Coriolanus (2011) (Saturday, January 21, 2012) (142)

Coriolanus is Ralph Fiennes' modern interpretation of the Shakespeare Roman play. Adapted by playwright-cum-screenwriter John Logan, the film is set in our contemporary world, where "Rome" is a contemporary country at war with an invading force from Volsci. On its surface, Roman looks much like any Western superpower of today: they drive Mercedes-Benzes, they watch 24-hour news channels, they get into bitter political and diplomatic debates. The Roman general, Caius Martius (Fiennes) fights a protracted battle against the Volscian leader, Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler), and when he comes back after the victory he becomes a national superstar.

Renamed Coliolanus, after the town of Corioles where the battle took place, he quickly becomes a bright political star. The problem is that he's very conservative and doesn't believe people who don't serve in the military should be entitled to food and power. Rome is in the midst of major protests from the poor (very similar to what one might see on the television today with any Occupy rally in the world) and Coriolanus takes a rigid and extreme position.

Just as he is about to win more political power, he is ousted from the Senate and banished from Rome. With nowhere else to go, and with his mother (Vanessa Redgrave) and wife (Jessica Chastain - her 6th supporting role of 2011) working to restore his power behind the scenes, he joins his once-enemy Aufidius to try and retake control of Rome.

This is Fiennes' directorial debut and he does a really good job with it. The leap of a Roman play taking place in our contemporary world totally works and looks great. Cleverly Fiennes sets up transitions as small news segments on cable news, so the story flows easily without confusion and naturally inside the world we see. Rome is filled with a diverse group of people from around the world, with John Kani, a South African actor, playing Cominus, the head of the Senate. All of this gives the sense that Rome is a powerful and far-flung empire filled with people from all around the world who speak in many different accents (much as it must have been, of course).

I am particularly interested in how straightforward the story is (with not many story elements cut from the play) compared with other tragedies and Roman works. The characters' motivations are all very clear and interesting, and Coriolanus' own vengeance, even in the face of his mother, wife and son, is fascinating. This is very good movie and one that works very well as an adaptation. Clearly Fiennes knows what he's doing behind a camera and I look forward to seeing more from him.

Stars: 3 of 4

Anonymous (Tuesday, November 1, 2011) (94)

This is a rather fun movie about the back-story behind the true identity of William Shakespeare, who was not the humble man from Stratford-upon-Avon, as we have all learned over the years, but a nobleman with dreams of political influences and an undying love for poetry and playwriting. All this from Roland Emmerich, the man who put a necklace made of ears around Dolph Lundgren's neck in Universal Soldier. The film is told elegantly, as a play within a play (get it?) and shows many classic moments from Shakespeare's works play out in the real life of the suggested author, Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. The film makes a compelling case for de Vere being the true author, but there are clearly lots of ways the viewer's feelings are swayed by information given or withheld. The William Shakespeare in the film is a medium-talent actor, illiterate and completely incapable of creating anything of substance. It all fits together a bit too neatly and raises as many questions as it answers. The story is a bit muddied by parallel narratives on the political level and the artistic/authorship level, creating dozens of characters with the same facial hair and similar noble names. It all gets a bit confusing, though, is generally enjoyable. There are lovely cameos by great Shakespearean stage actors Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance and a very clever framing sequence. I find myself asking why it really matters who the real Shakespeare was - it's rather missing the point. Besides, if what the film is arguing is true, I really don't care because mythologizing artists, to say nothing of writers using pen names, goes back as long as there have been artists and this is nothing special.

Stars: 2.5 of 4