shakespeare Tagged Articles at Cinematical

At a press junket earlier this summer for 2012, Roland Emmerich told reporters he's not doing any more blow-'em-up flicks. "I would not know how to top this... It's just one of these things, you know. I had a hard time deciding to do another disaster movie, but... you cannot make a disaster movie if there's not something --- an idea in this disaster which elevates it to something more than a disaster. And so it was this idea, you know, that there will be a global flood and it's a retelling of Noah's Arc."

Later he added, "It's not my last film, it's my last disaster film. And that's because I wouldn't know what else to do. It's just, you know what, I really didn't want to do this movie at first... But when I decided that the idea was too good to not do it for the reason I had done before, I said, okay, if I do it, I will do it in such a spectacular manner that nobody can top it for a long time. I have that pride in my work."

I never thought the day would arrive that I could blog this news! Coriolanus is hitting the screen in its first big feature film. After countless reimaginings of star-crossed lovers, turmoil in Hamlet town, and double toil and trouble, we're finally getting something new in Shakespeare Land. (And it only took a year after making my wish known as King Lear got another dose of the feature treatment.)

Empire reports that Ralph Fiennes is going to make his directorial debut with his take on the war-filled play, John Logan is penning the adaptation, and he's lined up Vanessa Redgrave, William Hurt, and Jessica Chastain to star. Coriolanus is one of Shakespeare's tragedies that follows Gaius Martius, a determined and formidable Roman general who is not a fan of the lower classes. He wins a great battle for Rome, becomes a hero, and is invited to become a consul in the Senate -- but he must get the support of the plebeians, which leads to his ultimate downfall.

Fiennes will also take on the title role, although there is no word on who the others will play. (It is, however, probably a very safe bet to say that Redgrave will be Gaius' mother, Volumnia. Otherwise, she'd be criminally underused.) Fiennes is probably one of the best bets out there, and one of the only ones who could follow in the shoes set forth on the screen -- Morgan Freeman (in one of the few adaptations in 1979) -- plus stage stints by Laurence Olivier, Colm Feore, Richard Burton, Ian McKellen, and my personal favorite -- Christopher Walken. Oh yeah, and Fiennes has tackled the role before.

I'm so very in. You?

Can you ever successfully modernize Shakespeare? I've been thinking back to all of the 're-imagined' Shakespeare films I have seen over the years, and as someone who has spent more time than she would have liked studying the Bard, I have to tell ya, most of them are pretty darn bad. I don't claim to be an expert, but for some reason watching Ethan Hawke deliver To Be or Not to Be in a Blockbuster really didn't add much to the experience. Well, that's what I thought anyway when I read the news over at Sci Fi Wire that Terrence Howard has announced the start date for his very own 'Modernized Macbeth' which will be replacing the misty moors of Scotland with the Caribbean sun.

For those of you who skipped high school English, Macbeth was the story of a Scottish warrior who is so affected by a 'witchy prophecy' that he is driven to usurp the Scottish throne through treachery and murder. It is by far one of Wilie's bloodiest plays, but there just must be something about it, because there have been Macbeth updates set in everything from rave culture to the fast food business.

So how to do you successfully transplant Shakespeare to modern day? Well, I happen to think that the films that work the best are the ones that are willing to throw the language right out the window -- sacrilege I know, but hear me out. I think for a lot of audiences the mismatch of modern settings with iambic pentameter just doesn't work as well as it should, and ends up distracting audiences from becoming truly involved in the story and instead spend their time trying to figure out what the hell people are saying. Granted there are some exceptions; Baz Luhrmann did a fair job with his Romeo and Juliet update (although he did a little trimming with the dialog), but I still think the best Shakespeare films are the ones who only look to the plays for inspiration, and not as the script.

So what do you think? Does modern-day Shakespeare ever work? Sound off on some your favorite Shakespeare adaptations below...

They may have been star-crossed lovers, and they might have tied the knot and spent a night together consummating their marriage (even if their warring families didn't know), but I don't think ol' Juliet had time to plop out Romeo's baby before dying. As we've all seen countless times: Romeo went off to banishment, Juliet faked her death, Romeo came back and assumed she was dead and killed himself, then she woke up and killed herself. There was no time for pregnancy and baby delivery.

