How do you follow up The Avengers? A big, star-filled CGI blockbuster, Joss Whedon’s Marvel team-up triumphed with fans while smashing box offices like Bruce Banner during a temper tantrum, leaving everyone curious as to what the writer-director would do for an encore. The answer, as it turns out, was to do something completely different. And by completely different, this meant an intimate, black and white adaptation of a Shakespeare play using the original text. Filmed in Whedon’s own home in under 12 days using his close acting friends, Much Ado About Nothing is a far cry from big-budget, alien-battling superhero antics.
But while the idea is refreshing and admirable, the outcome is very much an acquired taste. For those who love Whedon or The Bard (or, ideally, both), it’s bound to prove entertaining. On the flip side, however, those not enamoured with either’s work (which includes this writer) will be left waiting for the end credits. Whedonites will geek out over the sight of Mal from Firefly (Nathan Fillion) and Agent Coulson from The Avengers (Clark Gregg) pottering around Whedon’s house (“That’s his actual bathroom!” you can hear them cry). But all your average viewer will see is a monochromatic play starring a host of half-familiar faces from shows they’ve never seen.
On a positive note, it’s witty and you’ve got to admire the DIY ethos. But while Much Ado About Nothing is clearly the product of a group of people who’re passionate about their subject (Whedon regularly organises readings of Shakespeare), it would have been far more enjoyable had the Buffy creator not used Shakespearian language. The performances are fine (if a little distracting for those of us who know these actors from their other work), as is the modern twist. But since Whedon’s strength is his dialogue, doing it this way means he’s essentially handicapping himself, and robbing us of what we enjoy most about his work.
Shakespearean Language? By that you must mean English and/or poetry, but Shakespearean language isn’t actually a thing. What are you proposing? That he rewrite it in a more modern format? It’s been done and almost never well. Beyond that it is understood that films based on Shakespeare’s work have a limited audience base. Even Julie Taymor’s Titus Andronicus and The Tempest had limited release despite their very famous often Oscar winning casts. So to judge what is expected to be a film with limited audience against the Avengers strikes me as missing the point slightly.
Kristina,
I didn’t “judge what is expected to be a film with limited audience against the Avengers”. I was merely highlighting that this is a VERY different kind of film. Which it is. I wasn’t a big fan of The Avengers, and in the review I actually said that this approach (doing something different and low-key) was refreshing. So, I think you have missed the point here.
I am not arguing that the film has a limited audience base. In fact, I pretty much said that in my first line of the second paragraph.
My point about using Shakespeare’s text was that it takes about Whedon’s strength – which is dialogue. Dialogue is what he does best, so to use someone else’s means we don’t get to enjoy his own witty wordplay. See?
Stephen,
I appreciate your opinion but I disagree with your assessment that Joss should have modernised the text. Whedon is a huge fan of Shakespeare and Shakespeare has had a big impact on his work to date. Much Ado About Nothing is a showcase of some of the wittiest, funniest and cleverest language ever written both then and now. With relationships, particularly Benedick and Beatrice, that I believe have inspired some of the most popular couples in the Whedon oeuvre. To some extent Whedon has already ‘rewritten’ Much Ado in some of his most famous couples, see Xander & Anya (Benedick & Beatrice) Buffy & Angel (Hero & Claudio) for instance. I think it would have suffered in a rewrite. I am biased however as it is one of my absolute favourite pieces. ‘If her breath were as terrible as her terminations there would be no living near her’ (!) With lines like that It needs no change. I can’t wait. Thank you for an informative review.
Hi Emma,
I realise that Whedon is huge Shakespeare fan (not to namedrop, but I interviewed him a few weeks ago), and I absolutely appreciate where he’s coming from and what he’s attempting to do.
The point I was making is that the best thing he does is HIS dialogue, so doing it this way means he is making a movie which purposefully doesn’t use his strength. I wasn’t meaning to say he failed at Shakespeare.
Forget the Avengers, or the Whedon whitty dialogue. What did you think of the actual film? I’m not seeing anything in this review that I couldn’t read in a summary or see in a trailer. I know many of the faces are familiar to Whedon fans, but not necessarily the general movie population. Forget about that. How did you find their performances in this film? How was Fran Kraz as Claudio? Clark Gregg as Leonarto? How was Nathan Fillion as Dogberry? What about Whedon’s work on this film? You vaguely touch on it in the final paragraph, but I can barely tell your talking about Much Ado About Nothing in this “review” It feels more like a general commentary on Joss Whedon’s work and the geekiness of his fans.
