Monday, July 07, 2008

Love's Labour's Lost

I love Shakespeare. I love musicals. So obviously by putting those two together would send me to heaven. Well before we get to that, let’s examine the plot of Love’s Labour's Lost. Kenneth Branagh is at it again with an interpretation of the immortal bard. Again, our friend Mr. Branagh does not make Shakespeare into anything crazy. The language is the same; only this time he is mixing it with song and dance routines. Nothing crazy like contemporary dances, but those you would find in the classic musicals of the 40s or 50s. Which works very well since the movie is set in 1939.
Branagh brings us into the story with a newsreel reminding the viewer that WWII is very near entering France. While I applaud Branagh’s attempt to merge the story with a different time, the newsreels that occur throughout the film do get somewhat tedious. We are told that the King of Navarre and his 3 cronies have decided to shut themselves away for three years of intensive study. The biggest thing about this is that no women can be seen by ANY of the scholars or the King’s subjects, along with other crazy rules. Of course that oath is swiftly tested when the Princess of France visits with her 3 ladies in waiting. The oath takes a beating from him and his compatriots as well as by his subjects.
This movie was enjoyable. I feel that saying it was good would be exaggerating slightly. This movie had a lot of famous people in it but I don’t think that improved it any. As always, Nathan Lane delivers a top-notch performance as the court clown, and gets to sing and dance as well. For the “Men of Navarre” Kenneth Branagh is the most famous person with Matthew Lillard coming in a distant second. While I found Branagh convincing as the sarcastic and self-loving Berowne (yeah, like he really had to act), Lillard was horribly miscast. Although he can sing well enough, I guess, he does not come off as even remotely masculine. Even when wooing his Lady of France he seems to be trying to convince the audience and himself that he is not gay. The “Ladies of France” have as their recognizable star Alicia Silverstone. She does a competent job in conveying the princess, and despite her convincingly acting ditzy in Clueless, did not trip over the big Shakespearean words. Timothy Spall turns in a showing as the weird count. I think he was supposed to be whimsical, but is just plain weird and weird looking as well. Richard Clifford as Boyet is on the side of good this time as the servant to the Ladies of France. Last time I saw Mr. Clifford he was serving the evil and sulky Prince John in Much Ado About Nothing.
As I said before, I love both Shakespeare and musicals but I don’t know if they gelled together the way they were envisioned. Something about Kenneth Branagh in a wife beater trying to be all sexy while seducing Alicia Silverstone just does not do it for me. Nevertheless, the movie is an enjoyable musical romp with a few missteps thrown in. Obviously, I did not hate it enough to avoid buying it. I would have to go with a 9. I think there is one line in the movie that defines what happened. “Let’s face the music and dance.” This seems to be a good idea of director Branagh assessment of the situation. “Well, it is not going to be stellar, so let’s just have fun!”

6 comments:

Wicked Little Critta said...

Nice review, SP. Question: what were the primary factors that made this movie enjoyable for you?

Stormy Pinkness said...

Thanks for the pity comment WLC ;). I like the movie because I enjoy the story and I enjoyed some of the songs and dances, so pretty much what I said in the beginning. I like musicals and Shakespeare.

Dr. Worm said...

So, follow up question, SP: Would I like this movie? Would PM? Would YRF? Would random person X?

Stormy Pinkness said...

I think you may like it WLC. But I feel the others may have problems with the characters spontaneously breaking out into song and dance numbers. The criteris for liking this movie is that you are able to suspend reality enough that you can tolerate the sudden song and dance numbers and not want to scratch your eyes out.

Dr. Worm said...

Is it really as simple as "if you like musicals, you'll like this"? Because I think, I, for one, am more complicated than that.

I liked Mary Poppins, I liked Across the Universe, I liked Wicked, I liked Guys and Dolls, to name a few.

Then again, I didn't really care for Annie, Miss Saigon, Hair, or An American in Paris.

So, clearly, I'm capable of dealing with films that involve people breaking into song, but that doesn't automatically make me like them. What other criteria can you use to determine whether or not I'd like this?

Stormy Pinkness said...

Ok. Since my fellow critics find my previous attempts inadequate I will try to do better. I found this movie enjoyable due to the music which I enjoy and the fact that it is a work by Shakespeare which I also enjoy. I think it's a difficult movie to determine enjoyability for the general public. I think the criterion for enjoyment would be:
1) Open to a typical musical
2) Interest in Shakespeare
3) Enjoyment of slapstick (which the movie contains a bit of)
4) Able to enjoy whimsy