Nevertheless, The Hollywood Reporter posts that Universal has grabbed the rights to a novel called Juliet, from Danish author Anne Fortier. To be published sometime next year, the novel "toggles from medieval Siena to the present day in a story about a woman who discovers she may be descended from the people who inspired one of the most popular and tragic love stories of all time."

Unless they're talking about ol' Shakespeare himself, this is just not possible. Unless ... did both the Capulets and Montagues have new babies that fell in love in the very same way -- and survived? I imagine that the catch-word "inspired" will allow them to twist the Romeo and Juliet story a bit. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I am intrigued.

First Hamlet 2, now a descendant of Romeo and Juliet. What's next? A horror movie called Titus Andronicus 2: Lucius Goes Mad?

News like this is what I wait for when writing about movie news -- announcements that merge so many good things that you can't help but get the tingle of excitement. The Hollywood Reporter posts that Julie Taymor is taking on William Shakespeare yet again, and with one starry-eyed and stellar cast. Strike that ... THE stellar cast.

This time around, we get The Tempest, but with a spin -- there's a bit of gender bending. Prospero, the deposed Duke of Milan who became a sorcerer, is getting a sex change so that Helen Mirren can play the part. The lovely Mirren will be joined by Jeremy Irons, who will play Prospera's brother Alonso, Djimon Hounsou, who will tackle Caliban, Russell Brand as the jester Trinculo, Alfred Molina, who will be the drunken Stephano, Ben Wishaw as the spirit Ariel, and Felicity Jones as Prospera's daughter, Miranda. Oh, but that's not all -- Geoffrey Rush is in negotiations to play Prospera's ol' ally and adviser, Gonzalo. Since things are being changed up a bit, here's how THR describes it: "Shakespeare's play mixes romance with fraternal politics and the supernatural. As revised for the screen, it will center around Prospera, her daughter Miranda (Jones) and a shipwrecked crew full of Prospera's enemies."

After seeing Taymor's Titus, I never dreamed another Shakespeare adaptation could compare, until now. I say this having seen every single one of Will's plays performed at least once, and thinking that Patrick Stewart's Prospero was practically untouchable. But now, with this cast? I'm in love.

But still, Taymor is changing things up, so sound off below: Taymor, gender-bending, and The Tempest -- yay or nay?

News broke in May that Anthony Hopkins was heading an all-star adaptation of William Shakespeare's King Lear. But as I mentioned then, this is one of two Lear projects on the way -- the other being a theater version starring Ian McKellen. This was going to be shown in the UK, but according to CNN, it's also hitting stateside on PBS next season.

Here's the kicker -- McKellen stripped down to his birthday suit for the role. Considering the kerfuffle that followed one slipped Janet Jackson nipple, one would think that there'd be a nice blur applied to Sir Ian's bits. However, PBS president Paula Kerger says: "Let's talk about this in January. It's what I think about it and what the FCC will allow." And as for what she thinks: "It's powerful. His entire performance is quite powerful."

Powerful or not, I'm sure there would be quite an uproar if his nudity was shown on a public station, even if it fits with the King's decline into madness at the hands of his evil daughters. So, I doubt that we'll get an unedited version of the play, but maybe there will be an unrated DVD that can go head to head with Hopkins. And, would Anthony go that far for the role?

I'm still trying to decide who I like more as Lear. It's probably McKellen, but Hopkins did a great job in Titus, so anything is possible. Who do you prefer?

When it comes to Shakespeare's tragedies, King Lear never made the short list of personal favorites. Maybe it was Cordelia, one of the biggest doormats in dramatic history, or maybe a play about madness and aging isn't best served to high school students. But, as long as there are actors who want to sink their teeth into lines like, "As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods. They kill us for their sport", then the mad king will live on. The Guardian has now confirmed that Naomi Watts will be joining Keira Knightley and Gwyneth Paltrow as the 'daughters Lear' in the big-budgeted version of Shakespeare's classic play, also starring Anthony Hopkins.

The story of Lear centers on a mighty king dividing his estate among his three daughters: Cordelia (Knightley), Regan (Paltrow) and Goneril (Watts). When Cordeila is unable to blow enough smoke up the royal butt, she is disowned, and the lion's share of the throne goes to her sisters. But we all know about 'fatal flaws' in Shakespeare, and it turns out that Regan and Goneril are hardly the loving daughters they claimed to be.

