Much Ado About Nothing (literally)

[aearwen2]

Last night, I happened to catch the last about an hour of the Kenneth Branagh - Emma Thompson production of Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing". To be honest, when I saw this the first time about ten or fifteen years ago, it was my first introduction to that play - and I loved it.

So when the time came, I purchased the Digital Theatre's taping of MAAN with David Tennant and Catherine Tate from last year's theatre season. Since then, I've watched that production a number of times and grown familiar with both the way DT and CT and the other cast members interpreted the characters, as well as the way some of the speeches came across.

Last night's accidental tripping over the previous version of the play gave me an unexpected opportunity to compare the two.



My memory of the Branagh/Thompson production was that it was witty and funny and visually beautiful. The setting for this version was a villa - with gardens and grounds and pillars and lots of greenery. I suppose it was closer to what the Bard had actually intended his action to take place in. In contrast, last year's production was much more visually sparse, and very much theatre stage based, with a revolving setting that could, with a tweak of the furnishings and lighting, go from poolside to interior salon to church.

The Branagh production made use of some really quality actors in supporting roles - Brian Blessed was Leonato's brother, and Michael Keating was the Captain of the Watch, Dogberry, among others. Blessed has an immense stage presence that in many ways overpowers just about anybody else on stage with him - even when he wasn't emoting actively. Keating's Dogberry looked to me to be almost a play on the character of Beetlejuice, bad teeth and all. The DT/CT production didn't use any really big names (on this side of the pond that I know of) but the performances were really very solid - and actually far more energetic.

In fact, energy was one of the biggest points of divergence between the two productions. The Branagh production seemed to run on a much more muted emotional key altogether. The most vivid example of that was the difference between how Thompson interpreted the "Oh, that I were a man" speech as compared to how Tate did it. Both actresses were supposedly upset at Hero's disgrace and at Benedick's not jumping to her defense - but Thompson's delivery was so... lacking. It was almost a tossed-off line for her, where Tate chewed up the scenery in the delivery. Tate was passionate, and her "I would eat his heart in the marketplace" almost chilling in its implied viciousness. Thompson, for all her acting chops, simply didn't get that desperate wish for revenge across half as well.

Now admittedly, the DT/CT production seemed to be aimed at finding all the humorous points in Shakespeare's dialogue and mining it with not quite over the top acting. The most telling of comparisons (of that part of the Branagh production that I saw) was where Benedick was trying to write his sonnet to Beatrice. Branagh seemed not quite nonchalant in his inability to craft words, where Tennant struggled, both verbally and physically (via gestures and expression) with the rhyme. The appearance of Beatrice and the following exchange was also similarly either bland or sparkling.

Finally, no better contrast exists than the different way Branagh and Tennant interpreted the point where they told their respective Beatrices "Peace. I will stop your mouth." For Branagh, Thompson was already in his arms - so it was kind of "here, lemme give you a kiss." For Tennant, however, it was him finally physically stepping in and claiming Beatrice over her half-hearted objections.

So here I sit, having watched a show I dearly loved many years ago and finding it now so very unsatisfying. Things that were uproariously funny in the Tennant/Tate version fell almost completely flat in Branagh's. And now I ask myself if Branagh really understood the play, or was it for him Much Ado About Nothing both literally and figuratively.

I'm glad I have the Digital Theatre version. For my money, it's the far better version - and not just because I happen to be a fan of Tennant and Tate. The director simply seemed more on the ball and able to get more out of her cast than Branagh did.



I'm afraid I've a new favorite. And I'm now glad I never sprang for the DVD of the Branagh production, because I'd never watch it again.

Comments

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

I will need to go back and compare. You've peaked my interest now. I also remember the Branagh film for the beauty of the setting and cinematography. I have seen enough scenery chewing Shakespeare to last me the rest of my life, however. I like mine low key and naturalistic at the moment.

You can bet your bottom dollar that what I like is totally inauthentic as far as historical facsimile goes. I presume that Shakespeare's actors played it big and loud, with the humor broad, at least in the theater.

Wonder how they did those smaller private productions for the Queen and nobility. I would think one would have to tone it down for a smaller setting and audience? Just wondering.

I do think it is a taste question and one that even varies for the individual at different points in time. (This is truly my Shakespeare week--I am all over the Hollow Crown BBC productions of four of the history plays--watching them for the second time now.)

[sykira]

MAAN meta! Oh you so just made my morning commute!

I totally agree that the raucous humor that the DT/CT version portrayed felt much more like "oh THIS is how it's supposed to be!"
Having studied Shakespeare when younger and never quite understanding the appeal despite getting an A in Eng Lit A-levels for analyzing it, seeing MAAN live was an epiphany for me. I SO get it now! If nothing else, this production went a huge way to bringing Shakespeare to the masses.

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

I have not actually seen that production yet, but found it and will make a point to do so.

[aearwen2.livejournal.com]

I think there's a time for low key and naturalistic, and then there are those times when making something low key seems to smother the natural beauty of the characters' interactions. The audiences in Shakespeare's time were, of course, those to whom a broad and coarse humor and comedy would be most appealing. But there's a difference between making the humor broad and crass and making it sparkling and sharp.

In this case, the low-key naturalism of Branagh's interpretation drowms the way both the language is used and the internal workings of the characters in general. Branagh's Benedick seems to act as if he takes Beatrice's affection is his due - and there is a lack of wholeheartedness in his struggles to win her. For her part, Thompson's Beatrice capitulates all too easily to Benedick; about the only time we see any fire in her whatsoever (at least in the portion of the film that I saw again the other night) was when she was defending Hero and then putting Benedick in his place for not standing up for her cousin - and even THEN, it felt watered down.

