There is this difference between the growth of some human beings and that of others: in the one case it is a continuous dying, in the other a continuous resurrection. (George MacDonald, The Princess and Curdie)

Isn't narrative structure enough of an ideology for art? (Greg Wright)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha. IMDb has mis-identified almost everyone in those photos except Alexis Denisof (Benedick) & Amy Acker (Beatrice). The photo in Tyler's post is Tom Lenk (Verges), not Reed Diamond, and Nathan Fillion (Dogberry)--those two should be comedy gold together. And the guy in the snorkel with the martini has been identified elsewhere as Fran Kranz (Claudio). The two women are Amy Acker (again) and Jillian Morgese (Hero)--she apparently hasn't done much before this, but her credit photo matches.


There is this difference between the growth of some human beings and that of others: in the one case it is a continuous dying, in the other a continuous resurrection. (George MacDonald, The Princess and Curdie)

Isn't narrative structure enough of an ideology for art? (Greg Wright)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TIFF '12: Joss Whedon's Marvelously Homemade 'Much Ado About Nothing'

It's my position that there are films in the world the highest and greatest purpose of which is to be delightful. That the creation of delight is an entirely valid use of one's talent, and that normal humans have always known this, and it's only critics who sometimes forget because they are bombarded with so much false and forced delight. So certain projects exist in part to remind you that real delight is an end unto itself. Joss Whedon's adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing is exactly this kind of film, and because it's utterly delightful, it's utterly successful.

P.S.  I COULD BE WRONG.

 

Takin' 'er easy for all you sinners at lookingcloser.org. Also abiding at Facebook and Twitter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my brother Aren's take on Whedon's film that he saw at TIFF.

I didn't see it, but it sounds like lots of fun. Aren thought that some of the Whedon fanboys at the screening went a bit far though in their love for it (three standing ovations?). But he enjoyed the fact that Whedon and the whole cast came out and really respected the way guys like Nathan Fillion recognize the role of the fans in their careers and are generous with their time and attention.


"A director must live with the fact that his work will be called to judgment by someone who has never seen a film of Murnau's." - François Truffaut

Twitter.
Letterboxd.

Reviews and essays at Three Brothers Film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never posted my quick take from Toronto:

The easy response to Joss Whedon’s low-budget take on Much Ado About Nothing is that there’s nothing in the film that wasn’t already on the page. And that’s probably true, I suppose, but the film is so much fun, and it was so obviously made for fun, that I can’t really fault it for just being charming and droll. Whedon’s signature here is that he approaches the material as he would any other romantic comedy, and as usual he proves especially good at inventing excuses for his actors to behave like real people in a hyper-real scenario. The cast seldom just deliver lines; they deliver lines while cleaning up bottles after a party or strumming a guitar or dripping with pool water or walking back and forth to the pantry while fixing a pot of coffee. Every high school English teacher who has ever tried to convince his or her students that Shakespeare was the sitcom writer of his day now has proof, all the way down to a spit take and pratfall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scrolling-through-words part toward the end is like a really high-end version of those iPad commercials.


It's the side effects that save us.
--The National, "Graceless"
Twitter Blog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a fantastic trailer that has little-to-no relation to the film itself. smile.png

I believe you, based on reviews, but I'm so happy to see Alexis Denisof & Amy Acker together onscreen again that I don't care a bit. I'm restraining my expectations: I'm sure this film isn't actually the best Shakespeare adaptation ever (and besides, I saw Tennant & Tate in Much Ado on stage in 2011), but I still expect to enjoy it.


There is this difference between the growth of some human beings and that of others: in the one case it is a continuous dying, in the other a continuous resurrection. (George MacDonald, The Princess and Curdie)

Isn't narrative structure enough of an ideology for art? (Greg Wright)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...