Film: Much Ado about Nothing

Director: Joss Whedon
Genre: Comedy
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Sun-Ray Cinemas
Grade: B+

Sometimes it's hard to see Joss Whedon's work clearly because there is so much fan love around everything he does. He's definitely a talented director, and he brings complexity and fresh ideas to most of his projects, even in tired genres (see The Avengers for a great example of applying his particular skills to a superhero film). What he does not always do is bring convincing performances to the table. Fun performances? Yes. Interesting performances? Yes. Strong performances? Well, only sometimes. His dialogue is so particular to him, that sometimes it sounds a little too much like one man's voice coming through and less like real people talking. I like a lot of his dialogue, but because it is clever, not because it is authentic.

That shouldn't be a problem then, when he applies his skills to a well-known play in which all the dialogue was written by a master: adapting Shakespeare's Much Ado about Nothing. However, the film falls short in a few ways that stop it from topping Branagh's 1993 effort, which remains one of my favorite Shakespearean adaptations. Whedon and his actors all understand the text well (though his modernization of it leaves a few gaps which I'll get to later), but I felt like not all of them could perform it well. For too many actors, the dialogue sounded recited rather than spoken, and that's an actorly, silly complaint, but it did take me out of the world. Amy Acker's Beatrice was excellent--a real performance, a strong characterization. Others (including occasionally Alexis Denisof's Benedick, who was brilliant at times and dull at times) fell much more flat, having trouble making the dialogue their own. 

Some of that dialogue--and the plot of the play--seems weird to transfer into a modern setting. Why so much emphasis on virginity, purity, and arranged marriages, for example, when Whedon establishes an earlier sexual relationship between Beatrice and Benedick. It adds context to some of their verbal sparring, but then it contrasts oddly with the Hero/Claudio storyline. Whedon goes out of his way to highlight Claudio's bad qualities as well. You kind of have to, otherwise his rejection of Hero seems far too extreme. But the flip side of that is their reconciliation at the end of the play seems hollow. If we think this guy is too much of a jerk, it's hard to be excited for Hero to get together with him or to see why Leonato would still want his daughter with this guy. Their happy ending seems less enjoyable, because we've lost faith in him (even making a racist comment just before the play's end). It doesn't quite work in a modern context, I think. 

From a filmmaking standpoint, I'm also having trouble figuring out why Whedon chose to use black and white. Is it to attempt to give it a more timeless quality? Surely there are fewer "time period" markers than there could be, and it does provide for some memorable shots. But I'm not sure how much it added otherwise. I'll continue thinking about this point. 

Of course, it's hard to knock Whedon too much. He filmed this on the cheap (in his own home) as a passion project, basically financing the whole thing himself and shooting it in just twelve days with some friends while in downtime from shooting The Avengers. I admire that kind of commitment, and I can envision a world where I have the right friends and finances to do the same kind of thing, so I can't complain too much. As I said, Amy Acker was fantastic, as were a few others, and there is plenty of creativity here, even if at times it feels a little student film-y. And anyway, mostly I'm just happy to see more Shakespeare on the screen. That I'll take however I can get it.

Alternate Film Title: "Nathon Fillion, It Should Be Noted, Is an Ass"