Shakespeare on the silver screen

Director Joss Whedon helmed the highest-grossing film of 2012. Can he bestow the same magic on the financially troubled Shakespeare film genre?

Roadside Attractions
‘Much Ado About Nothing’

On June 7, director Joss Whedon’s take on the Shakespeare comedy “Much Ado About Nothing” will come to theaters. Mr. Whedon may be the box office king after helming the highest-grossing movie of 2012, “The Aven­gers,” but can he break the streak of Bard-based films that have bombed at the box office?

Many efforts to convert Shakespeare’s plays into movies in the past two decades have been critically lauded but largely avoided by audiences. The most recent, Ralph Fiennes’s 2011 adaptation of “Coriolanus,” was overwhelmingly well received by critics but didn’t even crack $1 million in ticket sales. Kenneth Branagh’s 1996 “Hamlet” is often called the best film adaptation of that play ever, but it earned less than $5 million domestically.

One of the last Shakespeare movies to use the Bard’s original script, and which also raked in box office gold, was Mr. Bran­agh’s take on “Much Ado About Nothing,” but that was 20 years ago. Meanwhile, Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 film “William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet,” also a box office hit, had the characters speak the original dialogue but updated the action to 1990s California.

Many of the Shakespeare movies that have succeeded since then are the ones that took a cue from Mr. Luhrmann and adapted the classics even more loosely, often losing Shakespeare’s dated dialogue. Both “10 Things I Hate About You” (1999), a contemporary update of “The Taming of the Shrew,” and “She’s the Man” (2006), a modern spin on “Twelfth Night,” were box office successes.

So is bringing Shakespeare into the present – and losing the clunky language – the only way to make money? (For the record, Whedon’s “Much Ado” is set in modern day but uses the original script.)

Mark Wunderlich, literature faculty member and Shakespeare teacher at Bennington (Vt.) College, says the Elizabethan way of speaking could be one of the biggest reasons adaptations flounder at the box office.

“Mostly it is the language barrier that people are afraid of,” he says.

Adaptations should take chances with Shakespeare’s stories to keep the already short attention spans of audiences engaged, says Mr. Wunderlich, who points to “Romeo + Juliet” as a success story.

“That one captured something of the populist spirit of those plays,” he said. “The reason we still read Shakespeare today is that it’s a living piece of art and not a museum piece.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.