Sign in with Facebook
Jason's Reviews > Much Ado About Nothing
Much Ado About Nothing
by
by
What happened was, I hadn’t been paying close attention to my Netflix queue, and when Joss Whedon’s Much Ado About Nothing was released, I quickly flicked it to the top of the queue (like I do all new releases) without remembering that I had wanted to save it for when I actually read the play. (I was also saving Kenneth Branagh’s for the same occasion.) Then the red envelope arrived and I couldn’t let it sit there forever and I’m certainly not going to waste a few days sending it back unwatched, so what is a fella to do other than to actually read the play?
And what a play it is! Ostensibly about a guy named Claudio falling hot and heavy for a girl named Hero and a bastard villain who tries to thwart their romantic plans for no discernible gain (seriously, find me someone who can explain Don John’s motives here), this play is really about Beatrice and Benedick. Because as it turns out, Claudio is merely a puss-puss who has offered no contribution whatsoever to the Space Race. And people like that should never command one’s respect.
Beatrice and Benedick, on the other hand, are pretty great, and this being a Shakespearean comedy, they happen to be pretty funny, too. Especially Beatrice. A master of wordplay and sarcasm, her insults are delivered with a stinging precision and the deftness of a ninja. Halfway through the play, her comedic match is met when we are introduced to Dogberry, whose humor is a little more...unintended? Yet it is nothing short of hilarious.
This play probably has some deeper themes trying to elbow their way out—Beatrice is presumably an early model of feminism in literature and I am sure that angle could be explored more deeply—but this worked well enough for me as a breezy romantic comedy, and I look forward to seeing what Whedon does with it. Wow, did I just call Shakespeare breezy? I am such a puss-puss!
Oh, and Branagh’s adaptation has been subsequently moved up in the queue, as well, and should already be waiting for me at home. It will be a Shakespeare movie weekend! (In between Red Sox games.)
And what a play it is! Ostensibly about a guy named Claudio falling hot and heavy for a girl named Hero and a bastard villain who tries to thwart their romantic plans for no discernible gain (seriously, find me someone who can explain Don John’s motives here), this play is really about Beatrice and Benedick. Because as it turns out, Claudio is merely a puss-puss who has offered no contribution whatsoever to the Space Race. And people like that should never command one’s respect.
Beatrice and Benedick, on the other hand, are pretty great, and this being a Shakespearean comedy, they happen to be pretty funny, too. Especially Beatrice. A master of wordplay and sarcasm, her insults are delivered with a stinging precision and the deftness of a ninja. Halfway through the play, her comedic match is met when we are introduced to Dogberry, whose humor is a little more...unintended? Yet it is nothing short of hilarious.
This play probably has some deeper themes trying to elbow their way out—Beatrice is presumably an early model of feminism in literature and I am sure that angle could be explored more deeply—but this worked well enough for me as a breezy romantic comedy, and I look forward to seeing what Whedon does with it. Wow, did I just call Shakespeare breezy? I am such a puss-puss!
Oh, and Branagh’s adaptation has been subsequently moved up in the queue, as well, and should already be waiting for me at home. It will be a Shakespeare movie weekend! (In between Red Sox games.)
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Much Ado About Nothing.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
November 24, 2012
– Shelved
November 24, 2012
– Shelved as:
for-kindle
Started Reading
October 24, 2013
–
Finished Reading
October 25, 2013
– Shelved as:
reviewed
Comments Showing 1-50 of 84 (84 new)
And Whedon does nothing terribly interesting with it, unfortunately. But Joss needs a decorator.
Glad to see you are reading something good for a change. Hope for you yet.
David wrote: "I already explained them to you, dummy!"You did! But it wasn't really an explanation of his motives, per se; it was more a view of the character as a "plot device" which I totally agree with.
I loved your comment, by the way. I should break all the rules and post it here.
Wanting to be a villain for villainy's sake is a motive; it's just not a very satisfying one. You'd probably be happy if the play included a soliloquy explaining that Don Pedro was the Marcia Brady of their family and Don John was (neglected, put-upon) Jan, wouldn't you? Just let it go.
Jason wrote: "David wrote: "I already explained them to you, dummy!"
You did! But it wasn't really an explanation of his motives, per se; it was more a view of the character as a "plot device" which I totally a..."
I thought it was because John was a disenfranchised bastard kid. And a douche bag.
You did! But it wasn't really an explanation of his motives, per se; it was more a view of the character as a "plot device" which I totally a..."
I thought it was because John was a disenfranchised bastard kid. And a douche bag.
He was a bastard. You're right. I forgot about that. There are too many bastards in Shakespeare to keep track of. It's like the Maury show.
Also, I love how you (bitterly) included a hyperlink to an irrelevant troll simply in order to air your petty grievance (again). It looks like you've been studying my playbook again.
Why do disenfranchised bastards have to become such puss-pusses when they grow up?
They didn't have Wellbutrin back then.
I like the idea of Don John being Jan Brady. That would explain everything. This is pretty much my favourite Shakespearean comedy. Or maybe it's just that Branagh's adaptation is pretty much my favourite Shakespearean film, even though they spent too much of the budget on fake tan. Whedon's version is a cool hipster version and I liked it, but not as much as Branagh's old fashioned romp. Probably because I am not a cool hipster.
People underestimate the tragedy that is Jan Brady—the insecurity, the jealousy, the invented boyfriends—all because she was unlucky enough to live in Marcia's shadow. If that's how Don John felt I could understand the antipathy toward Don Pedro!Except he didn't exactly try to ruin Don Pedro. He tried to ruin Claudio, instead, as if he were trying to inflict damage on his brother by proxy.
Okay, I'll just accept it and move on.
