Theatre as Film

muchado_coverI recently had the pleasure of seeing Joss Whedon’s version of Much Ado About Nothing. In a word: delightful. However as much as I enjoyed all the shenanigans onscreen I had to wonder why this movie had been made at all.

There is nothing cinematic about it. As my friend put it, “It’s like Joss Whedon had a party and after the fifth bottle of wine they were all like, ‘Let’s do some Shakespeare!'” Granted, I would kill to have been a fly on the wall at that party. However this film played like he set up the camera in the corner and instructed the actors to put on a stage drama in front of it. By which I mean, there are no intriguing camera angles and no visual style (besides the hipster use of black and white).

As I said, I found the film delightful. But if you’re not going to do anything with film as a medium why not save yourself the expense and put on a stage play?

Any thoughts?

(I own nothing related to anything ever.)


2 thoughts on “Theatre as Film

  1. I’ve been looking forward to seeing this one. Your comments about it being non-cinematic are very interesting. Knowing me, I might really appreciate what he’s done there. I’m always up for something different.

    • It is certainly different from Branaugh’s version of the play where the cast spent the entire time frolicking through Italy. I still haven’t settled in my mind which version I prefer (or if there is even a reason to rank the two), but Whedon’s version is definitely worth a viewing!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s