The title pretty much says it all. What, in your opinion, has been the best film (or filmed play) to adapt one or more of old Bill's works?
For my money it is Kurosawa's Throne of Blood, a haunting Japanese epic that captures the soul of Macbeth better than any other version. Toshirô Mifune gives an unforgettable performance as the lead, a confused but violent Japanese lord. The ending is quite unforgettable, and as a whole the movie resonates deeply, due especially to the rewritten script. (Much of Shakespeare's clunky dialogue does not work well today; Throne of Blood does not allow itself to become bogged down in overlong prose.)
I somewhat enjoyed the 1999 Micheal Hoffman (whoever that is) take on A Midsummer Night's Dream. When I saw it the only actress I recognized was Calista Flockhart as Helena, but IMDb says the film was also graced by the acting of Christian Bale and David Strathairn, as well as a few other semi-known actors.
I give the Leonardo DiCaprio version of Romeo & Juliet an "A" for effort. A very clever attempt at connecting the 500-year-old script with a modern day audience. (How do they work swords into the story? Make "Sword" be a brand of gun. And so on...)
The problem is neither of these movies completely blew me away, so I'm sure there is a better movie adaptation of Shakespeare out there.
Posts: 613 | Location: Oregon | Registered: 18 October 2005
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1999): ***1/2 of **** (One of the few Shakespearean comedies that actually manages to be charming.)
Romeo + Juliet (1996): *1/2 of **** (A mess; should have updated the dialogue or placed it in the original setting. The lead actors got the emotions across, but did not seem to really know what they were saying. )
I've got to go with the modern day (WWII) RICHARD III directed by Richard Loncraine and starring Ian McKellon. The film was released in '94 or '95. I just found this film riveting with a cast populated by Brits who really can deal with the iambic pentameter. Americans have trouble with that and it really showed as Annette Bening and Robert Downey Jr were in over their heads in this film, which is, despite their awful performances nevertheless riveting.
Without thinking too much, I'd have to say Branagh's "complete" Hamlet, released in 1996. They covered the entire text with a great cast, and it was filmed in 70mm so it looked stunning.
I also enjoyed Titus. It was adapted and directed by Julie Taymor, and was also very visually stunning. It has a great soundtrack as well.
Posts: 3130 | Location: FoCo | Registered: 07 January 2005
Richard III (1995) ***1/2 of **** (The second best Richard III adaptation, and one that actually fits in WWII better than it did in its original setting.)
Hamlet (1996) * of **** (Overlong, too self-indulgent, tries harder to be comprehensive than it does to be good.)
Titus (1999) ***1/2 of **** (Violent, gory and wonderfully nasty, with great acting turns from Hopkins and the supporting cast. Maybe a little too long, and the framing device is rubbish and unnecessary, but an essential viewing for those who think Shakespeare is all flowery speech and dull prose.)
I do hope I'm not scaring anyone off with my little reviews, by the way. I'm just trying to weigh in on the discussion as it is posted.
Originally posted by Dork: Hamlet (1996) * of **** (Overlong, too self-indulgent, tries harder to be comprehensive than it does to be good.)
I really appreciated its attempt to be comprehensive because most of what you don't see in film adaptations of Hamlet is what makes the story so good. Maybe it is a bit big-headed, but the lavish production and the oft-ommitted parts of the story make it worth it for me.
Speaking of Branagh, I think his Henry V was masterful.
Posts: 3130 | Location: FoCo | Registered: 07 January 2005
Another I want to mention, and not because it's necessarily that great (although it is entertaining), is Much Ado About Nothing(1993). A nice cast, but Michael Keaton's Dogberry absolutely steals the show!
Posts: 3130 | Location: FoCo | Registered: 07 January 2005
Originally posted by Dork: For my money it is Kurosawa's Throne of Blood, a haunting Japanese epic that captures the soul of Macbeth better than any other version.
I've always preferred his King Lear adaptation Ran a bit more. But you're right, Thrown of Blood is great, too.
Posts: 3130 | Location: FoCo | Registered: 07 January 2005
Originally posted by PRG: Another I want to mention, and not because it's necessarily that great (although it is entertaining), is Much Ado About Nothing(1993). A nice cast, but Michael Keaton's Dogberry absolutely steals the show!
I agree about Keaton, though I despised the film itself. (Just too relentlessly happy for me, plus I don't really like the original text.)
Personally I have trouble with Shakespeare's comedies. Many are simply bad, whether in play or film form; others are offensive (The Merchant of Venice is anti-semetic, The Taming of the Shrew is chauvanistic) and some are just stupid. (The Merry Wives of Windsor anyone? Twelfth Night?) While I really enjoyed the previously mentioned Midsummer Night's Dream, my favorite is The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged), a filmed for TV play that is masterfully funny. If you're into "reverent" Shakespeare and don't want to see Bill reworked a little, it's not for you, but it handles the plays with an energy lacking in most productions. It was funny enough to break Kurosawa's hold on my top 3 Shakespeare films.
I'm all for films being entertaining, and this is the most entertaining Shakespeare still. It's also one of the most believable. The locations, sets, costumes, etc., seem real and lived in, and the casting is impeccable. I've heard criticisms of the acting of teenaged Olivia Hussey (gorgeous) and Leonard Whiting, but I've watched the film at least 10 times, and they make the love story real. Michael York and John McEnery are especially good in support as Tybalt and Mercutio. I'm cutting it short, but it's a solid love story, historical drama and that dirty word, "entertainment".