I'll admit I'm biased now. The chemistry between David Tennant and Catherine Tate was very palpable - I wonder just when the production of the Branagh version took place in the ill-fated Branagh/Thompson marriage. I'm wondering if some of the distance I sensed between the characters on screen was due to a growing distance in the actors' personal life.

[heartofoshun.livejournal.com]

OMG!

the production of the Branagh version took place in the ill-fated Branagh/Thompson marriage. I'm wondering if some of the distance I sensed between the characters on screen was due to a growing distance in the actors' personal life.

I was reading along with what you had written and wondering exactly the same thing! One does wonder!

For example, shortly before that he played Henry V thoughtfully, but not without passion, for example. So I wouldn't even call it truly low key.

[sykira]

This is incredibly presumptuous of me but talking about / interpreting this version of MAAN is my happy place, I'm still doolally in love with it and it remains worth every penny on my maxed out credit card!!

So, I'm going to restrict myself to one maan meta post link http://sykira.livejournal.com/80479.html
In case you have time or inclination to read it and see what you think? There is done overlap with your thoughts on Branagh and that fascinates me!

(if you or anyone else wants me to unlock other MAAN posts let me know, they are a mix of thinky thoughts, photos and fangirl squee!)

Train now pulling into the station -- hope to be back later to address some of your insightful points on the train home. Also, can I point other MAAN fangirls to your excellent analysis here? They'd love it

[aearwen2.livejournal.com]

I'm fine with you pointing other MAAN fans to this - it would be interesting to get a conversation going about the different ways actors see their characters and how well (or not) that plays to the audience.

I'd like to see your other MAAN posts; I'll have to look back through your journal for them.

Your discussion of AB as DT's understudy taking over the role of Benedick was very interesting. I have to admit that I was pea-green at the idea that you got to see that production live so many times. I'd have killed to get passage to the UK to get to even a single performance.

[xprincessxmeg.livejournal.com]

I really do agree with you on the Branagh version of the film in relation to the CT/DT version of the play. I really enjoyed the film as a youngster and now when I try to watch it after seeing the play, it just feels lacking.

Part of me thought that it mostly had to do with the different interpretations of lines. There's so many different ways that you can play MAAN because the dialogue leaves it open to interpretation.

It's sort of ironic that there seems to be more depth in the play version, since a lot of the lines seemed to be played more for laughs. But oh gosh, when it's serious, that's when it really gets good.

One of the things I realized after seeing the play and then rereading the play is that Thompson didn't really play Beatrice as being mirthful. She tells jokes and she likes to poke fun at just about everyone, but it seems like she's doing it with and undercurrent of bitterness. Whereas Catherine's Beatrice really did seem to have a merry heart. And when her uncle said that though she dreamed of sadness she woke herself with laughing . . . I really believed that about Catherine's Beatrice.

Ok, I could say more, but I've already been too long winded.

[aearwen2.livejournal.com]

You're right - Thompson's interpretation of Beatrice lacked any real mirth. In fact, in so many ways, her Beatrice was more tired than mirthful.

Frankly, I'm thinking that when a play like MAAN is played more for laughs, the sober statements tend to stand out and sing a little more clearly. For example, reading the play, one can get a clue to the almost violent Leonato going after his daughter once she's been shamed by Claudio. But seeing that happen in the midst of a production that has to that point been so upbeat really makes it stand out.

So go ahead and say more. In this particular case, it's intriguing to have two very different interpretations of the same set of words. There's a lot that could be said of how much like life this difference could be.

But that's another discussion altogether...

[akhilanda.livejournal.com]

"It's sort of ironic that there seems to be more depth in the play version, since a lot of the lines seemed to be played more for laughs. But oh gosh, when it's serious, that's when it really gets good."

I 100% agree with this, especially the violence toward Hero. It was so starkly different than the comedy but didn't pull any punches either - full fledged and potent.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around Beatrice and her reaction to the admitting-love scene. It was played for laughs (and certainly got them) yet she was still tearful and unnerved from the preceding violence, and completely overwhelmed that suddenly Benedick was professing his love and even more so that she had professed HER love and I'll admit it took me a while to know how I felt about such an overwrought emotionally distraught Bea being played for laughs. But then if you think of it like Donna playing off emotion behind snark/humour and you see just how MUCH of a loss of control it is for a woman to enter into a relationship with a man -- which was happening in this scene for the first time in Bea's whole life -- I have lost the thread of this sentence (!) But yes, I have come to love that scene completely. Even if my first instinct would have been to prefer a subtler approach.

[akhilanda.livejournal.com]

This. ALL this.

This is why I wouldn't go see the other MAAN in London at the time, and why despite adoring Joss Whedon, I have no interest in his version either. I REALLY felt like Josie Rourke's MAAN was and is always going to be for me THE perfect production. (Even though there are 1000 things I would have done differently, lol)

I agree with your friend that it felt authentic in the SPIRIT of it - the mad deafening laughter---which was SO MUCH louder and longer earlier in the summer. The digi theatre production first of all is muting about half the sound level of the audience out and was also filmed toward the end of the run when the theatre was packed with people who had mostly already seen it. The raw hilarity of the first month or so was deafening! I really think that was new for DT--I think he is an actor who likes to constantly challenge himself and with MAAN he had broken through to a new level of audience interaction that was like a natural high for him.

AND YES THIS: "But there's a difference between making the humor broad and crass and making it sparkling and sharp."

Catherine and David together SPARKLE! They really do. It's MY natural high, watching the two of them together. To see another version for me at this point would still feel like sacrilege.