And this feels like an angry Whedon fan being annoyed that someone didn’t love his work.
The Avengers is important in terms of context, as I thought it was great that he did something like this after it. I realise that the faces won’t be familiar to the general movie population, which is why I wrote “all your average viewer will see is a monochromatic play starring a host of half-familiar faces from shows they’ve never seen.”
It wasn’t a general commentary on his work, I was discussing the strength of his dialogue as it was relevant to the movie at hand.
Also – “witty” doesn’t have an h.
If I was an angry fan, I would have used much stronger language and called you names. My bad for having a typo and putting an “h” in witty. By jumping to a conclusion, you sound like an overly sensitive critic. I’m simply asking you what you disliked about the actually film. Most of your review was a vague commentary on things other than the actual film. I don’t care that Mr, Whedon is not universally adored, but asking someone for specific reason why they did not like someone is perfectly reasonable. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but professional writers should justify their opinions in their reviews. I don’t always agree with spill.com, for example. They’ve liked films I thought were crap and have ripped things to shreds that I enjoy, but they say why they like or dislike it and talk about the actual films they are reviewing. The rest of your review is fine for part of a review, but it should not make up the majority of it.
You might not have used strong language, but the tone was passive aggressive.
I said “this feels like an angry Whedon fan” same as you said “feels like a general commentary”. Same terminology, so if I was jumping to a conclusion, then it was only in response to your jump.
I agree, you are entitles to ask, but my opinions about the film are pretty much all there. I thought it was refreshing and admirable in approach (para one), thought it is bound to be more well received by fans of Whedon and Shakespeare than general cinemagoers (para two) and I would have preferred his own writing (para three).
I realise I didn’t put anything about the cast, but I’m trying to be more concise in my reviews and thought the other stuff was more interesting & relevant.
I’ve had discussions with other critics before who disagree with pointing out who a film may or may not appeal to (as I did in the review), but I feel it’s important. Think some critics get carried away with the self-importance of their own opinion and forget about the reader / viewer – which is missing the point for me.
You, like anyone out there, are entitled to your opinion. But I think we live in a time where film critics get a very hard time from readers who make passive aggressive and condescending comments when the review isn’t exactly to their specifications. I read some very high-profile critics who often carry out a whole review without touching on the performances.
you don’t have to touch on the performances, that was just an example, but the majority of the review should be about the content of the film. I happen to think the Twilight and Transformers films are crap, but still think that critics who write reviews should write about the actual films. You commented on the knowlege the general public has of the cast or how Whedon fans, for example, which is fine as long as you also state your opinion of their performances in this film. So people passive agressively attack you? I’ve gotten death threats for writing reviews on Amazon. You state and opinion, people will disagree with you. That’s the way it is.
“The majority of the review should be about the content of the film” – thanks for that, Holly. I wasn’t sure how to write a film review.
My favorite part is where you imply that Joss Whedon’s writing is somehow better or at least preferable to that of William Shakespeare. Statements that silly don’t come around very often. You should be proud. No wait; what’s the other thing? You should be hopelessly embarrassed and ashamed.
You know, I wish Dr. Dre would record some Mozart. But if he does, he should only keep the theme but use his own music, because that is his strength, right?
My favourite part is where condescending comments are left by those who wish to show their superiority. Because that is your strength, right?
At no point did I say Whedon’s writing is better than Shakespeare’s. My point, which I shall explain again, is that doing it this way means we have a Whedon film without the thing he does best. Which feels like a shame to me.
Let me be clear though – I’m not a big fan of Shakespeare. I’m not doubting his influence or ability or anything like that, I just don’t find reading or watching anything with his text enjoyable. Which is my right. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. What you are not entitled to, though, is to tell someone that they should be “hopelessly embarrassed and ashamed” just because they don’t love something which is generally adored and respected.
Stephen I have to agree with Holly. I don’t think you really explained your opinion. Coming away from your review, I don’t know why you didn’t like this film. I understand you would have rather had Joss Whedon create his own dialogue, but perhaps you could, for example, compare this version of the film to other film or stage adaptations? Is it the actual Shakespearean dialogue you dislike? Or perhaps the cinematography was hasty and not set up well? The performances were not strong? How does the modernized setting work for the dialogue? I don’t know any of these things from your review. I think it’s ironic that there are so many issues to talk about in this movie, and you chose to briefly discuss the one thing the director has no creative control over… the dialogue.
