Best Shakespeare adaptations on film

[canbelto]

There have been so many Shakespeare clunkers, but a lot of good adaptations too. What are your favorites?

I personally love Throne of Blood. It's not an adaptation per se, but I thought it captured the "Scots play" better than any other Macbeth adaptation. I like the depiction of the Macbeths' marriage as cold, empty, and sexless. The traditional depiction is that of a highly lustful relationship, with Lady M using her sexuality to spur on her husband. But Kurosawa sees the marriage as empty, devoid of anything but pure ambition. I also really liked Roman Polanski's more straightforward adaptation. In general, I think Macbeth responds well to celluloid. It's straightforward, without the numerous subplots of Hamlet or King Lear.

Call me dorky, but I liked Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet, with di Caprio and Danes. I liked Zefferelli's film as well, but I actually thought Danes and di Caprio were better actors than Hussey and IforgottheRomeo. Sure the text is slashed, but Zefferelli slashed the text just as much.

I was one of the few people who disliked Much Ado About Nothing. Forced gaiety always rubs me the wrong way. It seems as if Branagh is so determined to make us think, "Oh, what a great time!" I didn't have such a great time.

I liked Olivier's Henry V. I haven't seen Branagh's, but I thought that while Olivier took out the darker parts of the play, overall he captured the life-affirming spirit. His wooing of Catherine was very charming, as was the deliberately artificial sets. He handled the humorous parts of the play quite well I think.

[bart]

Good topic! Throne of Blood is powerful and visually unforgettable, but I also like the look and eeriness of Kurasowa's technicolor take on King Lear, "Ran." The Fool is a lovely character, the two wicked daughters are unforgettable, and the landscape is strangely beautiful. As far as "look" is concerned, I also like what Orson Welles was able to do on a low budget in his MacBeth. Othello is even better in that regard.

I love Olivier's Henry V -- the expansion outward from a play in a Shakespearean theater to the "real world" of Henry and his wars with France. The courtship with Catherine is marvellous. Even better is Oliver's courtship/corruption of Lady Anne in Richard III. The two performances are "ham" at its very best.

I am actually very fond of Branagh's Much Ado ... Branagh is very loyal to Shakespeare's text. He not only speaks the lines marvellously, but, as a director, elicits from his actors a use of language that is fluent, colloquial, and completely natural in effect -- very hard to do in Shakespearean comedy. The monologue "I do much wonder how one man ...." is beyond excellent. (It's a standard audition monologue, so I've heard a few.)

He also loves Italy. Landscape, air, light, the incredible beauty and subtle colors of the Tuscan countryside in early summer (just about this time of year): it's all there. The final shots of joyful dancing, banner-waving, confetti throwing, etc., and the song set to Shakespeare's poem -- though I can see how they might seem "forced" -- remain one of my happiest memories of all the Shakespeare films I've seen.

[papeetepatrick]

Since I watched the Czinner movie of Nureyev and Fonteyn last night, and it's not just a videotape of a performance, I can easily say that that is my favourite of all Shakespeare movies. Why, I could watch it a thousand times or more it's so beautiful.

I'm glad you brought this up, because I see how little I've seen, so I'd have to say that after the above, I'd choose Olivier's 'Hamlet' and also his 'Henry V' and 'Richard III'. I've otherwise just seen tapes of 'Troilus and Cressida' and Verdi's 'Otello,' which were grainy. Oh yes, love Olivier and Maggie Smith in 'Othello.'

That's Leonard Whiting in the Zeffirelli. I just looked him up, and he's done very little since. Didn't care for that movie, though, especially the treacly theme music. Never have seen Branagh's things, but did see that 2000 modernized version of 'Hamlet' mainly because of the actors, Kyle Machlachlan can be very good.

[canbelto]

Well I'm slapping myself in the wrists for not thinking of the Czinner film of "Romeo and Juliet." Of course, it's perfect. Particularly the moment when Juliet runs down the stairs, and accidentally touches Romeo's hand. Fonteyn jolts a bit, as if she was literally shocked by electricity.

Mel Gibson's Hamlet has some weirdly effective moments, and I say this as someone who despises Mel Gibson both personally and as an actor. (No need to go into reasons.) But I watch it for Helena Bonham Carter's Ophelia, and Glenn Close's Gertrude.

