Brannagh vs Whedon

Much Ado about Two

Shakespearean plays have long been favoured for film adaption, if not for audience dollars then for the kudos such traditionally heavy material brings. However one play that fulfils the modern romantic comedy tradition of the battle of the sexes (Jackson, 2000) and should translate well into film has largely been ignored by major studios. Just two directors have chosen to offer up Much Ado About Nothing to the big screen. There have been multiple small screen productions but the lo-fi 2012 release of Joss Whedon's DIY project and Kenneth Branagh's classic big budget 1993 version are the only feature length efforts. The experience of seeing a live performance of the play gives insight and understanding of the story that might otherwise not be achieved from a simple reading of the script. So too film presents opportunities to highlight aspects not possible on stage. Special effects, close ups, wide shots, cuts and scene variations can all be used to varying affect to produce a different although not necessarily better experience of the play.

In analysing contrasting treatments of soliloquies on screen I consider not two, but four performances from Shakespeare's 400 year old play. That is, Benedick and Beatrice's speeches in response to the overheard rouse by their comrades that one loves the other (II.iii.215-241 and III.ii.107-116). It’s Branagh versus Whedon! Denisof versus Branagh! Thompson versus Acker! The soliloquies in question offer great scope for the actors to flex their comedic muscles - the dialogue is swift, witty and filled with genuinely funny puns - “When I said I would die a bachelor, I did not think I should live till I were married.” (II.iii.238-239.) Both have been given very different treatments by the respective directors. It should be noted that Branagh is an English actor and director with considerable experience in the Shakespearean tradition, now directing Hollywood blockbuster superhero films[1]. Whedon on the other hand, is an American writer and director who made his name creating science fiction and fantasy franchises and is also now directing Hollywood blockbuster superhero films[2]. Both directors like to cast from their personal circle of friends and their Much Ado's prove no different. Branagh casts his then-wife Emma Thompson as Beatrice to his Benedick. Whedon recycles stars from his Buffy and Angel franchises, putting friends and former on-screen lovers Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker in the bickering lead roles. He takes it further than Branagh though, filling every other part with actor friends that have appeared in some small way in many of his previous productions. It is an indulgence that pays off in the genial comfort obvious between the actors on screen.

Both films overall have starkly contrasting production values. Branagh's is light, bright and colourful. He uses eighteenth century costume; sets it in and around a rural Italian villa; and retains the original, although cut almost in half, Elizabethan language. Whedon however gives us a darker, black and white version set in the affluent suburbs of a current day, anonymous North American city. The costumes feature slick twenty first century suits and sun-dresses. Yet strangely Weldon has also retained Shakespeare's original dialogue, with fewer cuts. Branagh is going for comfortable and classic theatricality. Whedon wants a modern and filmic approach, which makes his use of a four hundred year old lexicon all the more jarring.

Branagh consciously reaches for theatricality of delivery while taking advantage of the cinematic devices available to ensure the audience knows when and where they are placed. Flowing dresses, giggling gaggles of girls and manly men in uniform fill the opening scene to the very edge of the frame. Thus, when Shakespeare's language trips off the actor's tongues, the audience is ready and waiting for a classic play-to-film production. Long tracking and multiple exterior shots, and emphasis on period detail also give a strong sense of place and time. Branagh wants to make it very obvious that everything about this play is important and he wants you to know that his film will be played as it should be - over the top.

Whedon's use of a naturalist approach to speech, having his actors deliver traditional Shakespearean dialogue as drunken chats[3] between friends rather than playing to the nose bleed section, initially leaves the audience in the dark. Who are these people in gorgeous smart dresses and suave suits milling about a modern luxury home and chatting idly in prose? Much ado has been made of Whedon having filmed over twelve days at his Santa Monica home, saying that "what we got is what we have". (Much Ado About Nothing (DVD Commentary), 2014) It sounds like an impressive effort until you learn that thirty years ago, twelve days was considered sufficient for "people who really like Shakespeare" to shoot a lavish BBC affair (Bulman and Coursen, 1988). However, in keeping the original language and not focusing on such details as who, where and why, Whedon directs our attention to the story itself. Whether it works is up to the viewer. Personally, after the initial irritation wears off I find the contrast of hearing seventeenth century phrases falling from the botoxed lips of Hollywood stars weirdly fascinating.

