Much Ado About Nothing [2012]

I was pretty down on the '93 adaptation. Maybe that was unfairly so.

The second week seems to be The One Where I figure out what the play is and what the adaptation is and I think overall I don't care for the play for this month; moreover, I'm now extremely curious what an adaptation in 2023 will end up being (in two weeks time, for Anyone But You) - with the play largely hinging on a question of "purity", what will that look like with modern morals? Tradcath Shakespeare? My speculation is that particular beat will be tossed or lessened and it will be some other form of duplicity/betrayal that will stand in but,: I'll find out in two weeks.

The Whedon adaptation that we watched this week is fine, largely. This was filmed post-Avengers' post-production, at Joss Whedon's house, and so there is novelty to that. The lighting department seems to have been the sun, so probably a more limited number of takes. The sound mix was a little muddy, like maybe they didn't have a boom mic and also didn't bother with lav mics, but that was mostly only an issue when Alexis Denishof and Amy Acker were low-talking their lines while background music played. It's in digital black and white, which is novel. The horrible renfaire music from the 1993 adaptation turns up here in the form of a faux-Air "space age house party" background track, which is a slight improvement that could've been a drastic one if the lyrics were omitted.

Ultimately I don't think I have much to say on this one; like this whole play feels like a nothing-burger. It was weird hearing Alexis Denishof speak without the Wesley accent that he used in Buffy/Angel. Turns out he's from Massachusetts, not London. Clark Gregg gives a more memorable turn as Leonato than did Richard Briers.

There is a couple changes to the script that feel like the product of Whedon and team having to deal with Internet Fandom and Wikis - mechanical problems and solutions, where more generally the fix is the audience Not Caring about it because "Much Ado" is a low-stakes soap opera at its core. The first of these is having Beatrice and Benedick actually hooked up, showing them post-Not Good hookup, at the beginning, which demonstrates why they snipe at each-other in a better way than "it's always been like this". To their credit, Denishof and Acker pull this off — it could have easily skewed into Whedon's more leeringly sexual mode. The other is having two of Don John's company in on the conspiracy (rather than just one and Hero's servant) - this answers the nitpick/well-actually audience question of "why didn't Hero's servant speak up that she was the one getting laid"*. The direction given to Riki Lindhome was familiarly and unfortunately skeezy, however. Thanks Joss.

I don't know. It was fine. I wasn't utterly put out by it, even with it being a low-stakes soap opera. It was nice seeing Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker together again. I feel like I'm trying to hit wordcount on a paper that aspires to a C-, for a movie that aspired to a C- (I do not have a goal wordcount on these, just the frequently missed social cue of, were I to repeat everything said here in conversation, would I cringe afterward?). I'm hoping the 1973 version for next week is a little better - oh and it's available on the Internet Archive.

Thank you for reading along with My Year of Shakespeare.