The project was announced back in May at Cannes, with a projected budget of $35 million. Most of that is expected to go towards the epic battle sequences that occur when the kingdom descends into the family feud to end all feuds -- not to mention $35 million can buy an awful lot of tights.

King Lear is expected to start production early next year and should arrive in theaters in 2010.

William Shakespeare. He's the guy to go to for stories, either as old-English recreations or complete reimaginings. We've had a million tales of Romeo and Juliet and other classics like Macbeth, Hamlet, and A Midsummer Night's Dream. We've gotten a stunning look into pulpy Will with Julie Taymor's Titus. We're still not getting a big-screen Coriolanus (argh!), but we are getting more King Lear.

The Telegraph reports that a new $35 million feature adaptation of the famous play has been announced at Cannes. Anthony Hopkins (who happened to play Titus in Taymor's film) will play King Lear, Keira Knightley is set to play his youngest daughter, Cordelia, and Gwyneth Paltrow has been tipped to become Regan, the middle sister. (Goneril, the oldest, hasn't been cast yet.) Talk about a sweet Shakespeare cast! This will pit Hopkins against Ian McKellen's work in a Channel 4 adaptation of the play (one that has Sir Ian in the buff), but I imagine he'll hold his own quite nicely.

If you need a Lear refresher -- this is the tale about King Lear's decision to divide his kingdom amongst his three daughters -- the size of each split determined by how wonderfully they praise their father. Cordelia refuses to continue the dishonest flattery, and gets disowned. Not surprisingly, her crappy sisters become cold to their supposedly cherished father, and Lear begins to see the error of his ways. The adaptation is said to feature "epic battle sequences" of the wars that follow.

I'm digging the cast so far, but who should play Goneril? Julianne Moore?

Here stands a rebuke to the idea that in the digitized world everything is available. Well, if you strain a bit you can get this notoriously out of print movie. The Brazilian version of the semi-legal Chimes at Midnight aka Falstaff aka Campanadas a Medianoche can be bought for a cool $40, and all you do is turn off the Portuguese subtitles. However, thanks to the poor sound of this masterpiece, English subtitles might be necessary. The entire film was post-synced: "not a word in direct sound," said the co-star Keith Baxter, who played Prince Hal. Led by the obtuse Bosley Crowther of the New York Times, critics of 1967 put their finger on this very obvious button. Few of them considered how few viewers come out of a movie saying, "Boy, the picture, the script and the acting sucked, but wasn't the sound great?"

Last Sunday, the local film archive showed Chimes at Midnight; me and 100 other people turned our back on a sunny afternoon, and treated ourselves to a rare 16mm screening of one of the most imaginative, stirring and beautifully composed Shakespeare films ever made. I mentioned it to Cinematical's Jeffrey Anderson and he pronounced Chimes at Midnight a better film than Citizen Kane. I don't have that kind of enthusiasm (Citizen Kane changes lives, and Chimes is a rougher sell). And still, everyone will tell you about Citizen Kane, whereas Chimes is not just a gem but a half-buried one.

I was already taken with the idea that Burt Reynolds was going to star in an upcoming theater film called A Bunch of Amateurs, which I told you about earlier this month. The film focuses on aging action star from Hollywood (Burt) who joins a Shakespearian theater company thinking that its the Royal Shakespeare Company. Instead, he's surprised to discover that it's a group of amateurs in Stratford St. John. Due to marketing and charity, he has to stick with it and be King Lear on the amateur stage.

Now the film has just gotten 100% irresistible. Variety reports that Charles Durning (who got a hugely-deserved lifetime achievement award from SAG recently) has joined the cast as "a sleazy Hollywood agent" who tricks Burt's character into the theatrical company. I wish he was going to be one of the players, so we'd get more screen time and Charles doing Shakespeare, but I'll take what I can get.

The character actor is a total scene stealer, as Jette Kernion blogged about back in 2006. He has been in a slew of great films, but to me, he'll always be the angelic Charlie from Two of a Kind. Yes, I realize I have weird tastes sometimes. So... What's your favorite Durning role?