Coriolanus (2011)

"To be or not..." ...nope, wrong story. Since I'm not seeing a live play very often, I told myself to upgrade a bit my knowledge in the dramatic area and I tried watching "Coriolanus", a modern adaptation of Shakespeare's tragedy. I tried = I did it on the 2nd attempt, the first one failed by sleeping...

We're talking about a classic play, therefore we shouldn't be afraid of spoilers. In the context of the Roman-Volsci conflict (where Volsci was a tribe located close to Rome), the Roman general Caius Martius returns home after conquering the city of Corioli. Welcomed with honors and the title of Coriolanus following the victory, the general decides to run for the consul position. The political intrigue, however, present there as always in history, changes dramatically the public opinion about the man, or otherwise said we have here the definition of "from hero to zero". And like that from being favorite for ruling, Coriolanus ends up exiled. And the best option for a frustrated military with a long career behind is turning towards the closest enemy. And like that, serving the Volsci now, he starts the siege on Rome. And Rome, losing its main defender now turned attacker, asks for forgiveness and peace using Coriolanus' mother and wife. He can't say no to them, which is not very convenient for the Volsci leader. End of Coriolanus, end of story.

Leaving aside that Shakespeare in original is meant to be played on stage, not on a movie set (where it's impossible to avoid the effect of the typical dialogue that creates on screen some unbearable lengths that are not present on the stage), the major problem of this movie is the modern approach. So, what's the modern part... all above is set in the present day, somewhere in the Balkans probably, shot with a visibly low budget (maybe a reason for the chosen location), but it's keeping all of the original context: the geography, the names, the lines. I've seen adaptations of other plays, but I doubt I was ever so annoyed by the ridiculous association between the Shakespearean dialogues or monologues and the context they're set in. The cherry on top, the Volsci leader, Tullus Aufidius, is a Gerard Butler using his natural Scottish accent and is carrying an AK being dressed a Cuban revolutionary uniform (or a Bosnian considering the probable location). And that's just one example. As good as the actors might be, sorry, but it doesn't work...

Rating: 2 out of 5

Anonymous (2011)

Since I only have something like four hours of sleep in the last 24 and I'm writing in a work break, I'll get straight to the point. "Anonymous" is a movie that handles a somehow delicate subject = who actually wrote Shakespeare's plays ? And obviously the answer to the question is not Shakespeare but an earl from the respective time, Edward de Vere, the reason behind this being to stay anonymous, considering that such creative activities weren't seen very well by the "politic class" of the age.

The movie is made by Roland Emmerich, who confirms me a hunch that he still has some chances to save his soul from "the movie directors Hell" after catastrophes, more or less figuratively speaking, as "Godzilla", "10000 BC" or even "Independence Day". There were at some point anyway "Stargate" (the movie), "The Patriot" (even with all the cliches in it) and now "Anonymous". And this last one is also probably his best movie up to date.

You don't have to expect here something similar to the previous titles. The movie is quite slow, compared to any of the above. It could be compared actually with the more politically correct version historically speaking = "Shakespeare in Love". Still, in this case the action becomes a bit soapy on the final taking the speculations to a level which is a bit too far I guess (reason to gain the right to be considered by some a complete blasphemy not only regarding the literature history of England, but history itself). Despite all that is a movie deserving to be seen, at least for the role made by Rhys Ifans as lead character (first time when I see this guy in this position in a movie). And after all, if there is something like "The DaVinci Code" that can be watched in a relaxed note without taking it too seriously ( if you don't want that, obviously ;) ), why not ? It's just a movie :)

Rating:
subjectively - 3 out of 5 (because to be honest I'm not very interested by the subject)
objectively - 4 out of 5 (because if you do a harsh evaluation is better than "The Patriot")

The Tempest (2010)

Considering the lack of sleep I have at this hour, I said it would be a good idea to hurry a bit with the entry for this week. I was skeptical about watching "The Tempest" part because of the IMDb rating and part because long long ago I had an attempt at reading "The Tempest" by Shakespeare which failed due to loss of interest after a few pages. Well, that was long long long ago ...

First of all the movie is clearly not for everybody and more than that it's probably better to be either very fresh or dead tired when you see it. If you ever had the opportunity to see a Shakespeare adaptation that was close to the original writing and it bored you or it was close to drive you nuts due to the topic of the phrases, you should probably avoid "The Tempest". From the vague memories I have left since I read the beginning of the play I can say that the movie doesn't jump very far from the original (despite the fact that the main character is Prospera instead of Prospero). Usually (especially if you're not a native speaker and it's your first contact with a play) the Shakespearean English needs a slight delay to be able to "connect" one line with another one and to get a meaning. In the current case you don't have this time space very often, the movie being quite alert and also a bit chaotic in displaying the action I might say (although I must admit that the alert part has its benefits in this case ...). I didn't see any other movies directed by Julie Taymor, but from what I've read on a few boards it seems this style is quite specific to her, and also this is the main reason for what I was suggesting in the starting of the paragraph as a proper condition/mood for watching the movie.

Anyway, there is a good part about the movie. Actually I might say a very good part ... although it probably depends on each ones taste. Visually, for me at least, the movie was superb and I can include here all the parts contributing to this area: cinematography, VFX, art direction, etc (may just the editing not so much). So to be even more clear about this, all what I mentioned above was at a level sufficiently high for me to matter more than the subject, which doesn't happen very often (as it's probably clear I'm not very into Shakespeare .. with some exceptions). There is also the soundtrack (Elliot Goldenthal) that deserves to be mentioned, which might seem a bit weird/forced at some moments but I think that's actually the part that makes you feel that it's there.

All in all, I'll stick to a personal opinion that Shakespeare is infinitely more appropriate for the original target = theater, then for a movie. There is a different level of perception in case of a live representation. Anyway, due to the context of the play, "The Tempest" is somehow a bit of a exception having a large visual potential, and as I said it above this version nails it quite good.

Rating: 3 out of 5