Hacker Cinema
Much Ado About Nothing
1993 · Film · 111 min
Directed by Kenneth Branagh
In this Shakespearean farce, Hero and her groom-to-be, Claudio, team up with Claudio's commanding officer, Don Pedro, the week before their wedding to hatch a matchmaking scheme. Their targets are sharp-witted duo Benedick and Beatrice -- a tough task indeed, considering their corresponding distaste for love and each other. Meanwhile, meddling Don John plots to ruin the wedding.
2 positive2 neutralfrom 4 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
5 comments on Hacker News
I've read about half of them, seen more than a bunch live and in film, enough to annoy the kids.
Some versions I like:
* David Tenant's Much Ado about Nothing. Kenneth Branagh's is good too, and easier to find.
* Branagh's Henry V.
* I actually like Mel Gibson's Hamlet.
* Almost any Midsummer's Night Dream. It's just a fun play, even kids can enjoy it.
* The Coen Bros' Macbeth on AppleTV
* Rosencrantx and Guildenstern are Dead. Hamlet, but exits are entrances.
> Branagh's Henry V and Much Ado About Nothing were my gateway.
Branagh's Henry V and Polanski's Macbeth were my gateway.
Don't miss the 1995 Richard III adaptation with Sir Ian McKellen. The 2004 film version of The Merchant of Venice is also worth seeing, if only for Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons.
Absolutely you should watch it. Your comparison is apt; you're missing most of it if you're just reading the script. The sights and sounds of a good performance make it much easier to follow.
Reading the script is an advanced skill. I think we do a real disservice throwing unedited scripts at students.
As for what to watch, there are many great film versions. Branagh's Henry V and Much Ado About Nothing were my gateway. There is a stunning Titus by Julie Taymor, especially if you like horror -- it's an obscure play but Taymor makes a spectacle of it. There have been several very good Macbeth adaptations recently; I need to catch Denzel Washington's because I've heard it's great. There was also a very good Coriolanus recently (another obscure play given a very modern and relevant performance).
I would watch a film, and if you love it, read the play to find out how it works.
I don't think a plain English adaptation is very helpful. His work isn't about the story, but the language. The work is poetry, both literally and figuratively, and a plain English adaptation is like somebody telling you about their favorite song.
Better, I think, is to see a good film adaptation. Shakespeare was never intended to be read, but to be performed. There's a lot in the text that isn't apparent until you've studied it closely, but a good performance will bring it right out in the open.
A few films that I'd suggest to get started with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_V_(1989_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Much_Ado_About_Nothing_(1993_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_(1995_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolanus_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo_%2B_Juliet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamlet_(2000_film)
These are all good, accessible versions of his plays. You don't need to be an expert to understand and enjoy them. (They're very roughly in order of my favorites, if that matters to you.)
I won't guarantee you'll like them. There's really nothing wrong with that. People get snobby about Shakespeare, and they shouldn't. It's OK to say, "Yeah, it's not for me". But under all the snobbery, there really is great text and great performances that people genuinely enjoy. If you're interested in that, these films are the places I'd start.
That's because you've never dealt with a conventional film distributor. Netflix pays monthly (last time I checked) and supplies producers with useful analytics. Indie (and some major) film production companies love dealing with Netflix because they're transparent and reliable, whereas film distributors traditionally make used car salesmen look like models of fiscal probity.
Also, film companies themselves aren't inclined to go vertical; there was a time when studios owned chains of theaters but antitrust litigation brought that to a painful end (United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131), so the industry sense is that self-distribution is too risky legally, and setting up their own independent competitor looks dangerously close to cartel behavior. Film economics are so brutal to begin with that litigation over anything other than well-defined copyright cases does not sit well with investors. Also, nobody wants to sink all the time can capital into building a CDN; being a technologist is a career-limiting move in Hollywood because the power revolves around the ability to bring stars, stories, investors and distributors together, so it's very much people-driven.
Of course film production involves a great deal of technology but if your specialty is in a technical role then you're considered a craftsman, not an artist. The thing is, the film product doesn't depend on technology for success; of course you'll want to use it for an action or superhero movie, but great movies can also be very simple, technically. Case in point: Joss Whedon directed The Avengers in 2011, but took two weeks off during post-production to shoot an (outstanding) adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing at his home. He used digital cameras to save time and cash, but it could just as easily have been shot on film and edited on a moviola.