Friday Diversion: Much Ado About Whedon

Back in 1993 Kenneth Branagh made Shakespeare cool. Well, to me he did. “Much Ado About Nothing” was the first truly “accessible” Shakespeare movie I had seen. Not sure if that was Branagh or the Bard, but “Much Ado” remains one of my favorite films.

As such, the Whedon remake intrigues and scares me. I rather he covered ground I didn’t find sacred. Do “Taming of the Shrew” or “12th Night.” But, I’ll live. Especially as I love how/why this film was made. Whedon and friends sit around every weekend drinking and reading Shakespeare. Why not film it?

First, onto the Diversion and the trailer:

First, before people calling me a Whedon Hater, I love, LOVE 95% of this trailer. I love the look. I love the music. I love the Black and White with hints of color. I love the arrangement of Whedon cast. I love hearing the dialogue I heard in the Branagh version. If someone new can crack humorous Shakespearean dialogue it should be Joss. And, even though he doesn’t speak in the trailer, Nathan Fillion should KILL as Dogberry (he’d be a better Benedict  but I’ll take what I can get).

What I didn’t like…don’t kill me Internet world but…

1) I’m not a fan of Amy Acker. Thus her being Beatrice doesn’t excite me. HOWEVER, she does pretty well in the trailer. So, right now this is a “pass.” I’ll hold judgement but not count anything against it.

2) The big problem is watching Alexis Denisof chew Shakespearean dialogue like a kid in my High School drama class. He doesn’t deliver any line (in the trailer) with any naturalism  It is all clunky. Nothing seems fluid. NOW, that might be fault of the trailer. “Much Ado” features rapid-fire dialogue  Chopping it up for the trailer may take it so out of context that it loses all ebb and flow. I hope so. I loved Denisof in “Angel” and have always been shocked he didn’t break into anything more after it (I assume his stints on “How I Met Your Mother” were gained by sleeping with a star).

On the double plus side, it’ll be nice to finally see Fred and Wes get together.


4 thoughts on “Friday Diversion: Much Ado About Whedon

  1. 1. There’s a place in the special Hell for people who don’t like Amy Acker.
    2. Surprisingly…I agree! Denisof is a great actor and I’m not really feeling anything in his delivery here. Doubly surprising since he and Acker had such great chemistry on “Angel.” Let’s hope your supposition is correct because I’m ready to love the every-loving-stuffing out of this movie.

    • 1) Acker annoyed me in “Angel” most of the time (especially at the end). And she was pretty useless in “Dollhouse.” I’d love for her to show me *something*/anything.

      2) Denisof…yeah, i loved him in “Angel.” Him as Benedict is a good choice (although, really, how did it not go to Fillion?) but this was clunky.

      3) Fingers are crossed though. I’m hopeful.

  2. honestly, some of the casting is strange:
    Fillion would be a great Benedict. As Dogberry he’ll kill, but Benedict.
    Sean Maher as Don John…He’ll be better than Keanu that’s for sure. But Claudio would be better for him.
    Denisof I would have loved as Don John.
    Kranz I see as Dogberry (although a younger version of one). It’ll be interesting to see him pull off Claudio.

    Now, Whedon is smarter than I. So, I have faith the casting pays off. He has the talent – just *seems* misplaced. It is all great talent though (and great material and a great tech team behind it).

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