'Much Ado' is a legitimately entertaining Shakespeare adaptation

( PG-13 ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

Director Joss Whedon's version of 'Much Ado' is an adept adaptation of the Shakespeare comedy.

Elsa Guillet-Chapuis/Roadside Attractions/AP
'Much Ado About Nothing' stars Amy Acker (l.) and Jillian Morgesen.

Much ado is being made over the fact that Joss Whedon directed his modern-dress Shakespeare adaptation “Much Ado About Nothing” while taking a 12-day break from postproduction on “The Avengers.” But why should this be so surprising? As superhero franchise palate cleansers go, you can’t do much better than the Bard. Besides, there’s plenty of avenging going on in “Much Ado,” minus the CGI, of course, and with a bit better dialogue.

I enjoyed Whedon’s film both as a species of stunt and also as a legitimately entertaining entry in the voluminous Shakespeare adaptation sweepstakes. It’s very different from Kenneth Branagh’s sun-splashed 1993 version, set in a villa in Tuscany and starring Branagh and his then-wife Emma Thompson as the contentious Benedick and Beatrice, who dislike each other so intensely that it’s obvious they will fall in love.

Whedon has mostly cast his movie with actors familiar from his movies and TV series, including Alexis Denisof (“Buffy the Vampire Slayer”) and Amy Acker (“Angel”) as Benedick and Beatrice, Fran Kranz (“Dollhouse”) and Jillian Morgese (a Whedon newcomer) as the dewy lovers Claudio and Hero, and Nathan Fillion (“Firefly,” “Buffy”) and Tom Lenk (“Buffy”) as the bumbling constable Dogberry and his loyal sidekick Verges. John Ford had his stock company. Why not Whedon?

Shot in black and white in Whedon’s sprawling Spanish-style manse in Santa Monica, Calif., the film seems, quite literally, homey. (To make matters even homier, the house was designed by Kai Cole, Whedon’s wife and one of the film’s producers.) The black-and-whiteness allows us to focus on the characters and the language without the vibrant distractions of a color palette.

This is a mixed blessing. Olivier’s “Hamlet” and “Richard III” this is not. The actors, while sportive and surprisingly adept at making iambic pentameter seem as form-fitting as plain old (olde?) American lingo, are not exactly going to be giving the Royal Shakespeare Company any sleepless nights. It’s beyond need of proof, of course, that American actors can perform Shakespeare on a level with the Brits. Still, there is nothing here that would have given, say, the Brando of “Julius Caesar” any sleepless nights, either.

But Whedon does respect the play, and its language. This is no small achievement. Too many Shakespeare redos are plagued by an overarching “concept” that all too often wrecks whatever pleasures we might have taken from the play. Prime example: Baz Luhrmann’s “Romeo + Juliet,” which did to Shakespeare what his “The Great Gatsby” would do to F. Scott Fitzgerald. (Can no one keep this man away from the classics?)

Whedon was smart to choose “Much Ado” as his maiden Shakespearean voyage. With its merry wit, interlocking love stories, and broad slapstick, it offers up a template for his own sprightly gifts. Plus it has the advantage of essentially being set in a single locale – no raging heaths, no battles (except domestic ones).
This is one movie in which the actors look as if they’re having a good time and, for a change, we are, too. I imagine Shakespeare would have been pleased. Of course, if he were writing today, he’d no doubt be writing for the movies. He might have even taken up “The Avengers II.” Grade: B+ (Rated PG-13 for some sexuality and brief drug use.)

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.