I think Holly was very reasonable to ask for more detail, and it is you who is passive aggressive… I mean, correcting her spelling? You typed “here them cry” in your review! It’s spelled “hear”! You barely wrote three paragraphs, didn’t spell correctly, and then attacked Holly on her spelling?
I’m sorry, but although you may KNOW how to write a film review, you are not exercising that knowledge. I know nothing specific about this film that I could not have found reading IMDB. Your journalistic opinion is stated, but not backed up. You might as well have just wrote “I didn’t like it because I didn’t like it.”
Elliott,
As stated before, I think I did explain my thoughts on the film. Certainly, there are things I didn’t mention, but every film review doesn’t have to be a checklist gong through every aspect of a film. As mentioned, I wrote about the things that I came away thinking about.
I haven’t seen many Shakespeare adaptations to compare this to. Personally, I didn’t feel much after watching it (aside from relief that it was over) and wouldn’t agree that there are many issues to talk about.
Of course Whedon has creative control about using Shakespeare’s text – he chose to do it that way! It was his choice to do the movie and his choice to use the text.
Holly was within her right to ask questions, but her tone was definitely passive aggressive (see the use of quotation marks around the word review). If someone is going to make an obvious spelling mistake while speaking down to me, then I’m going to point it out. Thanks for pointing mine out, though, I have now amended it.
“You barely wrote three paragraphs” So what? Does a film review have to be a certain length? As I mentioned already, I’m trying to cut my review length down. This website doesn’t yield any income and is done in my spare time (in addition to a freelance career), so I’m not going to spend unnecessary time on something I thought was fairly unremarkable.
This site is fairly new and doesn’t get much in the way of comments, but it’s fairly telling that the moment I post a negative review of a Joss Whedon film the comments section explodes.
I agree with the other comments, your review review speaks about your expectations and preferences and about what people may or may not already know about the director and actor but it offers very little with regard to actually reviewing this film.
I know you will come up with a snarky reply to my comment (as you have with all the others), but maybe, just maybe, you should consider that your reader have a point this time?
Hi Andy,
I agree that the review does deal with expectations and preferences, but I think they are important and inform our viewing experience.
See here’s the problem. You call me “snarky” when I’ve merely been defending myself against passive aggressive comments. “As you have with all the others”, for example. It’s actually quite funny that I’m getting called snarky for not liking something which Whedon has done. Oh, the irony! Just as readers have the right to comment, writers have the right to reply and defend themselves.
Absolutely, I can see where they’re coming from. But just because people put a comment on a website and disagree with the website’s viewpoint, doesn’t mean they are right.
It’s fine for you guys to disagree with the reviewer, but bloody hell you’re being self-superior about it!
Would you all be moaning so much if the review matched your viewpoints? My guess is no.
AndyB – if the reviewer really was “snarky” (which anyone arguing for Whedon has a cheek to use) then he’d have pulled you up for the fact you wrote review twice.
I thought the review was nicely done. I am, however, left with the question of how jarring the Shakespearian language is in a modern setting.
I was kind of hoping that Joss would rewrite Shakespeare with modern diction, but I guess that is pretty much an impossible task. I’ll watch it anyway, but probably not in a theater.
Hi Paul, nice of you to say. Appreciated. Yeah that’s pretty much what I was hoping for, too. Oh well, perhaps after Avengers 2?
I agree that dialogue is one of Whedon’s strongsuits, but as a Shakespeare fan–and a Whedon fan– I would have been devastated at a modern interpretation. The draw for me is to see *these* actors saying *those* words.
I understand, though, that the audience is limited, and a modern adaptation might have broader appeal. But the question then is, are there more Buffy-verse fans that will melt over the idea of ‘Wesley and Fred’ as Benedick and Beatrice than there are Shakespeare fans who might enjoy a small, intimate, modern interpretation of Much Ado? I’m not sure that the appeal isn’t broader the way that Whedon chose to do it. He knows his audience, and he may have felt that he wasn’t going to bring the Avengers crowd to *this* table, no matter how he modernized it. But he could bring the Buffy crowd to the original piece.
Appreciate your perspective…just feel kind of the exact opposite!
Hi Lori,
You make some very good points and I agree with you on all of them! Reasoned, rationale and polite – if only all readers / commenters were like you!
One thing I would like to clear up, though (if I haven’t already), is that I wasn’t saying this movie – or any for that matter – has to please the Avengers’ crowd. I wasn’t even that big a fan of it, myself. I only mentioned it in context with regards to how Whedon chose to do something so intimate next.