Hi everyone!
Ralph Fiennes' critically-acclaimed modern-dress film version of Shakespeare's play "Coriolanus" finally opened in Chicago yesterday. From all the reviews I've been reading over the past few months, I was eagerly anticipating the opportunity to see it. This is one of Shakespeare's least familiar plays. I think I'd read it in college years ago but it's not one that I'd gone back to since. So I was going in to see this film without much in the way of expectations beyond great performances, great visuals, and the chance to hear Shakespeare spoken by a couple of the greatest British actors alive today--Ralph Fiennes (who also directed) as General Coriolanus and Vanessa Redgrave as his mother.
I'll start with the good. There's an immediacy to the battle scenes--of which there are several--that gives the film a quick-cut, grainy documentary quality and grounds the film very vividly in the present. Although the setting is Rome and its environs, the film looks as though it takes place somewhere in the Balkans, Belgrade perhaps during the reign of Milosevic in the '90s. The performances, of course, are outstanding, though not uniformly so. While Vanessa Redgrave and Ralph Fiennes act the hell out of their roles--both share a steely determination that's utterly convincing as mother and son--I was most impressed by Gerard Butler as Coriolanus's arch-enemy Tullis Aufidius. I've always sensed there's a fine actor somewhere in Mr. Butler but it's never had a chance to shine through. This film is his moment and he steals every scene he's in, including those that pair him off against Mr. Fiennes. As much as they loath each other and are driven to one another's destruction, I sense in Mr. Butler's Aufidius a respect--even a love--for Coriolanus despite the actions taken by both against each other. Because of Mr. Butler, I found the final scene quite moving. Seeing Coriolanus from Aufidius's eyes, made me feel for the first time a bit of sympathy for Coriolanus that I hadn't felt through any of the preceding two hours. This is one of the problems I had with the film.
I don't think it's Mr. Fiennes fault as actor or director that I found Coriolanus himself a bit of a cipher. There's a reason this isn't considered among Shakespeare's great plays. The problem is, Coriolanus is totally unknowable. We don't really understand him nor do we as an audience know all that much about him. He's a famous Roman general that saved Rome from destruction at the hands of Aufidius, leader of the Volsces. He prefers fighting to politicking, would rather be out on the battlefield commanding troops than actively courting the support of the people. He has a power-hungry and rather quietly frightening mother who seems to control him physically and psychologically. When he's nominated to become Rome's leader he's arrogant in his dismissal of the established political process and in so doing alienates himself from the populace.
That much is clear. What isn't clear though is why Coriolanus is like this. You don't have to like a character to care about him as long as you are given something that causes you to either admire or despise or have some sort emotional reaction to that character. In this case, I didn't feel anything except, after a while, annoyance because I didn't understand why Coriolanus makes the choices that he does. Consequently, I felt indifferent to him as a character. He annoyed me.
Much has been made of the way in which the film uses pseudo-cable TV newsflashes etc to convey background and context. The great BBC presenter Dan Snow is even shown at one point conducting an on-air interview with another character. (Mr. Snow speaks Shakespeare quite eloquently, in fact.) I got what Mr. Fiennes was trying to do here, but it struck me as somehow artificial and forced. It was effective at first but then the technique was used so often I found it all a bit gimmicky. I also didn't feel that Shakespeare's language, particularly in the crowd scenes and even more so in the television studio when the audience finally turns against Coriolanus, always worked within this particular contemporary milieu. I felt the themes and parallels Mr. Fiennes was trying to make as a director were a bit forced and heavy-handed. There's not a lot of subtlety to be had here which is a shame because Shakespeare as a writer is quite nuanced. Nothing needs to be hammered home.
I also found that Jessica Chastain was woefully miscast. As I've said, the performances across the entire cast are quite strong but whenever Ms. Chastain--playing Coriolanus's long-suffering wife--I felt like I was suddenly watching an amateur production. It was jarring and I wanted her to go away. Her character isn't particularly developed which may have been part of the problem, but I don't understand why a stronger actress couldn't have been cast in the role.
So all in all, I didn't like "Coriolanus" as much as I was hoping to. If you're looking for some great Shakespearean acting, like I've said, the entire cast (minus Ms. Chastain) does a good job. It's a nice opportunity to watch one of Shakespeare's more rarely performed plays, though here I think that Juliet Taymor's bloody and wonderful 2000 film of "Titus Andronicus" starring Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange remains a stronger cinematic adaptation.
In a nutshell, "Coriolanus" is worth seeing but don't expect an emotionally fulfilling experience.
Ciao.
No comments:
Post a Comment