When specifically considering the scenes of Benedick and Beatrice's love revelations, any cuts made to the original dialogue should be taken into account. Cuts are not done simply for expediency's sake. When handled properly, a good cut can clarify the story for a modern audience while keeping within screening time constraints. Branagh makes swathes of cuts to the source material, and to mostly good effect. It is important to note that while major cuts are made elsewhere in the film, such as the entire conversation between Don Pedro and Hero (II.i) and many of the lines of Benedick's comrades conspiring to dupe him (II.3 and III.2), nothing is cut from our scene in question. In fact, as I'll discuss again in moment, he manages to merges the two beautifully in a manner that would be near impossible onstage without significant and no doubt costly audio visual effects.

Throughout Branagh's eavesdropping scene, hidden behind a hedge he is the very definition of the fool, and acts out his "fall into love" by hilariously collapsing onto his backside. Preparing the audience for his imminent soliloquy, upon overhearing that Beatrice may commit "an outrage to herself" Branagh faces the camera squarely and shows his shock directly in close-up. There is to be no doubt - Benedick had no idea this was coming! When he finally launches into his love revelation soliloquy it is with bewildered awe and he questions Beatrice's love - "love me...why?” (II.3.4) From here on in Branagh conducts a conversation strictly with himself, trying to win over no one but him. Branagh struts about the garden presenting one argument after another for his own consideration and the camera follows closely, moving quickly but smoothly to keep up with his thinking out loud. The best line in the argument “When I said I would die a bachelor, I did not think I should live till I were married” (II.iii.238-9.) is delivered haltingly, with a stop start effect intended to show it is being made up on the run. Finally Branagh concludes his speech by throwing his arms wide open to the notion of love, welcoming it in. The music throughout has been a rousing continuance of that introduced during the earlier plotting scene and builds to a crescendo that later combines to powerful effect with Beatrice's matching soliloquy.

In the case of Whedon’s version it is important to look at Benedick's initial soliloquy (II.3.8-34) wherein he debates the virtues of marriage. Denisof confidently works out in public, ostentatiously stretching in the garden and jogging up and down a cliffside set of stone stairs. He sarcastically lists those attributes of women that leave him unaffected, ticking them off one by one, as one by one a parade of women passes him by. He is self-assured, sleazy and in control of himself. This Benedick is most assuredly not the one we see moments later stumbling over himself at the news that he is loved. Denisof embarks on an amusing commando covert operation throughout the arbour, one that is so obvious it is unbelievable that he could actually believe those plotting inside are not aware of his presence.

Denisof quickly recovers from his sudden-onset slap-stickery and proceeds to present his Benedick's next soliloquy in a remarkably unsurprised manner. In contrast to Branagh's bewildered question, Denisof confidently makes the statement "love me... why it must be requited!" (II.iii.218)  Denisof moves away from the arbour and down into an amphitheater[4] to act out his monologue. He does so in the manner of a barrister presenting a closing argument to a jury: directly addressing first an ornate candelabrum decorated in preparation for the impending disastrous wedding and then above to the stalls. This is the only truly theatrical scene in Whedon's film. Denisof completes his speech by turning to address the world beyond, and as did Branagh flings his arms wide open to being "horribly in love with her!" (II.iii.228).and as his words echo across the valley, all we hear is the lonely cry of an eagle.

In playing Beatrice as happy and confident, if not entirely content, Thompson imbues her character with a pride that is not overplayed to the extent that Branagh's Benedick is. When Beatrice's duping is complete, Thompson makes her adieu to maiden pride (III.ii.109) an ironic announcement by one who is obviously proud to be loved. Thus with fists clenched she determines that "it must be requited" (III.ii.111), as if it were never in doubt. Seated on a gloriously lit garden swing, amongst the same hedges that presumably nearby Benedick rejoices in, Thompson glances ever so briefly at her hand when she makes mention of their love being bound up "in a holy band." (III.ii.114.) Swinging back and forth she too throws wide her arms to welcome love in. Thompson declares happily, with clear emphasis on each word, that she will "believe it better than reportingly!" (III.ii.116)

At this stage in Branagh's film, both soliloquies are brought together in a beautifully indulgent superimposition. Thompson swings happily on, ostensibly launching herself into the wonderment of new love while Branagh dances and prances about in a fountain, drenching himself and literally wallowing in joy. This is one scene where the benefits of film greatly outshine those of theatre. The use of special effect to overlay two lovers in a single frame, while the aforementioned soundtrack builds to its triumphant crescendo leaves the audience in no doubt of how they should feel. The former enemies are now suddenly and overwhelmingly in love and we should be smiling and happy for them. Were they always in love with one another and just hiding it all along or are they simply overjoyed by the concept that someone could love them at all? Regardless, the audience is told in no uncertain terms - they are happy and so too should you be.