I must say that I love the gothic atmosphere of Olivier's Hamlet but I don't worship the film. I don't like the simplification of the play as "a prince who could not make up his mind." That just grates on me. I also think that Olivier could be a very stodgy actor and Hamlet is one of those roles where he decided to be stodgy. Believe it or not I saw a footage of Malcolm X reading parts of "To be or not to be" and then he commented on the monologue and I felt that Malcolm X got a better read on Hamlet's psychology than Olivier.

[dirac]

I thought Branagh’s “Much Ado” got off to a wonderful start and then went downhill. Emma Thompson was delicious and just right for Beatrice, but the casting was distinctly off in other respects, IMO. Denzel Washington was beautiful and dignified but not at ease, Keanu Reeves tried manfully but couldn’t quite shake the Valley Boy speech, and Michael Keaton almost sank the picture singlehandedly. I, too, tired of the aggressive frolicsomeness after awhile, but the film is indeed lovely to look at and a good job overall.

Branagh speaks verse with beauty and acuteness, but unfortunately Nature did not cast him in the mold of a romantic/heroic lead, and his lack of physical glamour and force hurts him on the screen. (I can’t speak to his stage work.) He was a splendid Iago in the Fishburne Othello, and his reading of “Put money in thy purse” was textbook.

The Olivier Hamlet looks better and better with the years, IMO, despite the drastic cutting.

canbelto writes:

Mel Gibson's Hamlet has some weirdly effective moments, and I say this as someone who despises Mel Gibson both personally and as an actor. (No need to go into reasons.) But I watch it for Helena Bonham Carter's Ophelia, and Glenn Close's Gertrude.

Must disagree here. Gibson did a fine job with the prose and a respectable one with the verse, IMO. But then I’ve always liked his acting. Close gave a very odd performance. The Oedipal interpretation was put front and center, and she kept going over to Mel and kissing him and fondling him something terrible. Okay, okay.

My own problem with Shakespeare on the screen, no matter how conscientous the adaptation, is that the camera takes on work that the author crafted the verse to do, and it never quite comes off. As with ballet, however, it’s better than nothing, if only for the sake of the performers. At least we have some idea of how Olivier played Richard III, even though observers at the time felt he didn’t touch what he’d done at the New Theatre in 1944.

[FauxPas]

I was blown away by Olivier's "Henry V" when I saw it at age thirteen. Oddly enough, Kenneth Branagh's film nearly matched it and I was much older at the time.

I would recommend a DVD of a TV adaptation of "Macbeth" done by the RSC in the 1970's with Ian McKellen and Judi Dench. It is available at Amazon and www.deepdiscountdvd.com

The Burton/Taylor "Taming of the Shrew" I think is a very fun, well-acted version of one of my least favorite Shakespearean comedies. I also was blown away by the RSC movie of Peter Hall's "A Midsummers Night Dream" with Helen Mirren, Judi Dench, Diana Rigg, David Warner, Ian Holm and Ian Richardson.

The Hollywood 1953 "Julius Caesar" has a mixed-bag cast but they are all good in their own ways - James Mason is a bit too coldly intellectual as Brutus but John Gielgud is superb as Cassius and Marlon Brando does some very interesting work as Mark Antony outside of the big forum speech. It is a tight, well-directed faithful screen adaptation by Mankiewicz.

[dirac]

The Hollywood 1953 "Julius Caesar" has a mixed-bag cast but they are all good in their own ways - James Mason is a bit too coldly intellectual as Brutus but John Gielgud is superb as Cassius and Marlon Brando does some very interesting work as Mark Antony outside of the big forum speech. It is a tight, well-directed faithful screen adaptation by Mankiewicz.

It is indeed very faithful. Maybe a little stiff, but a worthy effort. I thought Mason wasn't quite up to Brutus, but Gielgud was perfect. Brando is fascinating to watch even when his performance wobbles.

[sidwich]

I like "10 Things I Hate About You." I like that is manages not to take itself too seriously as an adaptation, nor does it condescend to the audience. It's also one of the few adaptations of TToTS in which I honestly like all the characters as people.

I tend to prefer the Branagh "Henry V" to the Olivier version, but that may be because the cuts to the text that were required by the British government during WWII took away from the underpinnings of the story. I like the music in the Branagh version as well.

The cuts in Branagh's "Much Ado About Nothing" bother me a bit at times as well, although I like the film overall. I'm also very fond of the Sam Waterston version of "Much Ado" from the early 1980's (it's shown on PBS from time to time).