Doesn't Branaugh's version have Keanu Reeves in it?
Sarah wrote: "Doesn't Branaugh's version have Keanu Reeves in it?"
Yep, and he does a very bland job at Shakespearian delivery.
Yep, and he does a very bland job at Shakespearian delivery.
He does a very bland job any kind of delivery. He ruined that movie for me. Branaugh and Thompson were brilliant and I liked Robert Sean Leonard, but Keanu just ruined it.
But Whedon's version has Fillion in it. And that's awesome.I remember liking Michael Keaton as Dogberry, so it would be interesting to compare the two who are very different actors but both very funny.
I don't care for Nathan Fillion.I saw the Joss Whedon version first, which is not what I had intended, but my Branagh disc was cracked straight through. Netflix why you send disc with crack?
I liked the Whedon but I think I can see where DK's coming from in that it's a little flat. I expect the Branagh version to have a bit more flair...because it's Branagh.
Oh! There were a few things I liked, though.A) Conrad is a woman!
B) Don John steals a cupcake when he leaves the wedding. (Fucking awesome.)
C) Black lady goes, "Mmmmhmmm" when Claudio says that he'll honor his promise to Leonato, even if it means being wed to a black woman.
RACIST!!
Did you ever see KB's 24 hour version of Hamlet? (I may have added twenty hours or so to that.) Fantastic!
No, KB is fucking intense, man. I can only take him in < 4 hour doses.
Sarah wrote: "Doesn't Branaugh's version have Keanu Reeves in it?"Yeah, and he's terrible. Then again, I didn't much like Fillion or Keaton, either.
The Globe version with Charles Edwards and Eve Best was really good.
I really liked Amy Acker as Beatrice.Like a fucking lot.
Reading Shakespeare is more fun because there is no human disappointment you have to deal with.
What do you mean? Of course there is. A human wrote it, didn't he? Did you think it was a perfect play, without disappointment?I think you're just trying to be provocative. There is much beauty in the world that stems from a flawed (and disappointing) human touch.
Or something.
Jason wrote: "What do you mean? Of course there is. A human wrote it, didn't he? Did you think it was a perfect play, without disappointment?
I think you're just trying to be provocative. There is much beauty i..."
First off, Shakespeare was not human. He was a divine occurance, or a reverse blackhole, or something. And anyone who disagrees with his perfection is wrong. He may have not been the first to do what he did but he did it better than anyone else ever will. End of story.
Most versions of plays I have seen disappoint me. Can't beat that stage you got in your ol' noggin, though. Every performance there is flawless.
I think you're just trying to be provocative. There is much beauty i..."
First off, Shakespeare was not human. He was a divine occurance, or a reverse blackhole, or something. And anyone who disagrees with his perfection is wrong. He may have not been the first to do what he did but he did it better than anyone else ever will. End of story.
Most versions of plays I have seen disappoint me. Can't beat that stage you got in your ol' noggin, though. Every performance there is flawless.
Then how come you only gave this play 3 stars?
Did the actors in your brain suck?
You don't like Fillion?? I haven't seen that version of Much Ado, but I adore Nathan Fillion in just about everything else. He's Captain Hammer Tightpants!
Haha, this isn't one of my favorite Shakespeare plays. While great for what they are, I feel like his comedies were just a way to bring home the bacon so he could eat and write his real masterpieces, the tragedies. But then again, I never rate comedies very highly. They are pretty disposable to me because I am a jerk.
Sarah wrote: "You don't like Fillion?? I haven't seen that version of Much Ado, but I adore Nathan Fillion in just about everything else. He's Captain Hammer Tightpants!"I never really cared for him, no. And I remember back when I was a kid watching him fuck his grandmother on One Life to Live.
That's right. HE FUCKED HIS GRANDMOTHER.
Anthony wrote: "They are pretty disposable to me because I am a jerk."I don't really understand what this means.
I like comedies. They are fun. But I immediately quit thinking about them after watching them. I don't take them very seriously as being anything worth really thinking about or watching more than once. If I made a list of my top 100 movies, there would be no straight comedies. This makes me sound like a jerk to people who are normal and love comedies.
You're a very strange person, Anthony Vacca. You try to make it sound as though it's "abnormal" to prefer dramas over comedies. Don't most people, most movie-going people, think similarly?
(But he really did fuck his grandmother. HOW CAN YOU STAND IT??)
I didn't watch him on One Life to Live. I don't watch soaps. I first noticed him in Two Guys & a Girl and then in Waitress. Then Firefly, and now Castle. With a little Dr. Horrible in the middle. http://youtu.be/4eeQSI-jo0E
Jason wrote: "You're a very strange person, Anthony Vacca. You try to make it sound as though it's "abnormal" to prefer dramas over comedies. Don't most people, most movie-going people, think similarly?"
Most people I know prefer comedies. They require less thinking.
Most people I know prefer comedies. They require less thinking.
Sidenote: I have been drinking. These are hairtrigger answers.
Ah, well drink away, my friend. What are you drinking?
Sarah, he was also in Desperate Housewives. (Also a soap.)I can't believe you don't like soaps. What kind of person are you? You're almost as bad as Anthony Vacca, that jerk who hates humor, laughter, and amusement.
High life at the moment . A friend is trying to lure me out with free shots though.
Oh I totally watched Desperate Housewives. I guess I should say I don't watch daytime serial soaps.
As in MILLER? Oh my god, this guy. I can't even stand it.
Could be worse. Could be PBR and he could be telling you he only watches comedies ironically.
Comedies you probably haven't even heard of.
I think he should take his friend up on his offer.
PBR is a barroom standard for me.
Anthony wrote: "PBR is a barroom standard for me."Why am I not surprised?
I already explained them to you, dummy!