Acker's Beatrice is one in stark contrast to Thompson's. Previously assured and graceful, she mirrors Denisof's clumsy Benedick and upon the love revelation, promptly dives head first down a flight of stairs in a dramatic downfall. Her single big fall is greater than Denisof's many stumbles and trips. Acker literally falls on her face and into love, managing to recover miraculously unhurt only to find herself hidden beneath a kitchen bench. She is now framed by a representation of domestic housework, possibly predicting her own future entrapment as a housewife.

In Whedon's film, the relationship between Benedick and Beatrice was initially presented as a one night stand. However, with the use of a “thought-as-a-flashback” device not possible in theatre, Whedon is able to show Beatrice’s words about Benedick’s heart (II.i.253-71) actually suggest a greater depth of feeling than initially implied. Once again mirroring the behaviour of her counterpart, she recovers from the shock quickly and it is with a sense of quiet victory that she stands "Stands...something something" and moves to fill a glass of wine to drink in celebration. Acker's soliloquy is much more one of conversation with the self: gently and wonderingly admitting that she will indeed "requite thee." Whedon spends the shot focused on her face and all of Acker's awkwardness disappears as wonderment and love suffuse her features, reflecting the afternoon sunlight bathing her.

Having considered two scenes with almost identical language the difference in outcome is startling. Branagh uses his extensive knowledge, experience and passion for Shakespeare to produce a bold and funny film that shows off how a few tricks can be used to direct the audience response. Meanwhile, Whedon relies less on special effects and more on his actors keeping things realistic and simple, keeping us focused on story over individuals. In using almost diametrically opposed techniques the directors have produced the same result – a film filled with emotion and depth brought to new audiences and old alike. 

Footnotes

---

[1] As well as Shakespearean classics such as Henry V (1989), Hamlet (1996) and Love’s Labour’s Lost (2000) Branagh has recently turned his hand to the superhero genre including an uncredited directing role on Iron Man 2 (2010) and full control of Thor (2011).

[2] Whedon made his name on the small screen, writing and directing the popular fantasy television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1996 – 2003) and Angel (1999-2004) as well as sci-fi film, cult favourite Serenity, a spin-off from his flunked series Firefly (2002). He has now made the shift to superheroes on the big screen, including an uncredited directing role on Thor (2011) and full control of The Avengers (2012). A follow-up to The Avengers is due in 2015.

[3] Whedon has said that he had everyone play drunk as many of the decisions made in the play “only make sense if the people are drunk enough to decide this is a good idea." (Vineyard, 2014)

[4] The amphitheatre was designed by Whedon’s wife, especially for his regular Sunday readings of Shakespeare amongst his circle of friends, which included much of the cast of Much Ado About Nothing.

Bibliography

Branagh, K. 1960. Kenneth Branagh. [online] Available at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000110/#director [Accessed: 16 Mar 2014].

Bulman, J. C. and Coursen, H. R. 1988. Shakespeare on television. Hanover: University Press of New England.

Davies, A. and Wells, S. 1994. Shakespeare and the moving image. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jackson, R. 2000. The Cambridge companion to Shakespeare on film. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Much Ado About Nothing (DVD Commentary). 2014. [DVD] Australia, Madman Films: Dir. Joss Whedon Perf. Alexis Denisof, Ame Acker, Clark Gregg, Reed Diamond.

Much Ado About Nothing. 1993. [film] UK, American Playhouse Theatrical Films & Renaissance Films: Dir. Kenneth Branagh Perf. Kenneth Branagh, Emma Thompson, Keaneu Reeves, Denzel Washington.

Nybooks.com. 2013. On the Edge of Slander by Stephen Greenblatt. [online] Available at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/sep/26/joss-whedon-much-ado-edge-slander/?page=1 [Accessed: 16 Mar 2014].

Shakespeare, W. and Foakes, R. A. 1968. Much ado about nothing. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Vineyard, J. 2014. Joss Whedon on Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare-Buffy Parallels, and Avengers 2. [online] Available at: http://www.vulture.com/2013/06/joss-whedon-much-ado-about-nothing-interview.html [Accessed: 16 Mar 2014].

Whedon, J. 1964. Joss Whedon. [online] Available at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0923736/?ref_=nv_sr_1#director [Accessed: 16 Mar 2014].