[Helene]

The cuts in Branagh's "Much Ado About Nothing" bother me a bit at times as well, although I like the film overall. I'm also very fond of the Sam Waterston version of "Much Ado" from the early 1980's (it's shown on PBS from time to time).

I love the Waterston "Much Ado," and it's available on DVD. (amazon.com has it.)

[dirac]

I tend to prefer the Branagh "Henry V" to the Olivier version, but that may be because the cuts to the text that were required by the British government during WWII took away from the underpinnings of the story. I like the music in the Branagh version as well.

The cuts in Branagh's "Much Ado About Nothing" bother me a bit at times as well, although I like the film overall. I'm also very fond of the Sam Waterston version of "Much Ado" from the early 1980's (it's shown on PBS from time to time).

I think the Branagh Henry V is superior overall, as well. Branagh isn't up to Olivier, but he has better support. The score by Patrick Doyle is indeed very fine. (Also, the groundbreaking quality of Olivier's work has faded a bit with the passage of time, perhaps.)

I think changing the place and time of “Much Ado” is trickier than it looks. I remember liking the Waterston version, but thought it odd that these nice turn of the century couples were trading sexy Elizabethan quips and double entendres. Branagh handles that aspect of the play very well.

[canbelto]

I know everyone hated this film, but I actually didn't dislike the Midsummer's Night Dream from a few years back with Michelle Pfeiffer, Rupert Everett, Calista Flockhart, etc. I didn't think it was a great film, but I laughed, and I had a good time. But then again MSND is a teflon play. I saw it as an outside production on a college campus, where everyone was shivering, and the lovers were dressed in chunky sweaters and jeans, and the set was the cheerleader bleachers. And it was magical.

[sandik]

The cuts in Branagh's "Much Ado About Nothing" bother me a bit at times as well, although I like the film overall. I'm also very fond of the Sam Waterston version of "Much Ado" from the early 1980's (it's shown on PBS from time to time).

I love the Waterston "Much Ado," and it's available on DVD. (amazon.com has it.)

It's available? What great news -- I love that one!

Ian McKellan in Richard III -- set in a non-specific Fascist state. Very spooky, very effective.

Someone mentioned the durability of Midsummer Night's Dream -- a local theater company here did it as a 1950's sock hop set in a high school gym and it worked like a charm.

[bart]

I had forgotten what an all-purpose play MSND can be. I love the phrase "teflon play." Maybe that's why it works so well in ballet (Balanchine and Ashton specifically).

I recall a outdoor MSD performed in a small outdoors amphitheater on the harbor in Camden, Maine. Some Spirit of the Theater kept cueing the fog to roll in from the water at just the right times. (He or she accomplished the same miracle during Hamlet, which was even better.)

Ian McKellan in Richard III -- set in a non-specific Fascist state. Very spooky, very effective.

Yes, with wonderful supporting players. Compare McKellan's reading of the opening monologue ("Now is the season of our discontent ..." leading up to "I am determined to be a villain.") with Olivier's for a mini-lesson in different ways create character out of Shakespeare's lines. I love the use of the early 20th century power station for one of the castle scenes. The ending, however, with Richard plunging into hell, is rather cheesey for such a stylish film.

[Mme. Hermine]

I'm also very fond of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in "Shrew", he of course was quite good but the surprise, I thought, was that she was also.

[klingsor]

Campanadas a medianoche (1965)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059012/

[Helene]

Thank you, klingsor -- I have to find that one.

[canbelto]

Is the 1935 Midsummer's Night Dream available on video?

And also, has anyone ever actually seen the famous Shearer/Howard R&J? I always just read about the ridiculousness of casting the late-thirtysomethings as teens, but I've never seen the film.

[carbro]

Shearer/Howard R&J -- Disclaimer -- half asleep while it was on tv.

But hated it! It was so dewy and soft, R and J casting such sweetness on all around them, you really didn't feel the obstacles the young lovers were up against. I like R&Js that make their struggle valiant.

[papeetepatrick]

Shearer/Howard R&J

Of purely curio interest is Norma Shearer as 'Herself/Juliet' and John Gilbert as 'Himself/Romeo' in 'Hollywood Revue of 1929.' It's considerably less effective than 'The Pearl Ballet' in the same film, with James Burrows's wonderful singing of an adorable period song, and sublime Erte costumes. (Plus Marie Dressler, Anita Page, Joan Crawford's 'dancing', fantastically leaden pointe work in 'That Low-Down Rhythm' and all sorts of other OT things...I highly recommend.)

