Paper 2

Jacob Bash

ENG394

Fazel

February 25, 2012

Much Ado about Nothing

William Shakespeare’s Much Ado about Nothing is one of his most beloved and repeated works of art.  The artistry is so advanced that almost any reproduction of the play is destined to be golden.  Kenneth Branagh’s 1993 movie and BBC’s Shakespeare Retold television movie are both no exception (Much Ado).  Although each had entirely different interpretations, both productions were able to capture the light-hearted comedy and unconventional charm between the character relationships.  Kenneth Branagh definitely kept more truthful to the text and obviously the time period with its accurate vernacular and garb.  Shakespeare Retold takes a modern twist on Much Ado which does its best to keep the hilarity while still altering the text and time period.

One of the most distinguishable differences between the two movies rests in the cinematography.  For example, Branagh’s version acquired many different camera angles.  The beginning of the movie starts with an entire nine minutes with a panning overhead shot zooming in on Beatrice in a tree.  A fun and flippant use of camera use was seen in the rapid cross cutting scenes—particularly in the back and forth of the men and women showering.  It is incredible how simple positioning of a camera can assist in the entire tone of a movie.  In terms of camera angles assisting point of view, many were used during Beatrice’s monologues making her the main focasliser of the scene.  Other heavily used camera techniques were medium-close reaction shots and shot/reverse shots (Hindle, 116).  These shots in particular aided in narration and intimate monologue scenes.  The filming in Kenneth Branagh’s version of Much Ado about  Nothing encompassed a sophisticated style that indicated professionalism.

Quite contrastingly, the BBC version had much choppier, sit-com style filming.  Close-up shots were taken—especially in the beginning at the news station—with little digital editing to retain the natural, laid-back aura.  Once Hero and Claude meet one-on-one, almost the entire scene was filmed in shot/reverse shot.  Similar to Branagh’s movie, BBC also used cross cutting shooting in the news room.  During Beatrice and Benedick’s playful bantering, the camera cuts back and forth between the two, adding to the silliness.  There were of course uses of mid/close/long range shoots as well, but in comparison to the Branagh version, BBC was much more close-range savvy, whereas the latter applied all three equally.  

Another aspect that illustrated the piping contrast between these two movies was the sound track.  Branagh’s movie, staying true to its renaissance theme, had a cornucopia of elegant, instrumental music.  The understated, somewhat muted sound track allowed for the actors to project over the music without a forced intonation.  The music really portrays a feeling of stage quality viewing.   The audience can actually get lost on the screen imagining themselves to be almost vicariously involved in the show.  BBC’s version used current, upbeat music with lyrics that sort of distracted from the show.  Not that the songs didn’t add to the tempo of the movie, but they diverted from the vicarious feel.  There definitely wasn’t a question whether or not one was in a live theatre compared to a movie theatre.  

One thing that both movies possessed was good character accuracy.  Both movie versions stayed true to Shakespeare’s portrayal of Beatrice and Benedick in particular.  Beatrice was sassy as ever and Benedick as uncannily charming.  Their relationship is full of bantering yet sweet humor and really draws the audience in to the story.  Hero is still sweet yet less innocent in the BBC version.  The BBC version also gives the bad guy a vested interest, especially in the wedding scene, whereas the Branagh one treats Don John as more of a secondary character (Much Ado).  Again, this is a testament to how the Branagh movie sticks more truly to Shakespeare’s original work.  Even though the BBC version had a totally different text (and purposefully so) it can still be judged in other ways on its accuracy, and it just doesn’t hold par to Branagh’s.  

` Despite the BBC version of Much Ado about Nothing not being verbatim to Shakespeare’s original text, it still did a strikingly accurate job at portraying the original play’s characters.  Although they were speaking in current vernacular, as opposed to dated text, Shakespeare’s vision was given proper homage in the character relationships.  Kenneth Branagh also did a fantastic job in his portrayal of Much Ado.  The audience was truly transported into a Shakespearean mindset, in a renaissance era that stayed truthful textually, periodically, and relationally. Much Ado about Nothing is truly a timeless masterpiece that no matter its many recreations never ceases to be brilliant.  

WORKS CITED

Hindle, Maurice. Studying Shakespeare on Film. Houndmills, Basingstoke [England: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Print.

"Much Ado About Nothing." IMDb. IMDb.com. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107616/>.

Jacob, you touch on some of the obvious connections between the two adaptations of Much Ado About Nothing. There are a number of places, however, that require a little more depth. You also do not make any references to Hindle (although you note him in your Works Cited), Corrigan, or the playtext. Your examples are not explored with the depth necessary to make them support your comparisons. In other words, while you recognize and make contact with some of the two adaptations more salient examples of adaptation, you don’t provide enough in-depth analysis for your readers.

Your grade: 85