Polanski's Macbeth : B+
After the murder of his wife Sharon Tate and her unborn child by the Manson Family, Roman Polanski exorcised himself by teaming up with Hugh Hefner to film the dirtiest, most-violent, yet also visually-beautiful Shakespeare film. Everything about the film is overpowering and horrifying. It really is a great horror film, albeit a notch below Rosemary's Baby. Polanski's imagination runs wild as he stays true to the Bard, yet reinvents a few things so he can be as cinematic as possible. Jon Finch and Francesca Annis should have become big stars for their powerful performances.
I'm waiting for people to get into Orson Welles, and, of course, Olivier. Later.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12944 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
Originally posted by mark f: OK, I'm ready to get my faves "dorked".
Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet: A-
I don't know if you deserve to get dorked because the Zeffirelli Romeo & Juliet is helluva lot better than the MGM version from the 1930s that starred Norma Shearer & Leslie Howard. Weren't Norma & Leslie a tad too long in the tooth to be playing R&J?
I enjoyed Branagh's HENRY V quite a bit and actually think it is superior to Olivier's WWII version.
Originally posted by PRG: Another I want to mention, and not because it's necessarily that great (although it is entertaining), is Much Ado About Nothing(1993). A nice cast, but Michael Keaton's Dogberry absolutely steals the show!
I remember seeing this and enjoying it, but if memory serves me correctly was Keanu in this one? Keanu doing Shakespeare. Hmmmm.
Originally posted by mark f: OK, I'm ready to get my faves "dorked".
Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet: A-
I'm all for films being entertaining, and this is the most entertaining Shakespeare still. It's also one of the most believable. The locations, sets, costumes, etc., seem real and lived in, and the casting is impeccable. I've heard criticisms of the acting of teenaged Olivia Hussey (gorgeous) and Leonard Whiting, but I've watched the film at least 10 times, and they make the love story real. Michael York and John McEnery are especially good in support as Tybalt and Mercutio. I'm cutting it short, but it's a solid love story, historical drama and that dirty word, "entertainment".
Polanski's Macbeth : B+
After the murder of his wife Sharon Tate and her unborn child by the Manson Family, Roman Polanski exorcised himself by teaming up with Hugh Hefner to film the dirtiest, most-violent, yet also visually-beautiful Shakespeare film. Everything about the film is overpowering and horrifying. It really is a great horror film, albeit a notch below Rosemary's Baby. Polanski's imagination runs wild as he stays true to the Bard, yet reinvents a few things so he can be as cinematic as possible. Jon Finch and Francesca Annis should have become big stars for their powerful performances.
I'm waiting for people to get into Orson Welles, and, of course, Olivier. Later.
Well. Um. I don't really like "classic" interpretations of Shakespeare, since I'm coming at them from a modern point of view. R&J is actually a very shallow story for me, thus I dislike most films of it. (West Side Story, however, is a classic in my book.) Welles does not do much for me, possibly due to insanely low budgets and bad prints. His acting is iffy, though he did a good job in King Lear. (A shame the other performances stunk.)
Olivier is more of a nemesis. I hate, hate his stagy, over-the-top acting; I have disliked him in almost everything Shakespeare except Richard III and The Merchant of Venice. He was particularly bad in Othello and Hamlet.
Polanski's Macbeth was very flawed but pretty good, though I still think that Throne of Blood is better in every way. And for pure nastiness, Scotland, Pa. works better. Sort of.
Forbidden Planet **** of **** (No more needs to be said.)
And yes, Keanu was in Branagh's Much Ado. Stay away is my advice.
It's pretty funny that you mentioned that you love West Side Story because I was gonna mention that it's actually the highest-rated (A) version of a Willie play that I've seen, but what's more interesting to me is that the street fighting in West Side Story helped to make the Zefferelli Romeo and Juliet so good. They were brawling in the streets, and it sure as hell looked real. They weren't really trying to kill each other. Their brawling just caused it to happen.
In that way, this '68 version of the play hits home to me. Yes, there are so many mistakes and idiocies (even in the original text) which cause the young lovers, "the hopes of their worlds", not to unite their families and make for a happy ending. Yet, happy endings rarely happen, and people with "common sense" seldom seem to use it if they smell sex, money, or maybe even rock 'n' roll (I'll delete the last one for this version, eventually.)
The one thing which makes this Zefferelli version a more TRUE adaptation and stronger (at least in its particular strength) is that in R&J, the kids BOTH die, but in the awesome West Side Story, one walks away.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12944 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
The 1968 version of "Romeo & Juliet" is by far my favorite. I first seen it in my 8th grade Humanities class & went so far as to ask the teacher if he could dubb a copy for me. Olivia Hussey was the most gorgeous Juliet I've ever seen . She was so innocent & completely believeable! My mom actually had a crush on Leonard Whiting & went so far as to write him a fan letter. She never got a reply. When I purchased it on DVD I was surprised to see Michael York. It's not surprising that I didn't know of him when I was 14, I was only interested in a movie's storyline then & not really into them for the actors.
I HATED the Leo version. You can't update a story & then keep the original dialogue. It just doesn't seem right. Also Leonardo DeCrapio gets on my nerves. I've never liked any project he's attached to. I've even gone in thinking, "this is gonna be great" & still walked out disappointed.
"I can't live the buttoned down life like all of you! I want it all: the terrifying lows, the dizzying highs, the creamy middles! Sure, I might offend a few of the blue-noses with my cocky stride and musky odor - oh, I'll never be the darling of the so-called 'City Fathers' who cluck their tongues, stroke their beards, and talk about what's to be done with this Monkey_Boy?!"
Posts: 2606 | Location: Springfield, Oh! Hi ya, Maude! | Registered: 01 January 2007
)