[klingsor]

Is the 1935 Midsummer's Night Dream available on video?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external...7C%206302804655

[sandik]

Is the 1935 Midsummer's Night Dream available on video?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/external...7C%206302804655

Nijinska choreography for the fairies, and Mickey Rooney as Puck -- quite amazing!

[dirac]

Rooney is an awesome Puck.

The 1936 R&J isn't good, but it's watchable. You just can't watch it expecting anything like what we expect from a Shakespeare production today. The leads are too old but that was par for the course at the time. Howard's not so bad and Shearer -- well, she could be worse, and she looks lovely in the Messel costumes. No MGM prestige production of the time was complete without a Barrymore, so John shows up as a paunchy Mercutio. It's profoundly studio-bound, however, without a hint of actual life in it.

Norma was fond of a very pale foundation, which makes her very glowing and everyone around her rather dark, and it's quite noticeable here.

[canbelto]

Norma was fond of a very pale foundation, which makes her very glowing and everyone around her rather dark, and it's quite noticeable here.

Norma was also very fond of a specific type of acting which is sort of hard to describe, except to say that she moves her face as little as possible. She kind of reminds me of those stars who've had too many facelifts so their faces become immobile. One of the most unexpressive screen actresses of her generation, IMO, and that's why her films and performances are relatively forgotten.

Oh I forgot -- Olivier's Richard III is slashed beyond recognition. A disappointment.

Has anyone seen Orson Welles' Othello?

[FauxPas]

Oh I forgot -- Olivier's Richard III is slashed beyond recognition. A disappointment.

Has anyone seen Orson Welles' Othello?

If you want slashed beyond recognition - look no further than the Welles "Othello". Orson actually gets the play down to less than 2 hours - a whopping 91 minutes. Orson also had a tendency like Donald Wolfit and other 19th century actor/managers to cast non-entities around him - look at the "Macbeth" with Jeanette Nolan. This crew isn't so bad but done in by the production style and cutting. Michael McLliamoir isn't charismatic enough on screen as Iago but the Emilia of Fay Compton is fine. This film was done in bits and pieces with no budget over several years. The skimpy sets are offset by clever chiaroscuro lighting but there is a lack of supernumeries and props as well. Continuity is weird and I think the whole thing was post-dubbed. The Desdemona is a beautiful French actress, Suzanne Cloutier who has no clue with Shakespearean dialogue. She is dubbed but I can't tell if she does her own voice or if it is someone else.

[bart]

I know that this topic is called "Best Shakespeare adaptations," not "films of scripts by Shakespeare." But sometimes I think film makers have been too willing to sacrifice the Shakespeare's words for the sake of beautiful visuals and compelling action.

I guess it amounts to the issue of how much of the spoken quality in Shakespeare you feel can and/or ought to be sacrificed for the sake of making a visually beautiful film, or a dramatically compelling film, more popular.

But imagine Swan Lake or 4 Temperaments re-choreographed drastically for dancers who cannot do the original steps, and for audiences who don't have the background or desire to concentrate on the what Ivanov-Petipa and Balanchine actually produced.

Rooney is an awesome Puck.

I agree that he is visually stunning. And he moves quite well, with energy and grace. And humor. The entire production has the look of dreamy silverpoint. But, like everyone in the film, Rooney is sometimes painful to listen to.

Orson actually gets the play down to less than 2 hours - a whopping 91 minutes. Orson also had a tendency like Donald Wolfit and other 19th century actor/managers to cast non-entities around him - look at the "Macbeth" with Jeanette Nolan.

Welles's Othello is beautiful to look at -- the home movie that we might make only in our wildest dreams. Think of the bathhouse scene -- the use of a simple slatted boardwalk, with strips of light and shadow (one of the "chiaroscuro" effects mentioned by Faux Pas). But Welles was an actor, as Faux Pas also mentions who sometimes seemed to rely more on sheer sound quality (those plummy T-O-N-E-S) than on expressing meaning and feeling. However, although he cut the text, he seemed very anxious to preserve the meaning and poetry of what was left. And he DIDN't slather his face with shiny brown shoe polish, as did Olivier.